HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-25 Public Comment - J. and V. Webster - Bon Ton Zoning & the UDCFrom:Jim Webster
To:Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode; Erin George; Bozeman PublicComment
Cc:Alison Sweeney; lindasemones@hotmail.com; elizabeth.darrow@gmail.com; Jonathan Pytka; Jenni Lowe; Mary
Lou Osman; Jeanne Carter; Betsy Gaines Quammen; David Quammen; Bruce Comer; Sarah Helfrich; Stephen
Carlson; Laura Fedro; Valerie Hemingway; Jenni Lowe; Sue MacGrath; Angie Kociolek; Anja Lincke
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Bon Ton Zoning & the UDC
Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 8:44:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To All,
We’ve had some productive conversations in the last few weeks as four commissioners and three members ofForward Montana (FM) have toured the Bon Ton (BT) on three different occasions. I have also toured Centennialwith Angie Kociolek one-on-one, and that provided me with great context as well. I also understand that some onthe commission had a chance to tour with Angie too, this past Friday. This has hopefully provided solid context forall, as the city proceeds with deliberations re zoning, within the confines of the overall UDC. After meeting yesterday with FM, it struck me later in the day, that one aspect of the zoning conundrum is prettystraightforward and this conversation had actually started with the two groups of two commissioners that toured theBT. I’ll refer to this option as “RA and-a-half” as discussed with Commissioner Fischer while on the walk andincluded Commissioner Bode in the discussion on our porch that followed. There appears to be a missing option inthe zoning discussion that would take the allowable number of units in a structure up to (say possibly) four and anADU in back could take it to five units. The suggestion here would call for the existing structure to not besignificantly changed, so as not to upset the delicate balance of Mass, Structure and Transition, which you all areaddressing tonight. What follows next, is an example of why “RA and-a-half” is worth consideration: Let’s take our house at 311 South Third Ave. All five on the commission have seen it. If my wife and I were tocreate more housing options out of this property that is a single-family home (built in 1903) with an ADU in back(built 100 years later in 2003). which we would consider, would probably yield some new rental units that would notbe as expensive to create as new construction. Why? because there is a structure already in existence that is in solidshape that does not have to be built from the ground up. Contrast this with someone buying our house (marketforces suggest it won’t be cheap) and then scraping the structure (more cost there, plus more material going to thelandfill that creates new [perhaps unintended], conservation and sustainability issues). After all this, now one is looking at new construction costs (whether it be for 4-5 units, the “RA and-a-half”option. 8 units in an RB zone option or 24 units in a RC zone option. Present market forces suggest that these newconstruction costs on a per-unit basis, would most likely be quite a bit higher than the per unit cost of the remodel ofour house. Higher costs mean higher rents, that concept seems pretty straightforward. Is this what people want? We don’t think so, so we should be thoughtful in weighing these choices. NOAH, (Naturally Occurring AffordableHousing is already present and we ignore this fact at our own peril! Adaptive reuse of a single-family home into amulti-unit rental provides:1. “Gentle infill”2. Which then contributes to the retention of the character and historic designation of the neighborhood.3. Which then contributes to better stewardship/sustainability of the “as built” environment through adaptive reuseof various neighborhood structures.4. Potentially lower rents result as another positive outcome. We would invite staff and commission to discuss this aspect as the “rubber meets the road,” as we cannot simply“will away,” the market forces at work! Thank you all for your consideration and we all look forward to an outcomethat yields “the greatest good for the greatest possible number!”
As always, I represent myself here and not the Historic Preservation Advisory Board, of which I (Jim), am amember.
All Best,Jim & Valerie Webster