HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-25 Public Comment - A. Lincke - Re_ Bon Ton Zoning & the UDCFrom:Anja Lincke
To:Jim Webster
Cc:Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode; Erin George; Bozeman Public
Comment; 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; Sue MacGrath; Angie Kociolek
Subject:[EXTERNAL][SENDER UNVERIFIED]Re: Bon Ton Zoning & the UDC
Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 3:37:41 PM
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.
Hi All,
Jim, thank you for the tour and discussion yesterday!
I wanted to comment on a few things, and for the sake of open discussion, I figured I would loop everyone on thisthread in.
My understanding of your “RA and a half" idea is that the current RA is not flexible enough to do renovations thatwould enable existing homeowners to create more housing options in your neighborhood. I think that is absolutelytrue, and Forward Montana is supportive of making RA a zone that allows for more flexibility. To clarify, we wouldhave a lot more hesitations about making a separate “half step up” district. It seems like all of our neighborhoodsand homeowners could benefit from the flexibility in zoning that has let the Bon Ton evolve over generations.
Additionally, I want to share a tension I am feeling with the rest of your analysis that we touched a little bityesterday. The biggest reason that rents are relatively affordable in the Bon Ton district is that many homes have notbeen sold in the last 10-50 years. With your house, for example, I heard you say that market forces suggest that youcould sell your house for close to 2 million dollars more than you bought it for. As soon as a house is sold, themortgage payments would skyrocket, and those would be reflected onto the cost of rent. If a new homeowner in BonTon wanted to do the same gentle infill remodels that you are talking about, I suspect the rent for those new unitswould far exceed the rents in new high density development. The most significant thing you and your neighborscould do to ensure long term affordability is to capture the increase in land prices in public trust or deed restrictedsales for the long term. This would be best paired with a development code that allows our neighborhoods toincrementally grow up with the generations, as the Bon Ton has.
Looking forward to hearing discussion tonight!
Anja
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 8:44 AM Jim Webster <jwebster587@gmail.com> wrote:To All,
We’ve had some productive conversations in the last few weeks as four commissioners
and three members of Forward Montana (FM) have toured the Bon Ton (BT) on threedifferent occasions. I have also toured Centennial with Angie Kociolek one-on-one, and that
provided me with great context as well. I also understand that some on the commission hada chance to tour with Angie too, this past Friday. This has hopefully provided solid context
for all, as the city proceeds with deliberations re zoning, within the confines of the overallUDC.
After meeting yesterday with FM, it struck me later in the day, that one aspect of thezoning conundrum is pretty straightforward and this conversation had actually started with
the two groups of two commissioners that toured the BT. I’ll refer to this option as “RAand-a-half” as discussed with Commissioner Fischer while on the walk and included
Commissioner Bode in the discussion on our porch that followed. There appears to be amissing option in the zoning discussion that would take the allowable number of units in a
structure up to (say possibly) four and an ADU in back could take it to five units. Thesuggestion here would call for the existing structure to not be significantly 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 to create 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 not be as expensiveto create as new construction. Why? because there is a structure already in existence that is
in solid shape that does not have to be built from the ground up. Contrast this with someonebuying our house (market forces suggest it won’t be cheap) and then scraping the structure
(more cost there, plus more material going to the landfill that creates new [perhapsunintended], 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 new construction costs on a per-unit basis, wouldmost likely be quite a bit higher than the per unit cost of the remodel of our house. Higher
costs mean higher rents, that concept seems pretty straightforward. Is this what peoplewant? We don’t think so, so we should be thoughtful in weighing these choices. NOAH,
(Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing is already present and we ignore this fact at ourown peril! Adaptive reuse of a single-family home into a multi-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 reuse of 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 theroad,” as we cannot simply “will away,” the market forces at work! Thank you all for your
consideration and we all look forward to an outcome that yields “the greatest good for thegreatest possible number!”
As always, I represent myself here and not the Historic Preservation Advisory Board, of
which I (Jim), am a member.
All Best,Jim & Valerie Webster
--
Anja Lincke
She/They | Housing Campaign Manager
c: (907)205-0196e: anja@forwardmontana.orgw: forwardmontana.org
created with MySignature.io