HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-25 Public Comment - A. Lincke - On GSFC and unit capsFrom:Anja Lincke
To:Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode; Joey Morrison
Cc:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL][SENDER UNVERIFIED]On GSFC and unit caps
Date:Saturday, August 23, 2025 11:07:03 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.
Hello Commissioners,
I hope you all have an efficient commission meeting on Tuesday! I will not be there
(going backpacking!), so I wanted to share some of my thoughts in advance. Some of
this is new, and a lot of this you have heard from me before. My hope is that by
putting it in one place it makes it easier to consider.
Nested in our communities' discussion about tools of mass and scale has been a
larger conversation about a form-based code– or regulating the size of buildings, or a
use-based code– regulating the type of housing that is built.
At one of the UDC chats months ago, I said that it didn’t make sense how our code
allows for a 5000 sq ft single-family home, but would not allow a 5000 sq ft fourplex.
Someone who holds a lot of different perspectives from me, looked at me and said:
You know what, I agree with that.
When I hear frustrations about new housing, it is often about building size.
You all gave direction to look into GSFC, but before getting the results back for this
tool, at the end of a very long meeting, you also gave direction to pursue quite
restrictive unit caps, marking a decisive move back to a more use based code.
The staff report analysis on GSFC, and how it will be ineffective at reaching the goals
or meaningfully changing the dynamics around what is built, largely hinged on
restrictive unit caps.
Like I have said before, I don’t think that unit caps are effective tools to prevent
redevelopment, and only create conditions for redevelopment to be in the form of
huge and multimillion dollar single family homes. If preventing redevelopment is the
goal with unit caps, I believe we should consider more precise tools.
Before the commission decides whether or not to adopt a graduated square foot cap
or to keep RA at 2 units and an ADU, I think you all should have a clear
conversation about whether you all are prioritizing restricting the size of
buildings or the number of people who live there.
This community has been in a vicious boom bust cycle that results in the cost of
housing going through the roof and creates pent up demand for large scale corporate
developers to build as fast as they can. I understand why the word density evokes a
reaction coded in fear and grief.
My hope is that we can step out of this vicious boom-bust cycle and enable our
community to deliver our housing needs in a much more community oriented way, at
a scale that is accessible to local builders and homeowners, but that will not happen if
we do not allow that through our code.
We talk about allowing for gentle incremental density as a tool to build better more
community grounded housing into our future. Not to mention, infill and compact
development was a key component of the expert comment last week in our
discussion around preserving natural resources. 2 units + an ADU does not
accomplish this, and we are cutting off so much potential for efficient and effective
middle housing in RB without the 12 unit 3 story single stair building. So many of the
neighborhoods that currently are RA have homes that would not fit the 2 unit + ADU
limit.
Please prioritize our communities housing needs, and how that nests into the
sustainability of our future by moving towards a code that allows for incremental infill.
Thank you for your consideration, and the balancing act you all are tasked with.
Anja
--
Anja Lincke
She/They | Housing Campaign Manager
c: (907)205-0196e: anja@forwardmontana.orgw: forwardmontana.org
created with MySignature.io