HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-25 Public Comment - J. Goetz and J. Davenport - Attn_ Community Development Bd.From:Myriam Jackson
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Jim Goetz; Jill Davenport (jillybean1954@gmail.com)
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Attn: Community Development Bd.
Date:Friday, October 24, 2025 2:11:34 PM
Attachments:2025-10-24 Goetz - City.pdf
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.
Good afternoon,
Please forward the attached letter from Jim Goetz and Jill Davenport, with attachments, to theCommunity Development Board. Thank you. Best,
Myriam Myriam JacksonLegal Assistant
Goetz, Geddes & Gardner, P.C.35 North Grand | P.O. Box 6580Bozeman, MT 59771-6580T: (406) 587.0618 | F: (406) 587.5144 NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or Attorney-Client privilegedcommunications. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If
you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your systemwithout copying it and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
October 24, 2025
Yia Email Only
City ofBozeman
Ann: Community Development Board
comments@bozeman.net
Dear Members of the Board:
My wife, Jill Davenport, and I reside on South 3rd Avenue, in an area that is presently
classified for single-family use, as R-1. In 2023, we learned of some fairly radical plans to loosen
the zoning requirements for our neighborhood, and we became alarmed and have since submitted
many letters, attended many City Commission meetings, and have generally followed the efforts
to modify Bozeman ’s UDC.
At its meeting of October 20, this body indicated that it would like additional letters from
the public explaining our positions. This letter is sent in response to that request.
First, we acknowledge that there is an affordable housing problem in Bozeman. That said,
it must be recognized that this problem is cyclical. It comes and goes. Sometimes it is worse than
other times. In any event, at the present time, Bozeman appears to have sufficient numbers of
housing units. The real problem is that much of it is not affordable to large sectors of our
population. For that reason, the approach of many housing advocates, based on the theory that if
they build more, prices will come down, does not work. Clearly, over the past ten years, simply
constructing more housing in Bozeman has not resulted in meaningful price and/or rental
reductions.
Having said that, we have specific comments in several areas, including Greek houses and
upzonlrlg.
Increasing Density
In the fall of 2023, the City announced a major proposal to overhaul its Unified
Development Code (UDC). Alarming to us, and numerous members of the public, was the
proposal developed by an out-of-state zoning consultant to drastically increase the density of
housing in Bozeman. Particularly alarming was the proposal to replace single-family zoning with
up to eight units per lot. You are all aware of the large public outpouring and the fact that the City
Commission backed down from its initial proposal to finish the UDC by the end of 2023.
My wife and I, and many of our neighbors, live in Bozeman because we love it. The
neighborhoods north and south of Main Street are architecturally diverse, tree-lined, safe, and
attractive. That, unfortunately, is why many others would like to enjoy those benefits. Bozeman
is a great place to live. However, it won’t be, if we’re not careful.
Community Development Board
October 24, 2025
Page 2
Our neighborhood and others have worked to ensure that these neighborhood values are
not lost. We particularly appreciate the rich history of these neighborhoods. It appears that the
City Commission has reached a reasonable compromise on density. Single-family neighborhoods
will no longer exist. (That is now required by state law.) But that doesn’t mean that we have to
sacrifice all values. The present compromise says that duplexes and ADUs will be allowed in
what has previously been single-family neighborhoods. Please respect that compromise.
Apparently, there is a movement to densify further with a proposal for four units per lot per unit.
This will erode the quality ofBozeman ’s beautiful neighborhoods. It should be rejected.
Greek Houses
A few years ago, our University Neighborhood became upset when they realized a new
fraternity had been proposed at 411 West Garfield Street, in a house that had previously been a
single-family residence–and one completely unfit for large group activities. No notice was given
of this new fraternity, nor was any permit sought. Rather, it simply appeared– and neighbors
noticed it largely because of the raucous noises.
This was upsetting to the neighbors because we all had been under the impression that,
for many years, new Greek houses were not permitted in R-1 and R-2 zones. After investigation,
we learned that there had, somehow, been a change that had slipped through in 2018 deleting the
prohibition on Greek houses in these zoned areas.
Upset about this, the neighbors conducted a poll of the neighborhood. 140 persons
responded. None had been aware of the surreptitious change in the zoning code.
Thinking it was a mistake, the neighbors petitioned the City. But, the Commission
doubled down, rejecting the petition.
The neighbors were then compelled to sue, and Judge Bruener ruled in the neighbors ’
favor, finding that the stealthy zone change had not been adequately presented to the public, and
that, therefore, Montana’s Constitution was violated. Although that case was overturned on
appeal on technical grounds (failure to comply with the harsh 30-day statute of limitation), Judge
Bruener ’s logic and findings on lack of notice stand. His Opinion states:
The removal of the decades-old prohibition against new Greek
housing in Plaintiffs ’ neighborhoods was accomplished without the
kind of notice reasonably addressed to the constitutional mandate of
encouraging public participation.
The notice here was insufficient, inadequate, and unreasonable as a
matter of Montana’s constitutional Public Participation and due
process provlslons.
Community Development Board
October 24, 2025
Page 3
Opinion eg Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment , Cause No. DV'-2022-1006(,,',
September 6, 2023.
This background is important because members of the City Commission have decried the
attitude of some members of the public, which reflect distrust of City government. You should
understand that this encounter with the City left a sour taste in the mouths of many of us good,
hard-working, tax-paying citizens.
Although we do not wish to re-litigate this issue, we point out this episode to show that
there is a simple solution. Just reinstate the prohibition on new fraternities and sororities in R-1
and R-2 zoned areas (or R-A, their successor). I am attaching to this letter two pages from Table
38.08.0201, as Attachment A, from the pre-2018 Bozeman UDC. As you can see, this Table listed
fraternities and sororities and provided that they were allowed in R-5 zones, but not in R-S, R-1,
R-2, or R-4 zones. In other words, they were not allowed in residential areas. See also History of
Zoning Ordinances done by intern Brin Purdy, attached as Attachment B2. This shows how a
number of existing fraternities and sororities came to be located in the neighborhood prior to the
zoning change, and how new Greek houses were later prohibited. The point of all of this is to
demonstrate that there is an easy solution. Bozeman had on the books for over thirty years, such a
prohibition.
Should this easy, straight forward solution not be accepted, there should, at least, be
provisions to ensure that the debacle at 411 W. Garfield Street is not repeated. There must be
public notice provisions for any Greek houses proposing to locate in Bozeman, and there should
be adequate parking and adequate space to accommodate a fraternity or sorority. If you have not
seen the letter of one of our neighbors, Sam Mitchell, to the City Commission, dated August 25,
2025, 1 recommend you read it3. There, our Neighborhood Group has come up with a reasonable
definition of Greek houses, and sections for controlling their establishment.
We appreciate your considering our views.
Sincerely,
/James H. Goetz
Wt Th@npR
Jill Davenport
Johnson, er al. I'. City ofBozeman, Cause No. DV-22-1006C, Dkt. 40, Exhibit 4 “Table 38.08.020“ .
2 Johnson. Id.. Exhibit 3.
3 For your convenience, I am attaching it to the letter hereto, as Attachment C.
A.
B.
C.
Sec. 38.08.020. - Authorized uses.
Uses in the various residential districts are depicted in Table 38.08.020 in subsection C of this section. Principal uses are indicated
with a "P," conditional uses are indicated with a "C," accessory uses are indicated with an "A" and uses which are not permitted with
the district are indicated by a "-."
Additional uses for telecommunication uses are contained in article 29 of this chapter.
The uses listed are deliberately broad and some are given special definitions in article 42 of this chapter. The intent of this method is
to provide general guidance for uses while allowing the unique needs and circumstances of each proposal to be specifically addressed
through the review process. Some uses are the subject of special regulations contained in article 22 of this chapter.
Table 38.08.020
Table of Residential Uses Authorized Uses
R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O RMH
Accessory dwelling units C C P P P P P —
Agricultural uses on 2.5 acres or more P ———————
Agricultural uses on less than 2.5 acres C ———————
Apartments/apartment building, as de ned in
article 42 of this chapter
————P P P —
Bed and breakfast C C C C P P P —
8,9
2
2
Attachment A
Fraternity and sorority houses ———C P —P —
Golf courses C C C ————C
Greenhouses A A A A A A A —
Group day care home P P P P P P P P
Group living P P P P P P P P
Guesthouses A A A A A A A —
Home-based businesses A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C A/C
Lodging houses ———C P P P —
O ces ————C3 C P —
Other buildings and structures typically
accessory to authorized uses
A A A A A A A A
Private garages A A A A A A A A
Private or jointly owned recreational facilities A A A A A A A A
Private stormwater control facilities A A A A A A A A
5
3
Attachment A
Whether the Existing Greek Houses in the University Neighborhood are “Grandfathered”
By Brin Purdy, Intern
Goetz, Geddes, Gardner
Issue Addressed: Jim Goetz has asked me to examine the question of whether the existing Greek houses
in Bozeman’s University neighborhood were established prior to restrictive zoning laws, and, are
therefore, “grandfathered.” He points out that the term “grandfathered” is not technically correct. He
said the term planners use is “prior non-conforming use.” This is governed by Statute 76-2-105
Continuation of prior nonconforming uses:
Existing nonconforming uses may be continued although not in conformity with such zoning
regulations.
The following is my analysis of whether the existing Greek houses in the University neighborhood qualify
under this statute:
Analysis
The city of Bozeman was first zoned in 1935 through the adoption of Ordinance No. 661. Within
this ordinance, there was no definition or specific mention of fraternity or sorority houses. This
neighborhood was designated to an “A” residential zone which allowed single family dwellings, multiple
family dwellings, schools and colleges, boarding and rooming house limited in size to five rooms in
addition to family quarters, parks, recreation buildings, and clubs not conducted as a business or
operated for profit, private garages and vacant lots for gardening, tennis courts, playground and other
recreational facilities. Although numerous ordinances regarding zoning (664, 682, 711, 776, 818, and
855) were passed throughout 1935 to 1966, there continued to be no mention of fraternity or sorority
houses. The zoning of the neighborhood and its permitted uses remained the same.
The first land purchased by a Greek organization was in 1926 by the Kappa Sigma fraternity. The
last lands purchased by a fraternity or sorority were in 1965 by Chi Omega and Pi Beta Phi. As explained
below, there were no Bozeman city ordinances prohibiting Greek houses in this neighborhood during
this period.
In 1973, Ordinance No. 935 was adopted and established Section 17.10 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code, repealing Section 17.08. The 1973 ordinance contained the first mention of fraternity
and sorority houses. This ordinance defined fraternity (sorority) house as “a dwelling occupied and
maintained exclusively by members affiliated with an academic or professional college or university or
other recognized institution of higher learning.” The neighborhood was then rezoned as a R-3
Residential – Medium Density zone which specifically allowed fraternity and sorority houses as a
permitted use.
In 1977, the city adopted Ordinance No. 991. That ordinance continued to allow fraternities and
sororities in this neighborhood, but added language provided such use would be a “conditional use.”
Thus, any proposed new fraternity or sorority house required that the applicant acquire a conditional
Attachment B
use permit. From then to 1991, the zoning of this neighborhood did not change. Further, the
requirement of a conditional permit for new fraternity and sorority houses remained in effect.
Ordinance No. 1332, passed in 1991, rezoned the neighborhood as a R-3a – Residential – Two-
family, Medium Density District. Although fraternity and sorority houses continued to be allowed in R-3
zones, they were not allowed in R-3a zones either as permitted or conditional uses.
In 2003, Ordinance No. 1604 was passed. This ordinance adopted the Unified Development
Ordinance and a new zoning map. The neighborhood was rezoned as R-2, which it remains currently.
Fraternity and sorority houses were not permitted in R-2 zones. Although there were other ordinances
adopted from 2005-2009 involving zoning amendments, there were no relevant changes in regards to
this neighborhood.
Thus, from 1991 until 2018, new fraternity and sorority houses were flatly prohibited in this
neighborhood.
Finally, in 2018, Ordinance No. 1978 came into effect. This amendment removed any specific
mention of fraternity and sorority houses.
Summary
From 1935-1973, the zoning codes of Bozeman did not include any specific mention of fraternity and
sorority houses and the zoning of the neighborhood remained constant. During this time, all of the
present sorority and fraternity houses were built. Although fraternity and sorority houses were
specifically mentioned and allowed in the neighborhood (either as permitted or conditional uses) from
1973-1991, no current houses were built during that period. From 1991 to 2017, the neighborhood was
rezoned so that fraternity and sorority houses were not permitted. This changed in 2018 when any
mention of fraternity and sorority houses was removed.
Attachment B
RE: Bozeman Draft UDC and Fraternities & Sororities August 25, 2025
To: Mayor Terry Cunningham
Deputy Mayor Joey Morrison
City Commissioners Jennifer Madgic, Douglas Fischer, and Emma Bode
Dear Bozeman City Commission,
The Agenda for the 8/26/25 working meeting includes a draft definition for
Fraternities & Sororities from City Staff that would apply to new applications:
"38.800.070 F Definition. add –
Fraternity/sorority house: A group living facility occupied by and maintained exclusively for
fraternity or sorority members. their guests or visitors and affiliated with and acknowledged
as a fraternity/sorority house by an accredited institution of higher learning as defined in 38
U.S. Code Section 3452; and which operates to provide assembly space for the regular
activities of the fraternity or sorority members.”
Thank you to the City staff for arriving at a definition they find workable
for the draft UDC! -
However, the Agenda items add the following (my emphasis marked in
bold/underlined) :
"38.320.040. Use Specific Standards:
New addition to Group Living special standards in 38.320.C)40.B.6 Fraternity/Sorority
a. Must provide one or more assembly space(s) internal to a building adequate in size to
accommodate not less than three-quarters of the enrolled members of the fraternity or
sorority at the time the use is approved by the City.
b. Assembly area occupant loads must be consistent with currently adopted State of
Montana Building Codes. The Building Department can evaluate the occupancy use and
Occupant load on a case-by-case basis.
38.530.040.B.2 (parking) Same as typical group living for residential use but add an additional
5 parking space requirement for assembjy area to provide some parking for visitors.
Alternatively, could require visitor spaces based on a percentage of the number of parking spaces
for approved residents.
This is followed by a comment and two examples:
“Two facilities have submitted for a city permit in the past five years that required floor
plans. Staff was able to compare the facility layouts against the proposed standard. Both are
purpose-built buildings and would comply with the suggested definition and standard.
Attachment C
• Delta Gamma House (site plan 20170) - would meet proposed standard, approx. 910 sq.
ft. room and 860 and 400 sq. ft. rooms. 95 member per web
• Sigma Chi (building permit for remodeling) would meet proposed standard, approx. 920
sq. ft. room and two other rooms >750 sq. ft.. 91 members per web“
My concerns are the following:
1 ) “One or more assembly spaces”: The UDC does not define Meeting Halls as
having multiple assembly spaces. This would be akin to saying that Bozeman
City could have a 750 sq. ft. meeting room for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and
City staff; a separate 750 sq. ft. room for the Commissioners; and a separate
1000 sq. ft. room for the public. Whatever that creates would be interesting, but
it would not be a communal meeting space. Changing Meeting Hall to Meeting
Halls would be a significant change for democratic debate and voting.
From the examples given, the Delta Gamma house would require 910 + 860 +
400 = 2170 sq. ft. total; the Sigma Chi 920 + 750 + 750 = 2420 sq. ft. total.
There is no requirement they be contiguous, so they could easily be separate
rooms in the basement, ground floor, and second floor of a two-story residence.
Many houses in the Bozeman core have 2500+ sq. ft. available through
basement + living room + dining room + bedrooms and could therefore easily
become a Fraternity or Sorority by this definition.
2) “Three quarters of the enrolled members” and “at the time the use is
approved by the City.” Greek chapter meetings have required attendance with
very few excusable reasons so the calculation of 75% should be 90% or more. If
a chapter opens a residential house with 10 enrolled members with City
approval, then rapidly swells to the typical 90+ members - what then? The
draft UDC has no mechanism for dealing with a use which has far outgrown its
original size and would have never been approved at the ultimate size.
3) “...add an additional 5 parking space requirement“. As I type this on the
evening of 8/25/25, a Greek house not two blocks from my house has 100+
participants plus guests for their Rush. They have spilled into the streets, filling
a 4-block area of Garfield, 3rd/4th/5th Ave with parked cars. My wife just took a
video of an apparently inebriated member standing in the back of a pickup
blocking 4th Ave screaming “Shut the fuck up!” at the top of her lungs to her
adoring audience. [We have no interest in embarrassing her by publicly posting
but will show to the Commissioners if they doubt the accuracy of our
statement] . “5 parking spaces“ is an insult to common sense.
Attachment C
The City staff appear to have focused on a loosely defined interpretation of
“Meeting Hall“ which does not meet their own definition. They also appear to have
forgotten the issues of parties. recruiting events. game nights, and chapter meetings
regularly hosted by Fraternities and Sororities, all of which overlap closely with
the UDC definitions of ' Amusement & Recreation’, ' Arts & Entertainment’.
'Casino’, 'Meeting Hall’, and ' Alcohol Sales, On-premises consumption.’ The
City, constituted by its residents, does not allow those 5 defined activities/groups
to open or operate in Residentially-zoned areas due to their disruptive nature.
With respect, the Commission should not allow new Fraternities or Sororities in
Bozeman residential zones for the same reasons.
Thank you,
Sam Mitchell
Bozeman resident
Attachment C
Attachment C