HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-25 Public Comment - N. Nakamura - Please support Centennial Park and Bon Ton neighborhood proposalsFrom:Natsuki Nakamura
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Please support Centennial Park and Bon Ton neighborhood proposals
Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:46:39 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.
Dear City Commission,
This comment is in regard to the UDC, in particular to voice support for the resident-led
proposals for the Bon Ton and Centennial Park neighborhoods, after the CommunityDevelopment Board's discussion and recommendations.
Both neighborhoods have patiently and dutifully followed the direction of the City
Commission and staff to submit their proposal through public comment to be consideredduring the UDC zone map update. Some CDB members expressed concern about not having
the normal ZMA process to discuss each proposal, and that there may be people not supportiveof the proposals who haven't spoken up yet because they have not been properly noticed, but
we are at this point because this was the direction given by the Commission, not because ofresidents trying to circumvent the ZMA process. As a result, this also means that the residents
didn't get the opportunity to make a presentation about their requests, but rather had to maketheir cases as best as they could through public comments and through the many walking tours
residents offered to Commissioners and other interested Bozeman residents.
The walking tours in particular around Bon Ton led to the "modified R-A" in the UDC draftthat allows for more truly gentle infill by adding more units to existing homes. At the core of
both the Bon Ton and Centennial proposals is reducing the pressure to demolish existinghomes. It is about stability to reduce displacement, not about preventing a neighborhood from
changing or keeping anything in amber. In the CDB's discussion, there was acknowledgementthat there is already a variety of housing types in the Bon Ton neighborhood, including many
good options for renters. But several CDB members felt they could not support Bon Ton'sproposal because they felt areas close to downtown should be zoned high density while areas
further out can be lower density, in order to get more housing in walkable areas. But ratherthan expecting the historic neighborhoods in our city center to be redeveloped to address the
city's need for more housing, we should be thinking about how we can replicateneighborhoods like Bon Ton in other parts of town and creating more neighborhood nodes.
Both Centennial Park and Bon Ton are walkable neighborhoods because of the proximity torestaurants and other amenities, the presence of naturally occurring affordable housing, and
the existence of mature trees in these older parts of town.
Chair Happel opined about the precedent set by allowing these neighborhoods to downzonethrough these resident-led initiatives (this comment was also made in the October 20
discussion). But for me the greater concern is the precedent set by rejecting the neighborhoodproposals. The residents followed direction from the Commission and staff and did a lot of
ground work to talk with neighbors and submit proposals that included support of at least 51%of property owners in the area as well as addressed some of the criteria typically considered
for a ZMA. Thank you to Commissioner Madgic for acknowledging what kind of messagerejecting the proposals sends to residents, especially at a time of engagement fatigue and
frayed trust with the City. Thank you also to board member Egnatz, who was ambivalent on
the zoning in the Centennial Park proposal, but ultimately sided in favor of the residents wholive in and understand their neighborhood.
Another precedent to consider is the disparate treatment of areas that have HOAs and
restrictive covenants compared to areas that do not. Does the City have a good understandinghow much of Bozeman currently has restrictive covenants? Some of the CDB's discussion
justified rejecting the Bon Ton proposal because of fears of pushing all the development northof Main, but do we know how covenants are impacting the pressures of development? Areas
protected by covenants are not facing the same pressures of redevelopment as the historicneighborhoods in our city core.
The proposals for Bon Ton and Centennial Park to be rezoned as the "modified R-A" allows
for density to be added without residents being displaced when homes are demolished andredeveloped. Many single-family homes around town have been demolished and replaced by
more units, but then those units sit empty because they were never intended to be affordablefor our workforce. Are these additional units helping the person commuting from Belgrade,
Manhattan, Butte have a viable option in town? Are they helping reduce our community'scarbon emissions, especially when mature trees and demolished homes are ending up in the
landfill?
Please do not reject the Centennial Park and Bon Ton neighborhood proposals based on thefalse promise that redevelopment with higher density in neighborhoods like these will address
our affordability issues and reduce the displacement of workers. We can get more gentle infillby making it easier to add units to existing structures, not by incentivizing demolition. We can
get more walkable areas of town by trying to replicate neighborhoods like Bon Ton andCentennial Park, not by redeveloping them.
Please vote to support Centennial Park and Bon Ton neighborhood proposals in this UDC
update.
Thank you for your consideration,Natsuki Nakamura