Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-25 Public Comment - Z. Osman - Public Comment on UDC Update_ For tonight's discussion, esp following yesterday's CDB meetingFrom:Zehra Osman To:Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode; Bozeman Public Comment;Chuck Winn Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment on UDC Update: For tonight"s discussion, esp following yesterday"s CDB meeting Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:26:50 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. (Attention City Clerk: Please place this public comment in the following folders: UDC Update, Centennial Park Proposal Folder, Bon Ton Proposal Folder, and the Landmark Update folder. It is important to copy these in each of these folder because the city chose to run these efforts in overlapping time frames. It is important for both city officials and the public to be able to locate.) Hi Mayor Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Morrison, and Commissioners Madgic, Fischer, and Bode, City officials, which in my mind includes the Community Development Board, and the public seem to be stuck in an unnecessary zero-sum debate, though we do not have to be. Instead of being stuck in a debate as to whether or not we should have infill, let our conversations be about how the infill can be made in such a way that we do not have to have adverse impacts to the natural, cultural/historic, and social environments. All this means is that the conversations should instead be aboutmeasures that mitigate impacts. For example, the Fowler Avenue project is a good example of how the city officials avoided a riparian ecosystem as a mitigation measure when designing the road. Within the historic districts/NCOD, this mitigation looks like the many existing compatible infill examples that fit gently within historic districts without adversely affects. Instead, we seem to be stuck in the conversation that we either (a) have incompatible unaffordable infill or (b) we don't have any infill at all. That is a false and polarizing premise. Going forward, please consider UDC updates that demonstrate your commitment that we can and will work together to grow Bozeman through a process that identifies what we treasure, and then figure out how to grow while keeping that which we treasure. Let's take a big step out of this current zero-sum debate and into a conversation about how we can make this work through collaboration. Besides focusing on mitigation measures, collaboration can take on many other forms. When your constituents are encouraged to follow a city-defined process to present their ideas for UDC zoning and they then their spend time to research and prepare proposals for city officials, they work in the spirit of good faith that city officials will read and seriously consider them. We see it as a collaboration! Based on the Community Development Board (CDB) meeting last night, it appeared not all the CDB members did their homework and, when the subject of these resident-lead proposals came up, they seemed surprised and then repeated their usual pre-decisional theoretical rationale that they have previously stood by. They essentially ignored these two proposals. It was unfortunate that the CDB closed public comment before the public hearing where critical motions were being made without giving the Centennial Park or Bon Ton neighborhoods an opportunity to make our cases - or letting other members of the public express their views, for that matter. That CDB meeting last night was an example of a zero-sum decision. It should have been a conversation about how we can grow Bozeman through a collaboration between city officials and the public where we focus on what measures will mitigate the impacts of infill so that the growth can occur in a compatible way. Both the Centennial Park Neighborhood and Bon Ton proposals are well researched and substantiate a reasonable request of R-A designation. For example, the Centennial Park Neighborhood proposal was a resident-led effort that went above and beyond, following Staff suggestions, including documenting what is on the ground, knocking on doors, gathering petition signatures, meeting with Commissioners, documenting how the proposal adheres to the City's growth plan and Montana Code Annotated, attending meeting after meeting, etc. Now more than ever - in light of the forthcoming massive Bozeman Square development on Tamarack - the Centennial Park Neighborhood needs zoning protection to maintain its character, its quality of life, and its people - owners and renters, alike. Their proposal advocates for gently increasing density in a predictable fashion while also protecting solar access for gardens and energy and maintaining public and private urban forest. And please do not upzone the church and 3 small homes on East Curtiss to B-3. Look at the mistake of the Henry across from the George Harrison house at N. Tracy and Villard. Please do not repeat this mistake! Currently, the UDC draft calls for expanding B-3 zoning to be next to a 1879 house built by Samuel Lewis, who settled in Bozeman in 1868, joining a small but growing population of African Americans who came to Montana after the Civil War. When we say that we want to protect Bozeman's sense of place and history, this is what we are talking about. Do not compromise this historic district and neighborhood. The increase in development potential from R-2 (R-A) to B-3 is too much. Leave these homes and church at R-A. Keep both Centennial Park and the Bon Ton zoned R-A, as shown in the current proposed UDC draft. The fact that this is in danger at the 11th hour is unacceptable. Respectfully, Zehra Osman 59718 PS So it doesn't get lost and for your convenience, I am also including the comments I sent youyesterday regarding specific UDC comments. See below: A. Please not upzone the church and 3 small homes on East Curtiss to B-3. Look at the mistake of the Henry across from the George Harrison house at N. Tracy and Villard. Please do not repeat this mistake! Currently, the UDC draft calls for expanding B-3 zoning to be next to a 1879 house built by Samuel Lewis, who settled in Bozeman in 1868, joining a small but growing population of African Americans who came to Montana after the Civil War. When we say that we want to protect Bozeman's sense of place and history, this is what we are talking about. Do not compromise this historic district and neighborhood. The increase in development potential from R-2 (R-A) to B-3 is too much. Leave these homes and church at R-A. B. Keep both Centennial Park and the Bon Ton zoned R-A, as shown in the current proposed UDC draft. The fact that this is in danger at the 11th hour is unacceptable. C. Since the draft UDC was first released in 2023 residents have consistently and overwhelmingly opposed increasing density through upzoning. There are other options for adding housing, and the proposed draft implements several. There is no need to resort to traditional upzoning. D. Keep the following unit caps in the final UDC you adopt. 1. Keep R-A at 2 units while allowing for the Existing Building Alternative. DO NOT UPZONE TO 4 UNITS BY-RIGHT! 2. Keep R-B at 8 units, which is perfectly adequate to build missing middle housing! The 3 story 12-plex that one architect is angling for can easily be built in R-C. DO NOT UPZONE TO 12 UNITS! 3. Keep R-C at 24 units. If you remove unit caps in this zoning district there is no real difference between R-C and R-D. It would be good for our community to have an option at 24 units because new state law doesn't allow us to require parking. Many areas zoned R-C cannot handle increased demand of on-street parking, it will only lead to dysfunction. DO NOT REMOVE UNIT CAPS IN R-C! E. Our growth policy calls for a gradual and predictable increase in density. Further upzoning beyond the draft UDC unit caps is not acceptable because it isn't gradual or predictable. F. The current City Code DIVISION 38.340. OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS (note "standards") that give the city officials a lot of teeth to protect the NCOD. Sec. 38.340.050. Standards for certificates of appropriateness. A. All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness must be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.