HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-26 Public Comment - M. Campanelli - Attn City Commission_ Engagement over NCOD revisionFrom:Mark Campanelli
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Attn City Commission: Engagement over NCOD revision
Date:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 10:29:31 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.
Greetings,
When it comes to community, the City of Bozeman consistently undervalues Bozeman's
history, heritage, and sense of place, as well as human timeframes and scale. With a constantcry about the affordability crisis, the City welcomes in luxury big-box developments with 90 ft
views sold to the highest bidder, at times incentivizing them with TIF, all while claiming theNCOD has nothing to say about this.
Here is what the current NCOD policy has to say about multi-family development (Chapter 3
Section E):
The underlying goal of the guidelines in this section in regards to multi-house-holdconstruction is that, to the greatest extent feasible, the buildings should be compatible with
the context of the neighborhood. Historic structures associated with the multi-householdprojects should be retained when feasible.
followed by these guidelines to achieve the City's stated policy:
1. Retaining an existing single household building that contributes to the establishedcharacter of the neighborhood in a multi-household project is encouraged.
2. Minimize the perceived scale of a multi-household building.3. Use traditional features that will convey a human scale.
4. A new multi-household building should be within the range of heights seentraditionally in the neighborhood.
5. A primary building face should not exceed the width of a typical single householdbuilding in a similar context (see illustrations).
6. The proportions of window and door openings should be similar tothose used traditionally in the neighborhood.
7. Brick, stone and painted wood are preferred primary building materials.8. Orient a primary entrance to the street, when feasible.
9. Provide some useful, functional common open space that can be enjoyed by allresidents in the development.
10. Minimize the visual impacts of multi-household garages.11. Design a surface lot with landscaping.
After seeing so much neighborhood strife over in-NCOD developments like Black-Olive andThe Guthrie (and now The Depot on Church), I found myself asking "Why did the City NOT
properly address the NCOD during the latest UDC revision?"
Well, after considerable observation, I have come to the conclusion that the previous CityCommission simply had different priorities than what the current policy on the books said, and
they effectively messaged this intent to the City Manager and Staff. Modest ADU's andmissing-middle townhomes are apparently just too few units and/or too small a tax-dollar
amount to keep the attention of the Economic Development Department. I view this as but oneform of lawlessness besieging our town in response to the massive growth bubble. (Others
include unenforced leash laws, traffic laws, building codes, and significant loss of safety forbicyclists and pedestrians.) My neighbors have borne considerable financial burden over the
years abiding by the NCOD, but I suppose their property was not dense/taxable enough and/ortheir pockets were not deep enough for the NCOD to be "optional" for them.
Thus, I am ready for NCOD to largely be shredded in this "public engagement", because
the NCOD was already put in a coffin unlawfully. I hope you can prove me wrong, and thatthe revision provides for smart growth driven by community building on a human timescale
that respects our heritage and history, and alongside which the neighbors and community canreadily adapt.
Just to reiterate: Bozeman now largely feels like it's been auctioned off to the highest bidder.
For all its imperfections and limitations on density, I think the NCOD was trying to preventthat.
Mark Campanelli
Bogert Park NeighborLinkedIn