Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-26 Public Comment - N. Nakamura - Interim Zoning non-discussion From: Natsuki Nakamura To: Bozeman Public Comment; Bozeman Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL]Interim Zoning non-discussion Date: Monday,May 4,2026 5:56:22 PM 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. Disclosure: I am a member of the city's Economic Vitality Board,but this comment is only on behalf of myself. Dear City Commission, Thank you for sharing some of your thoughts during the FYI of the 4/28 City Commission meeting about why there has not been an official discussion about considering an Interim Zoning Ordinance while the NCOD guidelines are being updated("the IZO"). Unfortunately, because it was not an agenda item and just during FYI, that meant that Commissioners could not(or at least aren't supposed to) respond to points brought up by their fellow Commissioners. I would like to respond to some of the comments that came up about the IZO. 1. Though I personally have concerns about both, concerns around the height allowance of 90- feet by-right in B-3 and the concerns around the NCOD guidelines are separate issues. Deputy Mayor Fischer mentioned that a decision has been "already made" in the outreach and adoption of the new UDC. I think this is in reference to the 90-ft-in-B3 issue that is now adopted code. But updates to the NCOD are underway now. Many residents wanted the NCOD guidelines to be addressed in the comprehensive UDC update, but we were told that this would come later in order to not further delay the timeline of adopting the new UDC. The only decision that was "already made" in regards to the NCOD update is that it did not happen during the UDC update, thus the request for the IZO is due to the fact that we in the middle of the NCOD update process right now and the results of this community conversation will likely not be implemented until early next year. 2. Deputy Mayor Fischer also commented that many of those advocating for the IZO are in "areas that already are the most stable and protected in this city." In actuality, those within the NCOD advocating for the IZO lack the stability and protections that many other parts of town have through HOA covenants. In the north side walking tour with the NCOD consultants, residents advocated for "evolution without erasure." I believe Commissioner Madgic was referencing some of the areas on the north side that have seen "so much rapid change" --this is not stable and protected, and it is resulting in erasure. 3. I was confused by the comments that there has not been a sufficient threat to public safety, health, and welfare, either by a specific project or a potential project, to warrant the IZO. In order to implement any zoning, the city has to demonstrate how it helps promote the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. The Bozeman Commission did so when passing the updated UDC, and will do so in order to successfully pass updated NCOD guidelines. The current NCOD zoning district couldn't have previously been adopted without the Commission finding that is helps promote public safety, health, and welfare. So the IZO being advocated for does not need to prove there is some new threat to public safety, health, and welfare. Instead, the IZO (and any IZO) is about when there is a conflict between the zoning code that exists now and a zoning proposal that the governing body is considering (i.e. the update to the NCOD). Conflicts within zoning could mean that the city's current zoning may fail to promote public safety, health, and welfare in the way it was intended to**, and thus some interim regulations or prohibitions may be warranted until the proposal being considered is adopted and conflict is resolved. It is not about the acute threats and dangers of a specific project,but rather if there is conflict between our existing zoning and what might come out of the NCOD "overhaul" (the City's choice of word, not mine) that we are undergoing right now. The updated NCOD will hopefully better and more predictably regulate that new development contributes to the surrounding neighborhood and ensure we aren't losing significant built or natural features. If the City feels like nothing substantially will change with the NCOD update, then I question the use of the word "overhaul" and hope that is made clear in the public engagement for the NCOD update moving forward. 4. Some concern was expressed about adding more work for staff. At the last HPAB meeting, the staff members of the community development department said they are applying NCOD guidelines "all day long" and reviewing a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)nearly every day. Because the city does not currently have a Historic Preservation Officer, other staff members in the department have to pick up this work load(additionally and concurrently, the city is working on developing a Local Landmark Program, and it is yet to be determined how such program will interact with the NCOD). HPAB member Allyson Brekke offered potential and clear language for the uses regulated by the IZO. Such regulations would likely take off of staff s workload some of the COAs that are more challenging and up to interpretation because of their use of guidelines that staff and the NCOD consultants have stated are vague and cause unpredictability for both developers and residents (home improvements or minor additions to a project would still proceed like normal). If the NCOD is working as it is intended, it helps promote public safety, health, and welfare. However, the NCOD overhaul is needed to address some of the conflict we have seen within the NCOD and make sure the NCOD is working as intended. Adopting the IZO will give us the time we need to work through that update. I hope that some of you on the Commission remain open-minded to the idea. In the last Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) meeting, their Commission liaison alluded to some opinions provided by the City attorney's office. Even if the Commission ultimately vote down the idea of the IZO, I am sure HPAB, INC, and other members of the public would be interested in the findings of fact related to the decision. Thank you for reading and for your consideration, Natsuki **The purpose and intent of the NCOD is to "stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and further provided the design of such new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or area... It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance neighborhoods or areas of significant land planning or architectural character, historic landmarks or other built or natural features for the educational, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of citizens of the city."