HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-26 Public Comment - N. Nakamura - Response to recommendations to an Interim Zoning OrdinanceFrom:Natsuki Nakamura
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Response to recommendations to an Interim Zoning Ordinance
Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 6:30:41 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.
Please share this comment with INC and HPAB before their respective meetings.
For context, Deputy Mayor Fischer and Commissioner Madgic sat down with a group of
residents including myself on 5/29 (agenda of that meeting at the bottom of this email chain).Among the items discussed, I requested that the Commission consider providing a brief but
formal response to the recommendations INC and HPAB each submitted to the Commissionregarding the idea of an interim zoning ordinance while the NCOD is undergoing an overhaul.
Here is the correspondence afterward between myself and Deputy Mayor Fischer regardingresponding to INC and HPAB.
(As a disclosure, I am a member of the Economic Vitality Board but speaking only on behalf
of myself.)
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Natsuki Nakamura <nenakamura4@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 6:39 AMSubject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Outline for tomorrow's meeting with Jen Madgic and Douglas
FischerTo: Douglas Fischer <Douglas.Fischer@bozemanmt.gov>
Dear Deputy Mayor Fischer,
With all due respect, I fear you may have missed the point of the request for a brief but formalwritten response, both relating specifically to this issue and more generally on any issue
moving forward.
Specific to this issue, the request for an interim zoning ordinance is not asking for somegeneral discussion about growth. Instead, it is specifically in regards to the in-progress NCOD
update and the very interrelated Local Landmark project which, (1) started in 2023 (with atimeline to wrap up by early 2025) but likely won't be resolved until 2027 due to many delays
including but not limited to losing our city HPO, (2) was explicitly separated from thecomprehensive UDC update despite residents flagging issues that could have been addressed
through the UDC update, and (3) is not asking for resources to be taken away from any othercity priorities, but rather trying to minimize potential conflicts from having many moving
pieces in concurrent code and plan updates.
Specific to wanting a written response, it is not about whether or not the Commission hasmade themselves clear on this particular decision or, again, wanting to pull away resources
away from anything else. Instead, it is out of respect to the volunteers who serve on INC andHPAB who may not have time to attend or watch all the Commission meetings. A brief but
formal written response would've been easy for INC reps to share out to their neighborhoods
and provided sufficient acknowledgment that INC's recommendation was received andconsidered, without requiring staff to put together any sort of report or taking any time out of a
Commission meeting. While I appreciate that video recordings are typically available forpublic review, it can be cumbersome to find relevant oral comments, especially when they are
not timestamped in the minutes (such as, in contrast to a specific agenda item or vote, duringFYI or within a lengthy discussion) or when there are technical glitches. In addition, the public
Commission remarks made during an FYI session were before HPAB's comments weresubmitted, so a brief written response to HPAB would be respectful to acknowledge that their
recommendation was received and considered.
But generally moving forward, my issue is not that the Commission did not discuss or pass theIZO idea--after all, it is certainly the role of the Commission and not advisory boards to decide
on policy. Rather, the issue is ongoing confusion about how public input might be consideredin future decisions. For example, for the issue of height allowances in B-3, you and
Commissioner Madgic both cited that relevant advisory boards and stakeholders will beconsulted. With HPAB not receiving a response to their recent formal recommendation, why
would they feel like their recommendation on future issues will weigh into a Commissiondecision? Public comments, petitions, and survey results submitted by INC and other residents
have been dismissed as not representing Bozeman as a whole, but how will a representativeopinion of Bozeman be determined, especially without the city conducting a representative
survey?
I am not trying to be combative or convince you to implement a specific policy, just sincerelytrying to understand the point of having advisory boards and how a consensus on public
opinion is determined. I know there will always be wide-ranging opinions on issues, but whenCommission decisions are made counter to advisory recommendations and public comments,
simply citing consideration of the whole city, I am left to wonder if the opinions of a silentmajority are being assumed or if Commission decisions are being influenced by compelling
comments that the public is just not privy to.
I hope some of my points and concerns land as we move onward through the many upcomingother important community discussions.
Thank you as always for your time,Natsuki
On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 8:09 AM Douglas Fischer <Douglas.Fischer@bozemanmt.gov> wrote:
Dear Jim and friends,
One of the deliverables from our meeting last week was an answer to Natsuki’s request for a
written response from the mayor/commission to the HPAB and INC letters seeking a
Commission discussion on an interim zoning ordinance.
Mayor Joey Morrison told me that he feels he and the Commission have been clear on this
point. There will be no letter.
I know this is not the answer you wanted, and that it may feel like the Commission is not
listening.
I can only ask that you see how your Commission is listening – very carefully in fact. The city
has many pressing issues that deserve attention and focus – and that were backburnered as
we had an extensive public discussion on growth the past four years. Affordability, public
safety, city finances, environmental stewardship, jobs: All these need attention.
As Bozeman grows, are we adding things future generations will want to preserve? That’s a
question at the top of my mind as your deputy mayor. Neighborhood preservation and
historic character are key parts of that, and we have taken steps and will continue to take
steps to protect both. I simply urge you to see (and participate in!) the other important
elements a thriving city needs and that also deserve attention from your Commission.
Onward,
Douglas
Douglas Fischer
Bozeman City Commission
dfischer@bozeman.net
406-595-5721
From: Jim Webster <jwebster587@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:58 PM
To: Jennifer Madgic <Jennifer.Madgic@bozemanmt.gov>; Douglas Fischer
<Douglas.Fischer@bozemanmt.gov>; Dan Carty <dgc12@hotmail.com>;
elizabeth.darrow@gmail.com <elizabeth.darrow@gmail.com>; Natsuki Nakamura
<nenakamura4@gmail.com>
Cc: Rick Kerin <rick@kerinandassociates.com>; Mary Bateson <mbateson5@gmail.com>; Noah ten
Broek <njtenbroek@gmail.com>; lindasemones@hotmail.com <lindasemones@hotmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Outline for tomorrow's meeting with Jen Madgic and Douglas Fischer
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.
Jen and Douglas,
We are pleased to provide a suggested outline for tomorrow's 90 minute meeting and
look forward to engaging with both of you. We know that regular commission meetings
can't be carried out in this type of format and appreciate your willingness to meet with
us as we do with you. Four others who have worked with the group are cc'd here as
they may show up as well, but would not be primary presenters. A few others are bcc'd
too, as four of this particular group took part in planning meetings, resulting in their
having had a hand in the process. Thus, about 12 members of the community were
active in this initiative and made worthy contributions. They represent at least three
city boards, but will speak for themselves only.
Respectfully,
Jim
(The order of topics was organized starting off with the item that might require the most
time, to what may require the least time).
B3 90 foot height and Zone Edge Transitions (ZET) - Dan Carty - 30 minutes
Is a “fact-finding” mission for our group:
What is their (commissioner’s), plan for outreach and engagement with the
community with respect to the 90 foot height allowance going forward, as some
opportunity for future community feedback has been alluded to.
What do you (commissioner’s) think that staff will be presenting/recommending
to you, re ZET? Have you already given staff some direction on this topic and if
so, what might that have been? What is “top of mind” from the commission’s
viewpoint, to be addressed here?
What might it take for the commission to make a change to B3-90 and/or ZET’s?
Demolition Code – Elizabeth Darrow, past HPAB Member - 20 minutes
Community Planning Collaborative from Jacksonville, FL is tasked with rewriting
the demolition code as part of the Landmark Program. The HPAB was asked at
its last board meeting last week, if it would pull out the demo code and address
separately, or do we all need to wait for the whole Landmark Program to be
addressed, before moving forward on it?
Elizabeth to have examples of contributing structures up for demolition that will
demonstrate the magnitude of this topic and why it would be prudent to consider
addressing the demo code ahead of waiting for the entire Landmark project to be
completed. If we don’t have a strong demolition code, then why have an historic
preservation program at all?
Question for Jen and Douglas: Would you support updating the demolition code
as part of a housekeeping UDC work session, before the full Landmark Program
comes before the City for approval?
NCOD and general overlay district issues vs. base Zoning components – Jim
Webster - 20 minutes
NCOD vs. Base Zoning specifics – which takes precedence? … or is it on a more
specialized case-by-case basis?
How do Jen and Douglas feel that the NCOD should work? Do they think that the
NCOD has validity going forward and should be maintained? There are hundred
of such NCODs around the country, so many examples of this in place; Bozeman
not unique, although the Lakota Group applauded Bozeman for having such a
robust NCOD for a town of its size.
INC and HPAB: Response to their IZO letters - Natsuki Nakamura - 5 minutes, and
role of INC and Advisory Boards – Jim Webster/Douglas Fischer - 15 minutes
To the City Commission: Please give each organization a response, as they
should be accorded respect and consideration for the letters they submitted.
With regard to the role of INC and Advisory Boards: Douglas, you mentioned that
you would share your thoughts to us in an earlier message and we applaud this.
Let’s please have a constructive conversation about it. Thank you.
Thanks,
Jim
JIM WEBSTER, CWS® |
Senior Vice President, Financial Advisor, Portfolio Manager
p: 406.587.5461 or 800.233.4359 | f: 406.587.9634
Bozeman Wealth Management Group
Advisors with D.A. Davidson & Co.
1101 East Main, Suite 301, Bozeman, MT 59715
http://www.bozemanwealth.com