Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-26 Public Comment - E. Talago - Public Comment City Commission July 28, 2026 Agenda Item J1. From: Emily Talago To: Bozeman Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public Comment City Commission July 28,2026 Agenda Item J1. Date: Monday,July 27,2026 4:59:43 PM Attachments: NCOD work session.pdf 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 file the attached public comment. With gratitude, Emily Talago bcc: Bozeman City Commission Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and City Commissioners, Several neighborhood associations recently participated in a focus group with City staff and the Lakota Group regarding the update to the NCOD Guidelines. I was asked to represent Midtown, and worked with Northeast (NENA), Bogert, Cooper Park, SCAN, and UNA reps to compare notes beforehand and submitted a shared list of priorities to help focus the focus group. There was remarkable consistency of priorities that rose to the top. Neighborhoods generally agreed that this update should address enforceability, preserve compatibility between old and new development, retain meaningful standards for mass and scale, address demolition directly, and apply material standards where they have the greatest community impact, particularly for larger projects.A copy of that correspondence is attached. Going into the focus group, I believed we were discussing how to improve an existing framework.The City has described portions of the 2006 guidelines as showing their age, relying too heavily on subjective interpretation, and needing clearer, more enforceable standards. My expectation was that this process would identify those weaknesses and improve them. Instead of a well-defined scope of surgical edits to the existing guidelines, the consultant presented a substantially overhauled framework built around four new preservation tiers and expanded architectural standards. Some of those ideas may ultimately improve the document. Clearer regulatory language is certainly preferable to subjective interpretation. However,throughout the discussion, neighborhood reps kept returning to a central concept: What happens to the existing NCOD standards governing building form, massing, compatibility, and use? The NCOD is an Overlay District which applies standards in addition to the underlying zoning. If those standards are removed from the overlay, what remains is the base zoning. Change is an accepted constant. No one was arguing that every existing provision should remain exactly as written, but we did inquire whether those standards were being relocated, replaced, or simply disappearing altogether. During the meeting, staff explained that issues such as (adaptive re-) use, height, mass, and density are generally zoning questions and suggested those topics had largely been settled through adoption of the Unified Development Code (UDC).That surprised several of us. My understanding, and I believe the understanding many constituents took away from the UDC process, was that many of these conversations had been intentionally deferred because they would be addressed through the NCOD and Landmark projects. Midtown,for example, submitted recommendations related to zoning during the UDC process, but many of those discussions were understood to be punted in light of these and other projects underway with specific work outside the broad UDC discussion. After the focus group meeting, I reached out and spoke with deputy director of Community Development Rebecca Harbage to better understand what I heard about the staff's position. She reiterated the analogy shared during the meeting: base zoning determines the "cake" — the overall size and shape of development, while the NCOD determines the frosting"decorations." I pushed back on that, explaining why I believed that represents a different interpretation than many residents have understood historically. Certificates of Appropriateness have not been solely conversations about architectural finishes.They have also addressed use and dimensional compatibility within the historic core's built environment since 1991. Rebecca clarified that staff believes the updated overlay district guidelines "could" regulate standards beyond base zoning. However, staff had interpreted the Commission's adoption of the UDC as signaling a preference that those standards instead remain within the base zoning itself. I shared that I don't believe the Commission's intent was nearly that clear, nor do I believe residents have been given that understanding throughout this process. If the City's policy direction has shifted, it deserves to be discussed openly rather than assumed. Graciously, Rebecca said staff intends to ask you directly for policy guidance during your work session reviewing Lakota's draft work product tomorrow, specifically: whether dimensional compatibility or use should continue to be addressed through the NCOD and, if so, how. I am incredibly grateful for Rebecca's responsiveness to my questions and I appreciate the administration's decisive handling of the recent contract termination. Because you will discuss the project direction and the consultant's current work product on Tuesday, I want to share something that continues to nag at me through this process. Over the past several years,through the UDC update, my campaign, neighborhood meetings and surveys, and now the NCOD endeavor, I've had hundreds of conversations with Bozeman residents and businesses. People talked about growing pains and compatibility.They talked about buildings that overwhelmed neighboring homes and service capacity; about the perennial pains of parking supply.They talked about demolition, predictable redevelopment, drawn out review cycles, and wanting a city that evolves to welcome new neighbors without displacing those already here or bankrupting builders in the process. I honestly don't remember anyone telling me their highest priority was regulating the window putty on an ordinary neighborhood home. That isn't to say materials completely lack significance.Their particular importance for larger buildings and historically significant structures is noted. But for the average neighborhood house (that may actually now exist as 2-3 units),that just wasn't where people consistently told me the biggest problems were. As a veritable neophyte when it comes to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, I personally found the engagement survey difficult to complete. It felt like it was designed for people with a historic architecture degree, which made some of the questions challenging to interpret and respond to thoughtfully. It was also incredibly time-consuming. I spent well over an hour on it and ultimately skipped the sections describing the character-defining features of historic districts I wasn't comfortable speaking to. (It may be insightful to request survey completion times. SurveyMonkey does collect that information, and it would be useful to know how much time respondents were expected to invest). That said, I do want to acknowledge one thing the survey accomplished: it made the respondent think critically about "character" as an objective criterion. I went back and looked at photos of my neighborhood from the 1984 survey for comparison.The most obvious indicators of a long-established place were the very mature trees,the development pattern and rhythm of the streetscape,the unimproved alleys, and the scale and construction styles of the buildings.These are standards explicitly named in our current guidelines, so plan review does indeed have objective criteria to work with. On my block, there have been many changes over the years, but what struck me was that much of the change occurred through additions and adaptation rather than wholesale demolition and replacement. What gave the neighborhood its character was what remained recognizable. So much of that character is reflected in what was preserved and thoughtfully added to over time. For fun, I texted some of the 1984 survey photos to neighbors, including pictures of their homes and Whittier School.The response was remarkably consistent: excitement and gratitude.There's something about seeing a place you know and love reflected across decades that people respond to. Whatever that feeling is, it seems to come from recognition and continuity. Nostalgia? I'm not entirely sure what to call it, but it certainly makes people smile. I digress... After the focus group meeting, I had a follow-up conversation with Amy Hoitsma with NENA and we landed in almost exactly the same place. We both described eclectic individual expressions as one of our neighborhood's defining characteristics.The survey results were clear: opinions favored stronger material standards where projects become large enough to affect everyone around them, but we've also heard feedback wanting ordinary people to retain flexibility in maintaining and improving their homes. Especially those that pre-date modern concepts like zoning codes or subdivision HOAs and CCRs. That strikes me as a sensible principle; a play on the lines Robert Frost penned: Good guardrails make good neighbors.The purpose of regulation isn't to govern every personal design decision. It's to provide predictable expectations where one property's decisions begin affecting everyone else's. Which brings me back to the question I left the meeting with: if the compatibility guardrails that have historically distinguished the NCOD are reduced or moved elsewhere,why is so much of the conversation centered on architectural details and materiality? Before we fathom spending our time debating window glazing or substitute siding, we need clarity about whether the City intends to regulate the issues neighbors have consistently said matter most: compatibility, use, mass, scale, context, and predictable change. Zoning, whether base or overlaid, sends a signal about what you intend a place to become. For newly developing areas,that signal tells future landowners what the community hopes will eventually be built. Established neighborhoods are different because people already live here. When zoning signals redevelopment potential substantially beyond what serviceability can realistically support, land values begin reflecting speculative future entitlements rather than present-day neighborhood conditions. Not every parcel can redevelop to its theoretical maximum. Transportation capacity, utility systems, schools, emergency services, parks, municipal revenue, financing, and simple market realities all impose limits. Yet speculative zoning can still alter property values and homeowner decision-making long before any redevelopment actually occurs. For most residents,their home is not a speculative investment vehicle. It is where they raise children, save for retirement, plant gardens, install solar panels, build relationships, or build additions to accommodate a growing family or aging parents. Increasingly, however, ordinary homeowners are forced to contemplate a different question: "Should we bother?" Should we invest in maintaining or improving our home if uncertainty surrounding future redevelopment may undermine that investment?Those questions are no longer theoretical. For families experiencing rising property taxes, insurance premiums, and the increasing cost of living on all fronts, household budgets are already strained, and many have little financial margin at all.They are not operating in the realm of risky investment, where poor speculation can be leveraged to minimize tax liabilities elsewhere. Routine maintenance is becoming difficult enough without having to question whether it is a sound financial decision anymore. People should not be subjected to uncertainty or instability as outcomes from speculative land use policy that is squarely within this elected body's control. Communities evolve. They should. But people also deserve enough clarity to make reasonable decisions about their own lives. No one is asking to preserve Bozeman in amber. We are asking to preserve the social contract that if you invest your life in a place,the place won't get planned as though you didn't already exist. As you consider the consultant's work, I respectfully ask that you clearly articulate what role the NCOD is intended to play moving forward. If dimensional compatibility, context, use, and neighborhood form are intended to remain within the overlay, I believe that should be stated explicitly. If the City's policy direction is instead to rely primarily on the base zoning, I believe that deserves an equally transparent public discussion — one where you take stock of the speculative signals being sent and what they communicate to a family whose home is zoned for redevelopment: "We want to replace you." The City cannot send that signal to the 73%of Bozeman subdivisions protected by private CC&Rs. It can only send it to the approximately 27%of neighborhoods that remain governed primarily by public zoning and land use guardrails.That makes the City's policy choices in those neighborhoods especially consequential and deserving of deliberate public discussion. Whatever direction the Commission ultimately chooses,transparency about that policy question is every bit as important as the standards themselves. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work on this update. Respectfully, Emily Talago Neighborhoods Growing Up:A Different Approach to Infill and Redevelopment , --.:Y'•.�:Y�'"'C+if1�Nl.\'lJFY4SH6.AtY1�gI!`efi: - - �. A Garage rebuilt w/master suite, office loft, and solar panels, COA height restriction did add design & build cost. SEMMES An attached garage rebuilt into a connected studio unit, off-street parking reg changed mid-project, saved cost. Y i • `� - _ I j i i An Alley loaded ADU A growth spurt. An additional story was added to the original structure. I aid� I � o smog 111- 10 - Did this prolific gardener interrupt the streetscape? Or just adapt what exists to accommodate different needs? Would a hipped roof, alley-loaded ADU, at 27' tall (currently not allowed over 25'), destroy the character? Does the city commission prefer full demolition and redevelopment? Incremental infill is possible if prioritized. Please take the time to read what a small sample of survey respondents attitude toward change and barriers they identified to doing more of these types of projects. ,IMEM :>c M y t Je k i ----------------- f-.._---- 1 •_T t 1 1 • Q I o':•'i r.ar 1 1 11 ti�ur•..r. r I . I ram• 1 1 ° I � 1 I •r•-.•-war- : 1 '� I • . • r '1 1 t`I I rr.-rt..rr- • �1��(--- f I ..rsr J I tl ° • 1 1 „; � 1 r8... • W 1 1' --.* ---------------- ----- --- y^ •----------�-J F i N - � wr rr Count of Would you consider redeveloping your property (e.g., adding an ADU, splitting your house into a duplex, adding a unit over a garage, or a backyard cottage)? No, I prefer to use my property as it is. (14.7%) No I'm not interested in redevelopment. (8.8%) Other(20.6%) Yes, but I have encountered barriers. (38.2%) Yes- and I have already built it! (5.91%) Not Applicable (11.8%) Other: "Because I encountered barriers I went to plan b and would be difficult but not impossible to add additional structures" "It is a possibility." "May have to." "Yes. Our house has included a basement rental in the past." "Yes-maybe an ADU but can barely afford living here now." "A future owner should have options even if I don't want to change it" "Still a single-family home just a bigger master bedroom over the garage" If you are interested in adding units to your property, please select any barriers that you think may prevent you from doing so. Responses Potential barriers 5 (14.7%) Lack of knowledge about the process (I'm not a builder or developer!) 11 (32.4%) Financial barriers- I can't afford or can't get a loan 12 (35.3%) Limited time or resources 3 (8.8%) Lack of interest 4 (11.8%) Concern about disruption during construction 5 (14.7%( I need to wait for my household to change (like kids leaving the nest!) 12 (35.3%) Not Applicable 6 (2.9% ea) Other: "Current code does not allow it" "Permitting restrictions" "Current barriers to water/sewer source for new construction would practically make it impossible" "Concern about city sewage management for update" "Parking constraints" "City prohibited to allow plumbing at the time I was considering adding ADU over garage" MGmail Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com> NCOD Focus Group Compared & Compiled Notes Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com> Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 4:38 AM To: Rebecca Harbage <Rebecca.Harbage@bozemanmt.gov> Cc: "Greggarrigues@gmail.com" <Greggarrigues@gmail.com>, "emilytalago@gmail.com" <emilytalago@gmail.com>, "osmanmarylou@gmail.com" <osmanmarylou@gmail.com>, "markamende@hotmail.com" <markamende@hotmail.com>, "jacksonscj@gmail.com" <jacksonscj@gmail.com>, Amy Kelley Hoitsma <aok@mcn.net>, "palavinsherman@gmail.com" <palavinsherman@gmail.com>, rick kerin <rtkerin48@gmail.com>, Erin George <Erin.George@bozemanmt.gov>, Scott Jackson <Scott.Jackson@specialized.com>, Siraj Asfahani <sasfahani@thelakotagroup.com>, Douglas Kaarre <dkaarre@thelakotagroup.com>, dgilbertarchitect <dgilbertarchitect@att.net>, Lauren King <Iking@thelakotagroup.com>, Takami Clark <Takami.Clark@bozemanmt.gov> Rebecca and team, Several neighborhood reps (Midtown, Bogert, NENA, Cooper Park, BonTon)took some time to compare notes on the three docs in your last email and I wanted to provide the results of that to you all ahead of today's meeting, rather than raising them cold on Zoom. Given the amount of ground to cover in 90 minutes, I hope this, while not prescriptive or exhaustive, helps us move through things as efficiently as we can this afternoon. Thanks to everyone for contributing and see you on zoom. ET Sent from my iPhone Looks like a few things did rise to the top... TLDR: Mass, scale, and density should remain the priority, not materials, though materials should be regulated for large residential, commercial, and mixed use. Enforceable language. Demolition policy should be addressed directly. "Use" should remain a first-class organizing axis. Compiled Notes: • Need for clarity. NCOD Update was understood as necessary to correct specific deficiencies (which still have not been defined, but have been broadly described as "showing age", "lacking teeth", "unenforceable"). However, the proposed draft appears to propose a full rewrite rather than bolstered enforcement language. Understanding what was "broken" is necessary to analyze the effectiveness of any proposed remedy. Can't close loopholes if you haven't named what they are. Table format would be helpful in report to HPAB. • Enforceable language. Current Guidelines have Appendix B, which defines interpretation of various compliance terms. Notably, they define "should" as "compliance required". Why not go through the existing Guidelines and directly replace compliance terminology (and thus remove the need to cross reference applicable standards with Appendix B)? • Materiality importance is proportional to size of project. For adaptive reuse and restoration projects; granular regulation of materiality is not desired, and local skilled trades may not even be available. The larger the project, the more beneficial materiality becomes. For commercial and mixed use projects, materiality may be critical. Don't require commercial-grade materiality for residential under x units, x FAR, x square feet, x neight, etc. o There is value in making How-to guides for best preservation practices available to the public (Window glazing maintenance for dummies), but that is different from the form/use standards in the current Guidelines which provides neighborhoods with degree-of-change predictability/stability. o Regulated materiality for adaptive reuse or restoration could be required as a condition of financial incentives like grant support. • Demolition policy. What are the best regulatory tools for objective analysis of adaptive re-use or restoration viability? • Mass/Scale What are the proper regulations to prevent the tragedy of the commons? Good regulatory guardrails should proactively discourage antisocial or parasitic proposals. The current Guidelines have specific, benchmarked mass/scale standards (two-story front wall max, 14-30 ft fagade widths, module breakdowns, step-downs). The new outline reduces this to one line item under multi-unit buildings, with no clear treatment for new construction or additions. • Land Use Equity for neighborhoods that pre-date modern zoning and ubiquitous subdivision CCR/HOA practices--specifically to balance disproportionate redevelopment pressure, ensure fair and just distribution of density, land uses, burdens, and benefits; protecting public health, safety, and general welfare. • Compatibility, Character Definition. Which standards apply? Character defining features-will these regulations be established on a subdivision or black face level? Not all features are character defining for all NCOD properties. Some subdivision block characters have practically zero defining features that would be captured under proposed materiality sections. So, the proposed tier system with standards vs. suggestions axis may not work. Does previous out-of-compliance work preclude or kick a property out of a tier?Also, single-unit dwelling under the use axis does not reflect reality. Open Questions: • What specific gap or failure in the 2006 guidelines is each major proposed change meant to address? Is this update intended as a revision of the existing NCOD, or a full replacement? • How does the four-tier designation system (Preservation / Preservation Eligible/Character/Context), combined with a separate regulatory/advisory split within each standard, compare to the current applicability matrix and district-specific chapters in terms of ease of use for property owners? • Is there a role for a project-size or footprint threshold (independent of the tier system) in determining which standards apply, given that the impacts of large-scale projects and small-scale projects on a neighborhood differ substantially? • How should the guidelines handle a property that falls into a higher preservation tier but has prior alterations that would now be considered non-conforming under that tier?