Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-23 Public Comment - C. Roberts - Canyon Gate Application 22 commentFrom:christine roberts To:Agenda Subject:Canyon Gate Application 22 comment Date:Friday, March 31, 2023 1:10:43 PM Attachments:Canyon Gate Comment Letter_March 30_2023.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 accept the attached letter as part of the public comment on theCanyon Gate preliminary plat (“Proposed Recommend Approval of the Canyon Gate “Proposed Recommend Approval of the Canyon Gate Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat with Conditions and Code Provisions, Application 22264). Thank you, Christine Roberts March 30, 2023 Subject: Comment Letter on City of Bozeman “Proposed Recommend Approval of the Canyon Gate Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat with CondiƟons and Code Provisions, ApplicaƟon 22264. (Quasi- Judicial)” This letter comments on the absence of consideration of public comments in the preparation of the staff report on the subject project. Specifically, City of Bozeman staff made a recommendation to approve the proposed Canyon Gate project before the project was officially publicly noticed, resulting in recommendations that did not consider public comments on the proposal. Two issues that support this observation are discussed below:  City Staff’s Recommendations Made prior to Public Notice of Preliminary Plat Public Comment Period. According to the City’s Development Review Committee’s (DRC) report recommending the project’s approval, the DRC made a determination of the proposal’s sufficiency on February 28, 2023 (see page 3 of the report’s cover letter). The City’s official public comment period, however, runs from March 17, 2023h to April 18, 2023. According to the link to public comments provided in the BDC’s staff recommendations1 the first comment letter was posted on March 2, 2023, with the majority of comments submitted after March 13, 2023. Essentially, the City staff made its recommendation to approve the Canyon Gate preliminary plat on February 28th, well before the public comment letters were received. Many of the comments received contain substanƟve concerns about flood control, traffic, and public safety. None of these issues is discussed in the staff report and no menƟon is made that public comments were considered by City staff in its review of the preliminary plat.  Comments from 2022 are incomplete. The information packet for the upcoming Community Development Advisory Board includes comments made in 2022 on the zoning change and annexation process for Canyon Gate. Over 400 public comments were submitted on that annexation request, but the staff report includes just a few letters received in 2022. The advisory board and the commission should have knowledge of and access to all the comments made previously to ensure adequate disclosure of public concerns. Not providing them infers limited public interest in the proposal, which is not the case. This points to my general comment on how the public review process is currently implemented, especially for large development projects. Comments are accepted up to the day of city commission meetings on important topics, and staff reports are written with recommendations made prior to the close of a public comment period. This leaves many commenters wondering if advisory boards or the commission even see their comments or consider them in their deliberations. This results in community members sending in comments but not knowing if and how their concerns are addressed. For major projects, such as Canyon Gate, a more clearly delineated process for receipt and consideration of public comments would go a long way to assure the public that it is worth their time and effort to become 1 (https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=273210&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&cr=10), involved in the review process. It takes many hours for the public to review a project’s supporting technical reports. If commenters feel their comments are not considered, they opt out of the public process, which diminishes the important process of community conversations on important topics. To ensure meaningful public review, the following minor revisions to public review dates are recommended. These minor alterations in process would go a long way in convincing the public that their concerns are valid and that the City really wants them to help develop livable neighborhoods in accordance with community plan goals. These measures would not prolong project review and would assure the public that their concerns are factored into decision making.  At the beginning of a project, require the City and developers to engage with neighborhood associations that exist for this very purpose of coalescing public input. Outreach and responses to neighborhood associations and HOAs is critical to meet the City’s community plan goals. A simple design charette/ open house could answer many concerns of the public and avoid lengthy comments at the preliminary plat phase.  Provide adequate (legible and accurate text and maps) in public mailings and postings. Ensure that public signage is available on appropriate public noticing dates.  Require a 30- or 45-day public comment period for major projects, such as Canyon Gate, that have dozens of project documents for the public to review. Close the public comment period after that time and provide a reasonable amount of time (30 days) for the City to digest and address relevant comments in the staff reports. Schedule advisory board and commission meetings after this interim period.  Provide adequate time and opportunities for public comment at in-person/zoom advisory board and commission meetings to avoid truncating public comment and penalizing the public for expressing concerns. Currently, the only way to make an in-person comment is limited to 3 minutes. If public interest is high and many people attend the public hearings, the speaking time is reduced to two minutes, which essentially penalizes the public for having interest in a project and contradicts the promise of meaningful engagement.  Provide a summary in the staff report as to how public comments were considered to let the public know what changes. If any, have been made to designs or mitigations so that the public understands if and where their comments have been accepted. Such summaries do not have to be detailed reports—they can be included in the staff recommendations to let the public know the hours they spent reviewing documents were considered. Thank you for considering my comments. Christine Roberts 1470 Boylan Road Bozeman MT 59715