HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-23 Public Comment - D. Carty - Public comment on proposed UDC update (Ordinance 2151, Application 21381)From:Daniel Carty
To:Agenda
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public comment on proposed UDC update (Ordinance 2151, Application 21381)
Date:Monday, October 16, 2023 6:28:28 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 place the following public comment in the UDC Update folder (Ordinance 2151, Application
21381).
Date: Oct 16, 2023; Time: 6:30 AM
To: Bozeman Community Development Board and City CommissionSubject: Proposed UDC update (Ordinance 2151 and Application 21381)
At the Community Development Board (CDB) meeting on Oct 16, 2023, it is my understanding that the
CDB can consider three voting options:
Option 1. Not recommend adoption of the proposed UDC update text and/or map based on findings ofnon-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report;
Option 2. Recommend amendments to the proposed UDC update text and/or map;
Option 3. Recommend approval of the proposed UDC update text and/or map as presented.
As such, I respectively ask the following:
I ask that the CDB choose Option 1 because, arguably, the text of the City of Bozeman's (City) proposed UDC
update—as it is currently written—does not comply with the "Constitution of Montana -- Article IX --ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The stateand each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present
and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this
duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life
support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and
degradation of natural resources."
That the text of the proposed UDC update—as it is currently written—does not comply with Article IX ofthe Montana Constitution is noted in my public comment letter dated Oct 5, 2023, for the following UDC
sections:
Sec. 38.410.010. - General standards. B. Natural environment (UDC draft, page 4-18);
Sec. 38.400.030. - Intersections. (UDC draft, page 4-5);Chapter 38.710.050.A. Documentation of compliance with adopted standards (UDC draft, page 7-19)and Chapter 38.710.050. 5. Vegetation. b. Protective measures (UDC draft, page 7-21); andSec. 38.710.090.C. Contents of landscape plan. 7. and 9. (UDC draft, page 7-40).
(https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=281181&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN)
If the proposed UDC update sections listed above are not amended now to be in compliance with Article
IX of the Montana Constitution, then it is reasonable to assume that the proposed UDC update (1) willcontribute substantively to a dirty and unhealthful environment for all Bozeman residents and (2)hamstring the City's efforts to achieve its climate goals under the Bozeman Climate Plan 2020.
(https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254994&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&cr=1) I
suggest, too, that Article IX of the Montana Constitution is superior in law to both the City's proposedUDC update and MT SB382.
Finally, as the Bozeman Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board recommended to the CDB on Oct 11,
2023, the proposed UDC update needs "...stronger language to protect trees, water, and sensitive lands,
and to further improve public engagement through neighborhood associations and townhall meetings."(https://legistarweb-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2226671/Sustainability_Board_Recommendation_10-11-2023.pdf)
If the CDB cannot see its way to choosing Option 1, then I ask the CDB to choose Option2. Option 2 provides the CDB the opportunity to bring the proposed UDC update into compliance with Article IXof the Montana Constitution (see comments under Option 1) and also provides the CDB the opportunity to makethe following changes:
First, across all proposed residential zoning districts, scale back all currently proposed increases in "density" to
the minimums required under state law(s).
Second, do not make the situation worse for any residential zoning district. For example, do not combine theformer R-3 with the former R-4 into a single district, and do not combine the former R-4 with the former R-5 intoa single district.
Third, amend Sec 38.260.070 Transitions as follows: When a former R-4 district is separated from a former B-3
district by a paved, neighborhood City street, then require the lot-line setback for the B-3 building and
progressive height step-backs for the B-3 building to be the same as or greater than those required when theseparator is an unpaved alley. Note: This very transition edge exists on the 200 block of N. Third Ave (LammeSt to the south and Beall St to the north), where the west side of N. Third Ave is zoned the former R-4 and the
east side of N. Third Ave is zoned the former B-3.
I ask that Option 3 not be considered by the CDB because of all the reasons provided under Options 1 and
2.
Daniel Carty
213 N. Third Ave.Bozeman, MT 59715
dgc12@hotmail.com
406-548-2810