The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-01-24 Public Comment - E. Talago - Re_ [EXTERNAL]Guthrie, application 23354 documentsFrom:Emily Talago To:Jacob Doesschate; Bozeman Public Comment Cc:Sam Sagstetter; Noah ten Broek Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL]Guthrie, application 23354 documents Date:Monday, April 1, 2024 5:45:33 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. Hi Jake, Thanks for your reply. Our neighborhood has been working with various community stakeholders to review thisproject - but it's hard to feel like we can substantively engage- given that there are so many inconsistencies throughout the project file.For example, the SPR Project Narrative: Project Description states that "all back-of-the house utilities, including trash...will be situated behind the building..." but the site plan drawingA1.01 shows a trash loading path on N 5th, with back-of-house "rooms" on both the south and west sides of the building. Another example: The SPR Project Narrative: Design Intent "each mass is further subdivided, and anarrangement of alternating windows is employed to introduce subtle dynamism to the facade. This alternating window pattern is bordered by vertical metal panels..."Drawing Sheet A3.11 shows the West and South elevations have large areas of fiber cement siding with no windows and no building articulation. Another: The SPR Project Narrative: Project Goals states that unit types will range "in size from 371square feet to 550 square feet for one-bedroom units". Drawing Sheet A0.14: Affordable Units Plan however, shows units range in size from 311 to539 square feet, with an average unit size of 386 square feet for the 56 affordable units, and 396 square feet for the 55 market rate units. And yet, during a neighborhood meeting weinitiated with Home Base partners on Wednesday, March 27th, their slide deck listed the average unit size as 525 square feet. (We are currently having an audio recording of thatmeeting transcribed and will submit both files to the city for the record.) There are more examples of these inconsistencies involving unit types (studios vs 1-br), openspace calculations, traffic circulation, and others. Furthermore, after meeting with the applicant, our neighborhood's understanding was that wewould meet back up with the developer in a few weeks to see how they could, in conjunction with the city, address our concerns, especially that of safety infrastructure near WhittierElementary school. I'm very grateful to the city staff who have gotten back to community members about thisapplication, and we have done our best to share staff insights with each other. Yet, the amount of confusion and tension being generated by inconsistencies in theproject documents/presentation is a serious problem- and is most likely not incompliance with the city's noticing requirements (38.220.400), nor the submittalrequirements (38.220.010) of the development code. Are we to assume that the project will just get denied because of these inconsistencies?Or will there be an opportunity to view the corrected application? We also wanted toknow when the project will go before the DRB (as required by 38.230.040). I also have cc'ed comments@bozeman.net so that this email is entered into the public comment record. Thank you for your attention to this matter and all your hard work for this community. Sincerely, Emily TalagoINC Representative, Midtown Neighborhood Association 416 W. Short St Bozeman, MT 59715 484-866-0029 On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:36 PM Jacob Doesschate <jdoesschate@bozeman.net> wrote: Hi Emily, “Review cycles” are not a set number of cycles that must happen prior to reaching adequacy or a decision, they are referring to the number of times the application must be sent to anapplicant for them to make corrections to meet the City of Bozeman municipal code. To address your question on what the current next steps look like, after receiving public comment and the close of the notice period, the review authority will consider anyrecommendations of advisory bodies and public comment, and must act to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application within 10 working days of the close of the publiccomment period. If you head to 38.230.090.E of the City of Bozeman municipal code you can find information on this. I hope this helps, and please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Thanks, Jake Doesschate | Development Review Coordinator, Community Development City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2945 | C: 406.579.9610 | jdoesschate@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net From: Sam Sagstetter <ssagstetter@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 4:07 PMTo: Jacob Doesschate <jdoesschate@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Guthrie, application 23354 documents Hi, Jake. I feel like you may be better suited to answer this question from Emily. Thanks. From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 4:19 PMTo: Planning Technician <PlanningTech@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: Noah Ten Broek <njtenbroek@gmail.com>Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Guthrie, application 23354 documents 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. Hi Sam, Thanks for sending these and for the insight about ongoing review cycles. To be honest, ourneighborhood has been struggling to wrap our heads around the review process and thepublic's ability to participate. Could we get clarification on the next steps in this application?How many reveiw cycles are there after the public comment closes on April 8th? Thanks again, Emily Virus-free.www.avg.com On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 3:13 PM Planning Technician <PlanningTech@bozeman.net>wrote: Please see attached. Please keep in mind that even though this is currently in public noticethere are still a few review cycles pending completion, so some of the comments that yousee have yet to receive a response from the applicant. This does not mean the applicanthas not discussed the comments with the reviewers outside of projectdox or will not address the comments in the future. The applicant must respond to each comment in somefashion in order to pass a review cycle. Sam Sagstetter Technician III | Community Development City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2964 | E: ssagstetter@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net/planning CUSTOMER SERVICE HOURS (Front Counter @ 20 East Olive, 59715):Open: M, W, F: 9 AM – 4 PM; & T, TH: 9 AM – 1 PM From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 2:17 PMTo: Planning Technician <PlanningTech@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: Noah Ten Broek <njtenbroek@gmail.com>Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Guthrie, application 23354 documents 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. Hi Sam, We love technology when it works! Thanks for posting both docs in the meantime. I would greatly appreciate that pdf of site plan comments if it’s not too much trouble. Thanks again, Emily Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2024, at 4:53 PM, Planning Technician<PlanningTech@bozeman.net> wrote: I will have to look into why the responses are not showing up on this PDF.For now, I have uploaded both the original with the cutoff review commentsand the full PDF showing all review comments. We do not publicly post review comments for individual projects. In thiscase, the applicant chose to upload the concept review (CONR) comments asa part of their site plan submittal, and the City is required us post allsubmitted materials publicly. Although the review comments are not available online, it is still publicinformation. If you would like a PDF of the review comments for the siteplan review I can provide it for you. Typically this would need to go througha records request, but it is a very simple report to run so I can provide it viaemail. Sam Sagstetter Technician III | Community Development City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2964 | E: ssagstetter@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net/planning CUSTOMER SERVICE HOURS (Front Counter @ 20 East Olive, 59715):Open: M, W, F: 9 AM – 4 PM; & T, TH: 9 AM – 1 PM From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 2:28 PMTo: Planning Technician <PlanningTech@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: Planning <Planning@BOZEMAN.NET>; Noah Ten Broek <njtenbroek@gmail.com>Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Guthrie, application 23354 documents 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. Hi Sam, Thanks for the quick response. Unfortunately, now the columns "applicantsubmittal response" and "applicant submittal page reference" are missing. Along the same lines, I am also looking for a list of staff comments on theSite Plan/Dem/CCOA. For example, document # 32 is a reference letter regarding comments #25 and #32. Where are those comments and responsesaggregated for view by the public? Thanks so much for your work addressing this! On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 1:31 PM Planning Technician<PlanningTech@bozeman.net> wrote: Hi, Emily. Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention, we were unaware ofthis issue in the formatting. I have fixed the issue and the full comments should now be available. Sam Sagstetter Technician III | Community Development City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2964 | E: ssagstetter@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net/planning CUSTOMER SERVICE HOURS (Front Counter @ 20 East Olive,59715):Open: M, W, F: 9 AM – 4 PM; & T, TH: 9 AM – 1 PM From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 12:16 PMTo: Planning <Planning@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: Noah Ten Broek <njtenbroek@gmail.com>Subject: [EXTERNAL]Guthrie, application 23354 documents 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. Hello, This email is in regards to the online file for application 23354. In thedocuments folder, the table format of 02 CONR (concept reviewcomments) is such that it cuts off text in places. Can you please update thisfile so the public can see these comments and responses in their entirety? Ithink they are highly relevant and important for the public's understandingof what issues were identified and "front loaded" by city staff during thepreliminary review. The end of the public comment period is rapidlyapproaching and access to this info would be helpful. Thanks, Emily Talago 416 W Short St Bozeman, MT 59715 City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions ofMontana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “publicrecord” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such,this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available forpublic disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s recordretention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such asinformation related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosureunder law. City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions ofMontana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “publicrecord” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, thisemail, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retentionpolicies. Emails that contain confidential information such as informationrelated to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law. City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’sConstitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2,Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and thecontents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’srecord retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as informationrelated to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law. City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.