HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-24 Public Comment - D. Carty - Community Development Board, Oct 21_ Landmark Program (update)From:Daniel Carty
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Sarah Rosenberg; Chris Saunders; Erin George; adrienne
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Community Development Board, Oct 21: Landmark Program (update)
Date:Monday, October 21, 2024 8:34:23 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 Community Development Advisory Board
folder in time for their Oct 21, 2024 meeting. Thank you.
Oct 21, 2024: 8:35am
I am writing to comment on the Community Development Board's (CDB) Oct 21, 2024,meeting re Agenda Item E.1 - Bozeman Landmark Program Project, Work Session on Initial
Guidance Report (Report), with my bolding throughout.
In this comment, I focus on the following statement in the Initial Guidance Report that iswritten under the heading Policy Conversations:
"Repeal and replace the design guidelines for Historic Preservation & the NCOD to provide
more clarity for new development in particular in coordination with the Unified DevelopmentCode (UDC). As part of this update, revisit the requirements for Certificates of
Appropriateness (COA); consider revising to Certificate of Approval. Incorporateconsiderations of sustainability and climate resilience."
This statement is unacceptably ambiguous because it could lead to the City of Bozeman
(City) inadvertently or intentionally (1) eliminating all of the City's existing historicpreservation guidelines and not replacing them and (2) gutting or eliminating the NCOD.
As such, I request that the City and the consultant, Community Planning Collaborative,
immediately provide to the public all of the raw public engagement survey data obtainedduring the HPP-LLP public engagement process. These data would include, but not be
limited to, all of the freeform written comments submitted by all survey respondents—withall personally identifying information (PII) redacted. The public deserves access to these
data in order to evaluate whether the HPP-LLP is proceeding in a direction commensuratewith public input.
Note: The public is entitled to all of the raw public engagement survey data obtained (PII
redacted) during the HPP-LLP public engagement process under the Montana Constitution,
Article 2 - Declaration of Rights, Section 9. RIGHT TO KNOW, which reads, "No person
shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all
public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in
which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure."
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Daniel Carty
213 N. 3rd Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:Daniel Carty
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Sarah Rosenberg; Erin George; Chris Saunders; adrienne
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Community Development Board, Oct 21: Action Item E1: Landmark Program
Date:Monday, October 21, 2024 7:26:07 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.
Oct 21, 2024; 7:25am
(Please place the following public comment in the Community Development Citizen
Advisory Board folder in time for their Oct 21, 2024, meeting. Thank you.)
I am writing to comment on the Community Development Board's (CDB) Oct 21, 2024,meeting re Agenda Item E.1 Bozeman Landmark Program Project, Work Session on Initial
Guidance Report (my bolding, underlining, and italics throughout):
(1) Re Policy Conversations: From the perspective of one who is an advocate for the
protection of Bozeman's natural environment—including Bozeman's urban forest—I am
pleased the Landmark Program Project Initial Guidance Report (Report) includes the
following language:
(a) "Modify City Code section 2.05.860 and 2.05.930 to expand the responsibilities of
the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) to include cultural heritage and
evaluation of landmark nominations."
(b) "Create a city-wide local landmark program that includes both architectural and
cultural significance. This would allow for designation of individual historic or cultural
landmarks inside and outside the NCOD, including buildings, environmental
spaces and natural features, and sites of cultural importance."
(2) Re Policy Conversations: “Additional policy options to explore in the future that
are beyond the scope of the current project”:
(a) The Bozeman Landmark Program Project is supposed to include Bozeman's built
environment and its natural environment. Consequently, I disagree that the sentence
"Consider adopting tree regulations." is beyond the scope of this project because “tree
regulations” could be incorporated into a historic preservation landmark program in two
ways: (1) Voluntary Heritage Tree Program and (2) Tree Ordinance within the UDC. As
such, I suggest adding the following sentence to the Policy Conversations section:
Consider offering a voluntary Heritage Tree Program and adopting a Tree
Ordinance within the UDC.
(3) Re: Program Conversations
(a) I am pleased that this section includes the following language: “Create a historic
preservation master plan or include a historic preservation element in future updates to
the Growth Policy [aka Bozeman Community Plan].”
(b) The Bozeman Landmark Program Project is supposed to include Bozeman's built
environment and its natural environment. However, in the Program Conversations
section, there are no direct references to Bozeman’s natural environment and no direct
references to Bozeman’s environmental spaces and natural features. Direct references
to Bozeman’s natural environment, environmental spaces, and natural features
(including trees) could—and should—be added to this section.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Daniel Carty
213 N. 3rd Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715