HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-30-24 Public Comment - R. Gorsuch - UDCFrom:Royce Gorsuch
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC
Date:Monday, December 30, 2024 9:24:49 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.
4 key provisions from the original ordinance 2105 MUST
be incorporated into this draft before it is adopted!
1. Original ordinance 2105, Section 2, Item I, on page 4
“As detailed in division 38.200 of this chapter, the city commission authorizes the applicable
advisory bodies to review and to make recommendations to the review authority regarding
development proposals. Under this section, when advisory boards review and make
recommendations to the review authority they act in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Recommendations do not constitute votes of approval or denial.”
This text MUST be added back into the new ordinance! This text allows the
Historic Preservation Advisory Board and any others to review projects
proposing to use the AHO incentives. We need this ability going forward.
—————
2. Item J on page 4 of 2105
“The city commission or its designated representatives may require the applicant to design
the proposed development to reasonably minimize potentially significant adverse impacts
identified through the review required by these regulations. The city commission or its
designated representatives may not unreasonably restrict a landowner's ability to develop
land, but it is recognized that in some instances the unmitigated impacts of a proposed
development may be unacceptable and will preclude approval of the development as
submitted. Recognizing that the standards of this chapter are minimum requirements and
the public health, safety, and general welfare may be best served by exceeding those
minimums, the city commission or community development director may require as a
condition of approval mitigation exceeding the minimums of this chapter.”
This is crucial leeway for the review authority to subjectively evaluate
development and MUST be added back into the new ordinance! Not every
development is appropriate everywhere!
—————
3. Item K on page 4
“Decisions of the community development director and other review authorities are subject
to the appeal provisions of division 38.250 of this chapter.”
Why is there no appeals provision in the new ordinance? Since developments
using the incentives will have administrative review only, this should be added
back in. An aggrieved party or a neighborhood deserves the right to appeal!
—————
4. Entire Section 7 of 2105 about obtaining a COA is missing!
Most concerning of all, the current draft AHO does not include any language
mandating that development within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(NCOD) must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA).
An overlay zone applies an extra level of design review over a geographic area. This
ordinance currently exempts any developments proposing to use the AHO incentives
from complying with this NCOD design review. This is NUTS! The recent Historic
Preservation engagement has demonstrated how much people value the NCOD. It’s
why we have the charming neighborhoods we do.
If the Commission is unwilling to limit the use of this ordinance to suitable locations,
(greenfield development, major arterials) then it MUST include a clause for
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) compliance! Wording to
mandate compliance with any future historic preservation code or standards that may
be adopted should also be included!