HomeMy WebLinkAbout001 Talago and Winn threadFw: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
From:Scott and Frances Boyd (sfmclboyd@sbcglobal.net)
To:emilytalago@gmail.com; njtenbroek@gmail.com
Date:Tuesday, December 17, 2024 at 11:33 AM CST
Communication with Winn about the meeting with HB.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Noah ten Broek <njtenbroek@gmail.com>
To: Christy Stillwell <christystillwell402@gmail.com>; Scott and Frances Boyd <sfmclboyd@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 at 01:06:10 PM CDT
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:04 PM
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
To: Noah Ten Broek <njtenbroek@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
To: Chuck Winn <CWinn@bozeman.net>
Thank you for the response and I appreciate you looking into those other answers.
3:00 will work, let me know the location.
Stay cool.
-Emily
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 22, 2024, at 3:01 PM, Chuck Winn <CWinn@bozeman.net> wrote:
1/19/25, 4:06 PM AT&T Yahoo Mail - Fw: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
about:blank 1/4
Hi Emily,
Your questions about the site plan denial and COA/DEMO denial will take longer to answer, but I’ll see about getting you answers to those.
As for Thursday’s meeting, its only objective is to see if there is any path forward for Homebase and the neighborhood that makes sense to both sides. No binding decisions will be made and it is not a part
of any city process or checkbox. The only intention is to get some interested people in a room and talk. I, too, am committed to doing things that build trust and it won’t happen overnight – I get that.
Does 3:00 work for you?
Chuck
From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:30 PM
To: Chuck Winn <CWinn@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
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 Chuck,
I received some questions this weekend about current status and the process moving forward.
My current understanding of the options available to the applicant regarding:
Site Plan Denial
1/19/25, 4:06 PM AT&T Yahoo Mail - Fw: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
about:blank 2/4
-Appeal commission decision through district court within 30 days (MCA 76-2-10)
-Submit a new site plan application with alterations to mitigate the review authority findings of fact for denial*
COA/DEMO Denial
-Appeal commission decision through district court within 30 days (MCA 76-2-10)
-Early termination of the triggered 2 year stay as provided by BMC 38.340.090 D.3.a. **
-Expiration of the 2 year stay as provided by BMC 38.340.090 D.3.b. **
*Do you have an eta on legal's timeline for completing the Findings of Fact for denial of the Guthrie Demo/COA/Site plan application? I recognize there were findings that the application did not meet both
objective (code) and subjective (growth policy) criteria, and those findings will guide any applicant's resubmission.
**Because the commissioners made findings (compatibility, sensitivity, architectural detail, mass/scale, Guidelines for NCOD) that the project does not comply with the Standards for Certificate of
Appropriateness BMC 38.340.050, it's my understanding that the application subsequently failed to meet the criteria in 38.340.090 C.3. and thus triggered the 2 year stay per BMC 38.340.090 D.3.
I appreciate the provision in the code that allows lifting the two year stay because I don't think anyone wants to see the site languish into demolition by neglect. For many decades the convalescent home
was a productive and contributing member of our city. Breathing new life and love into it can add the vibrancy it needs to contribute to the community once again.
Regarding Thursday's meeting, I have encountered some resistance and skepticism about it being a "box check" of engagement. I need to be able to assure neighbors that no decisions are being made
and that this meeting is in no way a satisfaction of BMC 38.340.090 D.3.a. People are feeling stressed. On top of a 7 month process particular to the proposed Guthrie, the quality of life impacts from
several proximate large scale construction projects are ongoing and taking their toll. Our neighbors to the west are experiencing the shock of the administrative-only approval of the massive 8th and
Mendenhall project. As previously mentioned, the pace is dizzying. I'm sensitive to and want to honor these feelings so am taking Terry's "no sudden moves" pledge to heart. It will take time to rebuild the
trust, but I'm committed to helping if I can.
Thursday afternoon is still looking good to meet, but I need city certification/clarification/correction on the current status listed above. Please call if you have any questions.
I look forward to your response and thank you for reaching out.
-Emily
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.
1/19/25, 4:06 PM AT&T Yahoo Mail - Fw: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
about:blank 3/4
--
Noah ten Broek
1/19/25, 4:06 PM AT&T Yahoo Mail - Fw: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
about:blank 4/4