HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-25 Public Comment - E. Talago - Comment on Application # 24606From:Emily Talago
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comment on Application # 24606
Date:Monday, March 3, 2025 7:00:32 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.
To the relevant review authorities:
I am writing to provide public comment regarding the proposed modification to the North
Central Master Site Plan. This project is outside of the boundaries of the MidtownNeighborhood Association (MNA) and located in the Northeast Neighborhood Association
(NENA). Due to its close proximity to Midtown, I received correspondence with questionsabout the project from members of both MNA and NENA. Upon review of the submitted
materials, it is challenging to discern the exact nature of all the changes being proposed. Thedocumentation is unclear, with contradictory language, and fails to provide a coherent
narrative of the requested modifications. This hinders the ability of neighbors and stakeholdersto provide informed feedback on the application. For example, the last paragraph on page 2 of
the document BlockFrontageStandards_11012024 states: This landscape street frontage condition will also exist along the south side of the Mountain
View property on Lamme Street, where the mature existing trees will remain. Within thesetback area adjacent to buildings with windows, low level landscaping will be provided that
maintains views between the building and the street.After a helpful conversation with the project planner, it seems this is in direct contradiction to
the proposed changes to the block frontages and tree preservation plan, and will require arevision prior to any approval.
I also received an email inquiring about the (in)accurate number of trees in the public ROW
(3, 4, or 5?), but did not have time to follow up about that. I appreciate staff's clarification that parking and open space requirements will be evaluated at
the individual site plan stage, but not being familiar with the complete history of the originalapproval, I am still uncertain how "programming changes" are part of the MSP approval
process, and there isn't specific language or redline edits to demonstrate what was updated.
In order to expeditiously liaise between Midtown neighbors and the city, I respectfully requestthat staff require the applicant to revise their submission narrative to clearly outline:
- The originally approved elements,- The specific changes they are requesting to those elements, and
- A justification for why these changes are better and warrant approval.Once the application has been revised, I urge you to re-notice the project and re-open the
public comment period to ensure transparency and fair community engagement.
I also encourage the staff and relevant review authorities to consider the public commentssubmitted regarding the preservation of mature trees. Mature trees mitigate negative impacts
of urbanization and development, and enhance the quality of life within the community. TheNCOD Design Guidelines (1) explicitly emphasizes the importance of retaining mature trees
—particularly those six inches in diameter or greater—due to their historic significance andnumerous public benefits-- including air quality improvements, energy savings, stormwater
runoff reduction, atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction, and aesthetic contributions to the
social and economic health of the community. There are trees literally over a thousand yearsold throughout urbanized areas of Europe that serve as central gathering spaces. Conducting
construction work near preserved trees requires expertise and careful work, but it is routinelyand successfully accomplished to safeguard these valuable assets of the commonwealth.
Further, I request that the applicant provide at least two ISA-certified local expert opinions onthe long-term viability of trees planted in raised planters within our climate. It is essential to
evaluate whether such an approach can adequately replace the benefits of existing, publicly-owned, mature, in-ground trees.
Lastly, I urge the denial of the proposed modification to the block frontage. The introduction
of a storefront frontage across from single-story historic structures within the NCOD isinconsistent with the character of the area. This change would exacerbate the “urban canyon”
effect and frankly, is just not a neighborly thing to do (2).
Thank you for considering these concerns as you review this application. I appreciate yourattention to ensuring that development aligns with the policies and values that support our
community’s character and well-being.
Sincerely,Emily Talago
Bozeman Inter-Neighborhood Council RepresentativeMidtown Neighborhood Association
(1) Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District.
Guidelines are a policy document adopted into the code by reference in 38.110 and
38.340.Chapter 2 (applies to all properties) sections
D.4 Streetscape- Street Tree Pattern etc. (p.47) E. Landscape Design for All Properties (p.48),
Subchapter 4-B (applies to the B-3 Commercial) G.3 Street Patterns- Street Trees (p.10)
H. Landscape Design (p.10) Appendix B- Interpretation of Terms Should- If the term “should” appears in a
design guideline, compliance is required. In cases where specific circumstances of aproject make it impractical to do so, the City may determine that compliance is not
required if the applicant demonstrates how the related policy statement still will bemet. (p.App-2)
(2) BMC 38.200.010. J. The city commission or its designated representatives may require theapplicant to design the proposed development to reasonably minimize potentially significant
adverse impacts identified through the review required by these regulations. The citycommission 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 aproposed development may be unacceptable and will preclude approval of the development as
submitted. Recognizing that the standards of this chapter are minimum requirements and thepublic 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 ofapproval mitigation exceeding the minimums of this chapter.
Virus-free.www.avg.com