Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - UDC presentation to the Community Development Board, May 5, 2025From:Marcia Kaveney To:Bozeman Public Comment; Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode Cc:Chuck Winn Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC presentation to the Community Development Board, May 5, 2025 Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 10:23:40 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. Dear Community Development Board members, and City Commission- I am writing to you today with concerns about the Community Development Departments(CDD) report regarding Phase II of the Supplemental Engagement of the Unified Development Code (UDC) 2022 update and I am including the City Commission on this letterin case they are not aware of this direction the CDD is taking for the UDC update. The CDD seems to be changing course from City Commission's October 1, 2024 direction by assertingan artificial limitation of UDC topics to update which, I believe, is not the direction the public is expecting. There are many additional problems and I believe errors, with this report, and I believe theCommunity Development Advisory Board is being delivered unsubstantiated conclusions, misinformation, and possibly some wrong conclusions. However, for sake of expediency, I amnarrowing my focus to what I think are the most problematic aspects of the report. One of the most concerning sections of the report begins with the "Identified Primary Issues" paragraph 4 on page four and continues onto page five and includes the following issues: A. The CDD begins with a discussion about public comments as though all comments havebeen collected by stating, "all comments and were [sic] compiled and analyzed for actionable outcomes and direction the City Commission can consider. " We know this to be untrue because the survey isn't complete until May 8, 2025. By moving ahead to suggesting actionable outcomes and direction, the CDD is negating future surveycomments and their possible outcomes. B. In the section on Identified Primary Issues. The CDD seems to have unilaterally decided that the City Commission can only consider one of the 5 Main topics (decided upon at the endof Phase I ) to be integrated into the UDC update and includes items 1-3 listed on page four — and all are related to zoning or the zone map. In item number 4, the CDD implies that theremaining topics which include Transportation, Environment, Neighborhoods, and Growth are not to be included in the UDC update - against community wishes and City Commissionapproval. I find it hard to believe this is the outcome the City Commission was looking for with the revised engagement process? My understanding was that this new UDC update with topicschosen by the public and approved by the City Commission, was going to be an opportunity for the community to help strengthen many areas of the UDC, not just zoning. Why would the CDD waste the public's time and energy to dive deeply into these 5 topics ifthey were never planning to include them in the UDC update? If this was intentional and planned, it will threaten the very trust the City Commission says they want to rebuild? Ifnot, then I hope the City Commission will step in before it is too late and get the CDD back on course. C. It feels like the report is biased and trying to lead the reader in a direction rather thaninforming them. Here are some examples in the following paragraph that begins on the bottom of page four and continues to page five. FYI- I attend ALL 6 Phase II meetings, oneneighborhood meeting, and helped lead a Chat. My responses are inserted in bold and in parentheses. "Many of the comments received during Phase I and II focused on current applications forimmediate construction that follow the existing development code. (Generalization. I did notwitness this. Where is the data?) Although there are lessons to learn, many of the concernsand issues raised are addressed with the proposed revisions of the UDC (But notenvironmental issues that were raised, nor the neighborhood character concerns) or are adirect result of State rules and laws the city cannot address (such as?). In addition, several of the issues raised are outside of the scope of the UDC update (Like what? This sounds like areference to the first and abandoned UDC update attempt. The "scope" as approved bythe CC on Oct.1, 24 includes Environment including water and tree issues, andNeighborhoods which includes NCOD, etc.). The code update did not intend or propose to revise all standards (This also sounds like a reference to the first update draft and not thenew one- with 5 main topics- staff is backpedaling) and most of the content of the UDC are a combination of state mandated process and enabling procedures (Such as? How much is"most"? I find this to be untrue and unsubstantiated. For example, does the statemandate unclear code language such as Development Standards that staff haverepeatedly called too vague to enforce? ) Any expansion of the scope must be directed by the City Commission with any associated amendments to the contracts with any associatedcosts be allocated from another project or funding source. (Agreed, and if this was a concernabout the City Commission's direction of pursuing the 5 topics of greatest communityinterest- then it should have been discussed in Oct.2024, or even earlier before engagingthe public in months of earnest effort.) It's important for you, as Community Development Advisory Board members, and the CityCommission to be aware that the UDC update seems to be veering off course. Please take the steps needed to get it back on the track originally envisioned by the City Commission for thissecond version of the UDC update. As always, thank you for considering my comments. Marcia Kaveney