HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - UDC update- City Commission meeting 5_20_25From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Jennifer Madgic; Erin George; Chris Saunders; Tom Rogers
Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC update- City Commission meeting 5/20/25
Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:50:46 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.
Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and City Commissioners-
I am writing to you regarding including Zone Map Amendments within the UDC Updateprocess. This is a revision of my May 19, 2025 written comments after listening to the
Community Development Board's discussion during their meeting of May 19th, 2025.
(1) Respectfully, I think the motion brought by Chairperson Happell at the CDB should not beconsidered by the City Commission based on the fact that it was not, and could not be,
repeated by Sam (city staff), before the Board voted. The Board voted on the gist of an ideathat could not be articulated and this should not be a legitimate vote or recommendation.
Chairperson Happell also introduced subjectivity in his motion by asking staff todiscern what is "controversial" and what is not. This is clearly subjective and impossible
to use as criteria - and something the public has long been asking the City to move awayfrom.
(2) If Options #1- #4 of how to proceed with the current individual and group ZMA's (as
suggested by planning staff) are the only options for the City Commission to proceed with,then I would ask the City Commission to please incorporate the current ZMA applications
within the UDC process using options #1 and/or #2.
I think including the ZMAs within the UDC process and bringing them under the
umbrella of City- originated ZMAs (no fees) is a way of addressing "Growth", one ofthe 5 main focus areas the community selected as most important for the UDC update.
I especially think that the neighborhood proposals of Centennial Park and BonTonshould be included during the UDC update because they are a reasonable resident-
organized response to the recent radical changes in the downtown core and include therequired majority of approval in the area of the proposed change. Based on the topic
area of Growth and the majority support of the proposal, these citizen proposals are veryappropriate for the UDC update process.
(3) I am still in favor of the City Commission exercising their right and adding the additionalnotification of neighbors within 200 feet if a zone map change involves going from a
residential to a business zoning. Nicole Olmstead was correct in her assumption that it wasduring the adoption of the FLUM that some of these changes happened, and had the neighbors
been notified, there would have been more inclusive participation in the final decisions.
(4) I think both text and map amendments should absolutely be included within the UDCupdate. Although I previously suggested the zone map amendments come after the text
amendments, I didn't mean to imply that they be pushed into 2026 or be required to submit
formal, fee based, applications. I meant that I thought it might be best to complete the textbefore adjusting the map- but both still completed during the UDC Update.
I think option #2 that suggests discreet discussions within the UDC update might beone way to allow for public transparency and process efficiency, but the City
Commission may be able to think of other options as well.
Thank you for considering my comments in your discussion tonight,
Marcia Kaveney