HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Boutique Hotel Reconsideration- CC Consent Item F.2. June 24, 2025From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Boutique Hotel Reconsideration- CC Consent Item F.2. June 24, 2025
Date:Thursday, June 19, 2025 10:54:58 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 Commissioners-
I am writing today to ask you to please uphold your majority decision on the Boutique Hotel
by separating out Consent Item F.2. from the Consent list and voting NO to reconsider theBoutique Hotel, Site Plan, COA with Deviation.
While I agree with Rob Pertzborn's letter that his presentation was poorly done, there are no
changes suggested by either the applicant or Mr. Pertzborn to withdraw the encroachment intothe watercourse setback- a minimal requirement by today's standards. The facts of the
encroachment are unchanged and there are no errors to be corrected therefore the previousdecision should stand.
Choosing to allow a "do-over" because of a poor presentation will also set a bad precedent.
Instead, please send the message to the development community that presentations are theresponsibility of the applicant, not the City Commission, and they get one shot. Mr. Pertzborn
has been presenting to the City for years and is not inexperienced. He either took things forgranted or had an off day. Imagine if every applicant that didn't like the City Commission's
decision could claim an off day could get a "do-over". Not only would it be a waste of thecommission's time and taxpayer dollars, it would completely undermine the trust you are
trying to rebuild with the public and discredit the countless hours the public already spentcommenting on the application.
Finally, including this request in the Consent items implies a predetermined conclusion.
Consent items, in my experience, are usually based on decisions that have already been madein public hearings, such as budget considerations, etc. Consent items should not include
controversial items or new business, which F.2. is. So again, for the sake of transparency, fairpublic process, and not allowing do-overs for poor performance, please remove Item F.2. from
the Consent Items and vote no to reconsider the Boutique Hotel application.
Thank you for considering my comments,
Marcia Kaveney