Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-25 Public Comment - A. Hoitsma - Application 24147_ Reconsideration of the Commission’s May 20 denialFrom:Amy Kelley Hoitsma To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Application 24147: Reconsideration of the Commission’s May 20 denial Date:Saturday, June 21, 2025 3:30:05 PM Attachments:Hoitsma Public Comment on Commission Reconsideration of Application 24147.docx 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. Please consider my public comment (attached) regarding Consent Agenda item F.2 on the Commission’s June 24 agenda: “Reconsideration of the Boutique Hotel, Site Plan, Certificate of Appropriateness with DeviationApplication Decision, Application 24147.” Thank you. Amy Kelley Hoitsma706 E. Peach St., Bozeman406-581-1513 TO: Bozeman City Commission RE: Reconsideration of the Commission’s denial of Application 24147 21 June 2025 Honorable Mayor Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Morrison, and Commissioners Bode, Fischer, and Madgic: I request that item F-2: “Reconsideration of the Boutique Hotel, Site Plan, Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation Application Decision, Application 24147” be removed from the June 24, 2025 Consent Agenda. According to the staff memo associated with this item: The City Commission’s rules of procedure authorize the Commission to reconsider previous decisions. Pursuant to the last sentence of 2.02.100.D, BMC, reconsideration of a previous decision must be a two-part process. The last sentence of this section states, “Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any commissioner from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of the commission, but the matter must be duly scheduled as an agenda item.” Therefore, the Commission must first determine whether it desires to reconsider the previous decision. This is the ACTION proposed in this item. If a majority of the Commission determines to reconsider (i.e., if a majority of the Commission approves THIS consent item), then staff will publicly notice the meeting where a decision on the application can be made. If the Commission votes to revisit this decision, the matter will be scheduled after a minimum 15 business day noticing period. I believe that a vote on a motion to “approve items F-1 through F-7 on the Consent Agenda”—which is standard procedure for approving the Consent Agenda in its entirety, without discussion—is NOT the same thing as a vote to reconsider the decision made on May 20 to deny application 24147. I raised this issue before the Commission on 13 February 2023 regarding Consent Item G.11 on the Feb. 14, 2023 regular meeting agenda: “Reconsideration of the Cloverleaf Zone Map Amendment Decision … from NEHMU (Northeast Historic Mixed Use) to B-2M (Community Business District Mixed).” Commissioner Madgic asked that the item be removed from the Consent Agenda and the Commissioners individually voted on that item separately from the Consent Agenda. That is what should happen on Tuesday: a Commissioner should move to remove the item from the Consent Agenda. There should be discussion and a vote on that individual item. Each Commissioner should have to explain his or her vote. If this item remains on the Consent Agenda, any Commissioner who does not agree with the motion will be forced to vote “no” on the entire Consent Agenda. If a majority of Commissioners do so, the entire Consent Agenda will not be approved. This week’s Consent Agenda includes professional service agreements as well as Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval. According to the staff memo for that item (F.1), the City Commission “could decide not to approve these claims or a portion of the claims presented” but that this “may result in unbudgeted late fees assessed against the City.” Is that how this process is supposed to work? I would like to point out the entirety of the language in 2.02.100.D, BMC: Reconsideration of previous commission action. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the commission must be made on the day such action was taken. It must be made either immediately during the same session, or at a recessed and reconvened session thereof. Such motion shall be made by a commissioner of the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any commissioner, and may be made at any time and have precedence over all other motions or while a commissioner has the floor. It shall be debatable. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any commissioner from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of the commission, but the matter must be duly scheduled as an agenda item. This language raises several questions for me. ● Which commissioner made the motion to reconsider? According to the code it couldn’t have been Commissioner Fischer, as the lone vote on the losing side. I believe the public deserves to know who made the motion. ● Did the City Manager put this on the Consent Agenda? If not, which other commissioners voted to put the motion on the Consent Agenda? My understanding is that items can be placed on the Consent Agenda only by the City Manager or by a majority of Commissioners (i.e. three Commissioners). I believe the public deserves to know who voted to put this on the Consent Agenda. ● What is the reason for reconsideration? The vote was taken one month ago. Why would any commissioner choose to change his or her vote at this time? Is there new information that might cause you to reconsider your vote? If so, what is it? I believe the public has a right to know of any such information. Did you not actually “review and consider the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented” when you voted on May 20 to deny application 24147 because the application does NOT “meet the criteria required for approval”? ● The code says the motion to reconsider “shall be debatable.” But items on the Consent Agenda are not debated. How does placing this item on the Consent Agenda constitute a debatable vote on a motion to reconsider a previous Commission action? The staff memo states: “The applicant submitted the attached letter to the Commission formally requesting that they reconsider the application.” I read the letter from Rob Pertzborn, who regrets that he “rushed” his presentation on behalf of his client. I listened to his presentation at the time, and I reviewed the recording again to determine whether the Commission gave him a time limit. As far as I can tell, you did not. He is now asking you for a “do-over.” He wants you to open up another public hearing where all of the people who submitted public comment and testimony will have to do it over again, just as the Northeast Neighborhood had to do when the Commission voted to reconsider the Cloverleaf zone map amendment vote. As it turned out, the Commissioners voted exactly the same as they did on the first vote. Is this a worthy use of the Commission’s time? Is this fair to the public? It is my understanding that the official procedure when someone disagrees with a decision made by the City is that they have to pay $2,000, submit an intent to appeal the decision within 5 days, and actually file the appeal within 10 days. Shouldn’t the developer have filed an appeal rather than ask for a do-over of the public hearing? I would ask the Commission not only to remove this from the Consent Agenda, but to make a motion to consider—as an Action Item for a meeting in the near future—that a vote to reconsider a previous Commission action MUST BE AN ACTION ITEM, and MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. To do otherwise lacks transparency and is flat-out bad process. Thank you. With my best, Amy Kelley Hoitsma 706 E. Peach St., Bozeman