HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - City Commission Special Meeting on UDC, and moreFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Douglas Fischer; Joey Morrison; Emma Bode
Subject:[EXTERNAL]City Commission Special Meeting on UDC, and more
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2025 4:17:20 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 Mayor, Commissioners, and Staff present at the recent special meeting-
ALL-Thank you for your thoughtful discussions over the 5-6 hour long special meeting. I admire
your stamina. I would've had a hard time maintaining focus for that long.
Comm. Madgic- Thank you for tirelessly supporting a building moratorium.
ALL- Although the emergency that could warrant a moratorium began at the onset of Covid and it's
subsequent influence on the City's growth, I think the 'emergency' needs still exist to supportpausing large growth or all growth until the City's UDC is fully updated as well as other plans
codified such as the NCOD, PRAT, Sensitive Lands Study, UPF, etc.
Mayor Cunningham, Comm.'s Madgic and Fischer- Thank you for holding to 2 units plus the ADUs for RA. And thank you for taking into your
consideration the absurd new state regs for how to calculate # of ADUs.
ALL- The state's new "unit" calculation language really complicates things and I hope it willbe discussed even more thoroughly at the next work session so that the language in our UDC
is very clear as to what is allowed. For example, if the code states 2 units and an ADU in RAwill that actually mean 2 units and up to 2 ADUs? And how will this new way of unit
calculation expand to the more dense zones? May I suggest the UDC language alwaysdelineates ADUs from other living units, such as, "2 units plus 2 ADUs", etc, for absolute
clarity.
Other business:
Comm. Madgic- I'll also take this opportunity to thank you for your NO votes on both therevisiting of the Boutique Hotel and the recent Baxter ZMA and annexation. I think your
reasoning was right.
ALL- I am unhappy that the Boutique Hotel is being revisited and find it dismissive of theprevious public engagement which includes countless hours of time and a lot of money for
lawyers. I didn't read anything that I thought would warrant a new public hearing. It also sets aprecedent of revisiting a decision if one of the commissioners is absent from the original
hearing. How many hearings could become moot if that is the case? I think we need muchmore rigorous criteria on the books to allow a revisit. I will be unable to attend the revisit. My
previous comments still stand: please do not allow any encroachment into the watercoursesetback.
Thank you for your time,
Marcia Kaveney