Residents and commissioners raise safety, parking and liability questions about proposed permanent downtown parklet

A proposal to make a seasonal downtown parklet a permanent summer fixture prompted safety and parking objections from residents and questions from county commissioners at the Anaconda Deer Lodge County meeting.

The commission heard that Vanessa Romero (owner of the Bay [wine shop]) has proposed to purchase and place the Discovery Anaconda parklet for summer use, but Romero was not present; staff said she could appear at next week’s meeting to answer questions. The chair placed the item on a future agenda for further consideration.

Staff described the parklet’s history, saying Discover Anaconda originally obtained funding to move a parklet among downtown businesses each season. "My understanding...they were gonna work with a different business each season," a county staff member said, noting that interest dwindled over time and that the proposal seeks a more permanent arrangement for one business.

Commissioners raised multiple concerns. One commissioner said the parklet’s prior placement near the Park/Main intersection had created traffic issues and questioned whether the parklet had encroached on Montana Department of Transportation right-of-way; the commissioner also asked whether insurance would be required and who would bear liability if a vehicle crashed into the structure. "I just think that...it is a traffic hazard," a commissioner said during the discussion.

Members of the public reiterated those concerns. Rosemary, who spoke in opposition, argued the parklet took two parking spaces in an already busy block and said it created a dangerous situation during events and construction. "I think it's a very dangerous situation," she said. Amy Lynn Kellogg echoed those safety and placement concerns.

Commissioners also asked about the proposed seasonal fee (a $150 figure was mentioned) and how the county would square that with fees in other Montana communities. No formal action to approve the parklet was taken; instead, the commission voted to place the item on a future agenda so the applicant can appear and provide additional information about ownership, MDT concurrence, insurance and proposed conditions.

Next steps: the applicant is expected to appear at the next scheduled meeting so commissioners can review traffic-safety information, insurance requirements and a precise placement plan before making a final decision.