HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-16 Public Comment - D. Littlepage - Black OliveTo: Design Review Committee, Design Review Board, Community Planning, and City Commissioners
Subject: SP Application 15432, Black-Olive
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
I am opposed to this site plan, and basically anything else within the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD) that is similar in scale, mass, and height. I am a near neighbor of the similarly
incompatible Pizza Hut proposal, and am very concerned that Black-Olive will set a precedent for the
NCOD before my neighborhood is fully aware of and involved in the Pizza Hut proposal.
I have a decent feel for the Black-Olive neighborhood, as I once put in an offer on 220 S. Black after a
lot of study and consideration, and I walk through the neighborhood a few times a week. Therefore I’m
sympathetic to the intense feeling against this project that has developed in the neighborhood.
In both my neighborhood and the Black-Olive neighborhood, many residents and property owners were
not aware until very recently of the City’s new direction on the NCOD that invites this kind of proposal.
As a former federal land manager, I was involved in many public involvement processes, including
several as agency lead. From that perspective, I can only conclude that the lack of early awareness of
neighbors who definitely will be impacted by development of this scale, as well as the intense negative
response by many, indicates that the public process on the recent changes in zoning and the
interpretation of NCOD requirements has been inadequate, and needs to be revised and addressed.
A good step for the City to take would be to declare a moratorium on teardown and redevelopment
within the NCOD while the residents of the NCOD are fully consulted and some level of consensus is
reached to (a) to restore confidence in the City’s direction and responsiveness to the public; and (b) to
better enable good decision-making.
Specific Comments on the Black-Olive Site Plan:
1. NCOD: Compatibility. Black-Olive’s mass, scale, and height, limited setback, and complete lack of
vegetation/green space are incompatible with the existing neighborhood, and the proposal appears to
conflict with the language and intent of Article 16 of the UDC, Bozeman Code of Ordinances, which
addresses the NCOD.
Honestly, sincerely, I just do not understand how any reading of Article 16 could result in a
determination that this proposal is compatible with the NCOD language. The article cites a number of
factors (in 38.16.010, Intent and purpose) that emphasize the importance of maintaining “the character
and fabric of established residential neighborhoods” in the NDOC. In addition, the proposal seems to be
incompatible with several elements in the NCOD design guidelines (Chapter 2 in Bozeman Guidelines
… for the NCOD”), including those under B. Street Patterns and F. Building Forms.
I know there’s been talk of revising some cosmetic elements, but there is no cosmetic change that can
alter the fact that the basic plan is not compatible with the neighborhood. Many of the neighbors point to
the overall character of the Blackmore Apartments across the street as a more compatible model for the
property.
2. NCOD: Neighborhood safety. The adjacent area is a safe, walkable neighborhood, which is one of
the most appealing attributes of its “character and fabric.” For several reasons, a full traffic study,
involving the streets and sidewalks for at least a few blocks south, east, and west should be a
requirement before any decision is made to approve Black-Olive or any alternate proposal.
Introducing so many new vehicles to the neighborhood and forcing many to park on-street are possible
threats to pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Olive is a reasonable bicycle thoroughfare; it doesn’t require
slows and stops at every corner as all the streets to the south do, and the existing traffic is still at a safe
level for cyclists. More vehicles and more parked vehicles, limiting sight lines, could become a
significant deterrent to bicycle use, which is substantial, and which contributes very favorably to
reduction of motor vehicle traffic and congestion downtown.
3. NCOD: Adjacent property values. Article 16 lists property values as one of the neighborhood
elements to be “enhanced.” However, it seems fairly clear that not only will the proposed development
not “enhance” adjacent property values, but it will all but certainly and directly diminish them.
4. Public infrastructure demands. From DRC responses, it appears that the massive new building may
overwhelm at least some elements of public infrastructure. Water and sewer lines may be inadequate,
and the limited provisions for vehicle parking on the site certainly appear inadequate, pressuring on-
street capacity.
A full study and analysis of infrastructure impacts is necessary, with the costs covered by the developer.
Any cost of upgrading public infrastructure to meet the requirements of the proposal must be covered,
100%, by the developer.
5. Public process. Public involvement has been inadequate for such a precedent-setting proposal. For
example, a small sign on the property may be adequate notice for a project of building a garage or the
like, but this proposal is so far-reaching and was so predictably contentious that the City should have
upgraded the usual methods, and in the future should try to fit the level of public involvement more
appropriately to the scale of the potential impacts.
6. Developer accountability. Based on the history, if in the future this developer is granted approval for
any project, the work should be monitored closely by the City or inspectors hired by the City and paid
for by the developer. He should also be required to post a bond large enough to cover correction of the
level of discrepancies in his earlier project.
Finally, and much more broadly, I think the City has some work to do to justify the “build up vs.
sprawl” rationale for the recent, significant changes in community planning direction.
With the scale of development to the west and northwest, and the inadequate and unresponsive stance of
the County Commission, I just can’t understand how the City could calculate that giving up areas of
quiet, walkable, kid-friendly neighborhoods within Bozeman would result in a significant enough
reduction in sprawl to justify the sacrifice.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment.
Dean Littlepage
618 W. Curtiss, Bozeman 59715
dljm@bresnan.net