HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-17 Public Comment - D. Littlepage - SoBo LoftFebruary 7, 2017
To: Mayana Rice, Dept. of Community Development
Design Review Board
City Commissioners
From: Dean Littlepage, 618 W. Curtiss St., Bozeman 59715; dljm@bresnan.net
Subj: SoBo/Pizza Hut Site Plan Application
I’d like for these comments to be made part of the public record on the SoBo project. Thanks to City employees
Mayana Rice, Rick Hixson, and Shawn Kohtz for meeting with a few of us Cooper Park neighborhood residents
to explain details of the project and the City’s analysis and decision process, and to Jessica Johnson for
providing information for neighborhood residents through NextDoor.
I also want to acknowledge the developer’s and Intrinsik’s work on the project, specifically:
* Preserving the setback and street trees.
* Stepping back the upper floors to reduce the visual impact.
* Meeting the City’s basic parking requirements without claiming any exemptions.
However, major concerns remain, as should be expected for a four-story, four-lot, 42-apartment + commercial
development adjacent to the quiet, pedestrian-oriented traditional neighborhood to the south, and to the nearby
historic homes just east on Babcock.
BOTTOM LINE: I live two blocks from the site, and have to oppose the project in part. I’m requesting that the
number of apartments and residents be scaled back, as other neighborhood residents have expressed, to a total
of 3 stories and about 28 apartments, for two reasons:
1. Incompatibility. I won’t be as directly affected, but I fully support the views of those who live nearer to the
project that its size, height, and capacity are incompatible with the immediately adjacent residential area, and
therefore are inconsistent with the NCOD guidelines. The project will negatively affect the quality of life and
property values of those immediately adjacent to it.
I had to ask myself what I would do if my home were within a couple of lots of SoBo, and came to the
conclusion I’d have a for-sale sign up either already or very soon. I’d recommend that the DRB members and
the Commissioners ask themselves the same question.
2. Traffic. The City’s traffic impact study estimates that 400+ daily vehicle trips will be generated by the project
(half outbound, half inbound), and this, in my case and for others nearby, will be the biggest impact.
Due to the street pattern (Babcock one-way east, the unusable intersection of S. 7th and Main from the south,
alley traffic from SoBo parking onto S. 7th, alley traffic forced to turn right only on S. 8th), I and other
neighbors foresee a significant increase in traffic south on S. 7th, which is a local neighborhood street, to Olive
and (hopefully to a lesser extent) to Koch, as SoBo residents/customers travel south and west. S. 7th to Koch, in
fact, is a route of choice already to get to 19th and beyond with the least hassle.
We’re anticipating a significant jump in traffic, therefore, in the pedestrian and bike-oriented blocks between
the project and Cooper Park, raising safety and neighborhood integrity issues. Babies in strollers, toddlers with
mom or dad, elderly folks; dog owners and their pets, bike commuters, young students walking to and from
Irving School, some on their own; people who walk or bike downtown, to the Co-op, or the university -- all are
part of the mix, and it won’t take much of a volume of new traffic through the neighborhood to wreck this
people-friendly environment.
The City’s traffic analysis is very narrowly focused – on peak-period capacity of nearby through streets and the
intersections of those streets – and doesn't consider impacts on neighborhood safety or quality of life. To me,
this protocol places no value on our walkable, bikable, lower-traffic neighborhoods, which residents value very,
very highly. Neither does the process include neighborhood input into the analysis, which I and others think is a
mistake.
We were told that once traffic becomes intolerable, we can petition the City to allow residents to pay for a
traffic calming measure – but that approach is inadequate to protect the values of the neighborhood, and it flies
in the face of logic to wait until you’ve created a problem to address it, rather than preventing it in the first
place.
Given that there’s no help in sight on the traffic issue facing the neighborhood, the only way to try to influence
it at this point is to argue for a project with fewer apartments, residents, and vehicles. Please consider these
issues, which are very important for the neighborhood, in your decision on the project.
PUBLIC PROCESS. I appreciate the clear and accurate information the project planner and the neighborhood
coordinator have provided about this review process. I would contend, however, that the City’s earlier efforts at
public/resident involvement were less than adequate, and have boxed us into what I see as an extreme version of
increasing density in the town core, at the expense of the integrity of established neighborhoods.
First, I’m not aware of a significant public/resident involvement process during the time the broad plans for
increasing density were being considered, especially one that treated residents as equal stakeholders in the
decisions. If something like that did take place (a series of charettes, for example, like the ones recently
organized for short-term rentals), I just missed it, but it apparently was not very well advertised, since so many
residents were blindsided by the recent re-zoning.
Second, the notice of the actual zoning changes proposed was confusing, and the procedures in place severely
limited distribution and therefore response. The title of the notice says it refers to “The North 7th (Midtown)
Area.” I wasn’t a recipient, but neighbors tell me they said to themselves “Oh great, something’s going to
happen with N. 7th,” and tossed it, as I probably would have, not realizing that “North 7th” actually included
South 7th. If the City had been unmistakably clear, more people would certainly have been involved.
Now I’m sure the City can argue it met its own requirements, but that’s not the issue: it’s broader, about
genuinely, not just legally, involving residents, and tailoring public involvement so it’s proportional to the
impact of the decisions being considered. In this case, that didn’t happen, and we missed the chance to vet and
discuss an alternative that would increase core density significantly but also preserve the special nature of the
neighborhoods near downtown, an alternative that could have been a win-win.
Consider: the residents of the core neighborhoods are good, knowledgeable people, not the whiny complainers
SWMBIA would have everyone believe, and there would not be a SaveBozeman with ~ 300 likes and followers
and 1,652 views in the past week if those residents had been involved as stakeholders from the beginning. Who
knows, the decisions might have been better for the community, and with much more public support.
The City really needs to slow down the development train and revamp its view of what is appropriate and
adequate resident involvement. I’ve observed lately that the public process is more transparent and appropriate
for remote National Forest lands a hundred miles from home than it is for things happening just down the street
in my Bozeman neighborhood.