HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-17 Public Comment - P. Neubauer - Black OliveFrom:Paul Neubauer
To:Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; I-Ho Pomeroy; Jeff Krauss; Agenda
Subject:Black Olive
Date:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:30:58 PM
Commissioners
With over 100 hours of meetings, research, and thought into the Black Olive, and not any
suggestion from word or deed that the concerns of my neighbors will be heard, I am writingthis letter from a position of frustration and duress.
How many times in the last six months have I heard, “Black Olive meets code?” Too many.
And how does that reconcile with UDC section 38.34.010, which states that commission
review is to, “prevent demonstrable adverse impacts to facilities,” and “conserve the value ofadjoining properties”?
Or how about 38.19.100 (4) which says that review authority shall consider, “compatibility
with and sensitivity to adjacent neighborhoods, including building mass and height?” or (5)“impact of proposal on parking conditions”.
Just after that, in section 19 the UDC mentions your responsibility to consider “relevant
comment from affected parties”. And after that in Section B, that the proposal be, “inharmony with the purposes and intent of the Bozeman Growth Policy”, which speaks at length
about the importance of maintaining neighborhood character.
I understand that narrow parts of code trump broader sections of code. But, as I was toldTWICE, DIRECTLY, by Marty Matsen, you have the legal authority to reshape this project all
the way up to the point of being “arbitrary and capricious”. Considering the clauses in the GPand UDC cited above, you have lots of latitude. Please don’t hide behind the defense of, “this
meets code” when you have the authority to shape this project in a way that TRULY meetsALL of the code AND ITS INTENT. Admit your authority. Embrace it. Use it. Don’t shirk
behind that line.
I’m on the Planning Board. I get the drive for higher density infill. But it doesn’t have to belike this. Even at 4 stories and a one to one ratio of off street parking spaces to dwelling units,
this would be THE HARSHEST interface of density to single family homes anywhere in
town. We don’t need to make it worse than that with another floor and half the parking. Nowhere else has this many units right against property lines of single family homes.
As commissioners, it is not your job to propose changes that conform with the applicant’s
desires for his return on investment. Your SOLE responsibility in terms of shaping this thingto work for all of us is to outline what you think works. It’s the applicants’ choice of whether
to build that or not, because there are infinitely many profitable building options for that site. And the vast majority would be far more amenable to the neighborhood than what is currently
drawn.
As the needs of a town change, so do the documents that govern development within thattown. Thus, the UDC is a living document, whose every section has a “life expectancy”. The
B-3 parking requirements, in my mind, are at the end of theirs. Even if that’s not that case,look at this proposal. Home Base is using 4 car share spaces to get out of providing
TWENTY off street parking spaces. This is insane, as such a program has no history at all inthis valley. To give credit for 8 spaces would be bold enough. Twenty is over the top,
particularly considering the study you contracted on the NCOD guidelines JUST LAST FALLthat said the city should, “conduct a comprehensive parking study to determine the impacts of
large scale development and include recommended changes to parking requirements.” Wepaid for that advice. Why should we now ignore it?
And when Chris Nauman starts pitching this project and how its just what all the downtown
business owners want, recall a few things. One…there is NOT unanimous support for thisproject among downtown business owners. At least 10 Main St. businesses now have, “infill
not overfill” signs in their windows. Two…they, and we downtown homeowners realize thatdowntown is vibrant because it is accessible to EVERYONE, not just those of us who can
walk there. If we want to share Christmas Stroll, Music on Main, Cruisin on Main, Art Walk,Farmers Market, etc…we need to have room for guests. We can’t host people if we have no
space for them. Three…if you look at the ideal developments outlined in the DBIP, they allhave one to one parking ratios, just like this project should.
Brady Earnst on the DRB articulated it really well when he said at the last meeting that he
was, “tired of developers using Zoning to determine context of a building.” Exactly. Notevery inch of B-3 is ideally suited to be built up into high density residential. It’s simply not.
B-3 building guidelines are PARAMETERS, NOT GUARANTEES. This project shares aproperty line with 4 residential properties, two of which will be cast in shadow during late
summer afternoons. Will that conserve the value of those properties? Is that sensitive? Compatible?
Looking at the city’s history of fostering civic engagement, and looking at the new Strategic
Plan which also states that as an important goal, it’s clear we are in danger of going down a
dangerous path relative to our ability to encourage civic volunteerism.
Here’s the city on paper saying, “don’t tuck your kid into bed or read him stories. Don’t mowyour lawn or paint your siding. Study some code. Come to some meetings. Tell us your
opinion.”
The fine people on the DRB have. Twice. They studied hard and gave you input on how theythought this building DID NOT make attempts to be considerate of the neighbors. They said it
was too big and was out of context with its environment. TWICE. And so have the hundredswho have gone to these meetings with Home Base, and the Commission.
We want civic involvement in our city? The only way to ensure we continue to get it is to
make sure it is heard and responded to. Ignore the input and it will stop coming.
Don’t ignore the input. Hear it.
Use your responsibility and authority to respond to it. Or you most certainly risk losing thecivic engagement of the people who have made this valley what it is. The residents.
Thanks for your service and consideration.
Paul Neubauer