HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07-17 Public Comment - P. Neubauer - Black OliveFrom:Paul Neubauer
To:I-Ho Pomeroy; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; Jeff Krauss; Agenda
Subject:Black Olive
Date:Friday, April 07, 2017 5:00:44 PM
Commissioners,
We are in the home stretch of the Black Olive application, and I appreciate your sustainedeffort and interest in this critical project.
After all these hours, and the public hearing, I want to tell you what now stands out to me, and
many of my well-informed neighbors.
1) The attached memo from Wendy Thomas to the Commission dated 5/18/15 looks bad. Particularly the second page at the bottom where it says, “timeline left: insufficient time for
added collaboration,” and “decision of the Task Force to move the process forward withoutdelay.”
Really? Why should changes to OUR CODE, effecting OUR NEIGHBORHOODS be done
“without delay” regardless of “insufficient time for collaboration?” What would the rush be? The “Task Force” was made up primarily of developers and architects, and a few vastly
outnumbered homeowners. This memo flies in the face of city policies that state a desire forcommunity driven decisions and needs to be addressed.
2) Home Base’s parking consultant has a conflict of interest in working for the city AND the
applicant. His written and verbal testimony should be stricken from the public record and theapplication materials. As professionals, both the consultant and the applicant should know
better.
Additionally, as required by Administrative Policy 2017-01, Home Base needs to have a“copy of the agreement with the car share provider submitted with application materials” in
order to be approved. We will all be watching to make sure this step is followed.
3) As reluctant as the city attorney was to acknowledge it, the commission has the authority tolimit the amount of car share vehicles the applicant can deploy to minimize the off street
parking he needs to provide.
This is an unproved concept in this area and should not be used to such an extent in its first
field test. Once this project is built, we will live with the results PERMANENTLY. Parkingspaces are a city resource that you are charged with protecting from being overwhelmed. This
resource is to be shared by everyone. Not just neighborhood residents.
4) If the city wants civic involvement, it has to respond to the input.
People will not continue to serve on advisory boards whose input is not heeded. The DRB (an
objective board that approved the SoBo unanimously) has rejected this project twiceUNANIMOUSLY. The applicant has property rights and wants certainty. But we neighbors
have rights as well.
It was the choice of the applicant to build something big. Something bold. His hand was notforced. This project could have been done in a way that would have reduced the resistance by
90%. But that is not what he chose to do.
This finger of B-3 zoning is not going to grow southward down Bozeman Ave. The neighborswill never let it happen. What that means is, THIS IS THE INTERFACE. It does not need to
be a seventy-foot wall ten feet off of people’s property lines, and it should not be.
This is a tough issue, and I’m sure it’s stressful. But this is the role of a Commission: todecide what is fair and represent the entire community when the rights of different parties
collide.
I implore you to use your authority and do what is right, which I believe to be four stories, andone off street parking space per dwelling unit.
Please see the attached memos.
Thank you for your continued service to our city.
Paul Neubauer