Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-17 Public Comment - R. Peters & K. Bryan - Black OliveDear Commissioners, Thank you for your careful and informed deliberations pertaining to the upcoming decision regarding the Black-Olive proposed development. We have done some additional research that we believe needs further discussion. The 2 attached documents (Cover Letter and Chronology Report of Subchapter 4B guidelines) provide an executive summary and details of our findings. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Randy Peters Kate Bryan COVER LETTER “How and Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised. Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 1 of 3 April 10, 2017 From: Randy Peters and Kate Bryan -- Partners/Owners of 210 South Black Property, Bozeman (2-story B-3 residential multi-unit historic building bordering the proposed Black-Olive development) To: Bozeman City Commission Dear Members of the Bozeman City Commission: Thank you for your careful and informed decision making regarding the proposed Black-Olive proposal. As we prepare for the April 11th discussion and public input regarding the Black-Olive development decision, we have done some additional research that we think needs to be discussed because of the importance of the Black Olive development decision to our neighborhood, but also the precedent it will set for future development in the B-3 Halo area of Bozeman. As concerned citizens of Bozeman have become aware that Subchapter 4B of the NCOD (Revised B3 Design Guidelines) temporarily adopted in May of 2015 is having a significant impact on current decisions regarding the Black Olive development. Surprised by the “weight” that these revisions are being given, A number of concerned citizens were prompted to look into the process by which these revisions were created. In preparation for additional public comment and your subsequent decision to deny or approve the Black Olive project, we think it is important for the public to understand and assess the validity of the process and the driving forces influencing the NCOD B3 design guideline revisions and the degree to which the broad-based Bozeman community and critical stakeholders were not involved in those revisions in those revisions. The planning staff acknowledged in their 4/26/15 staff report (page 6) the critical importance of considering neighboring stakeholders as part of the NCOD revision process. “Where the B-3 interfaces with the historic neighborhoods in a critical area. Staff recommends that additional text be added to the Task Force Chapter to address this interface in order to allow all property owners the use and enjoyment of their property. It is critical to realize that all property owners within the NCOD have a stake in these guidelines and no property owner(s) should have an unfair benefit or burden due to the revision of the guidelines.” Our research shows that the NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines (Subchapter 4B) were crafted, revised and approved without the involvement of critical stakeholders (B-3 owners and neighborhood residences in close proximity to the B-3 halo area within the historic district. As a result these stakeholders are being unfairly burdened due to the revision of the guidelines and their application in development review decision making. The attached document provides the details of our research and the next two pages contain an executive summary of our findings. COVER LETTER “How and Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised. Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 2 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Our research involved detailed analysis of public documents (City Memorandums, Planning presentations, City Commission meeting minutes and videos, task force member discussion), in order to develop a chronological summary of how the temporary revisions to the NCOD were adopted in May 2015. As citizens of Bozeman, B-3 Property owners and persons who care deeply about the neighborhoods adjacent to our property, we have grave concerns about the process that was used to create the B-3 Design Guideline revisions temporarily adopted back in 2015 (and being referenced in 2017 development reviews). The revision process involving a select group of architects and design professionals was biased and the revisions were created in relative obscurity, out of the public eye and under the radar, without input from critical stakeholders most impacted by the revision. Per the Planning staff report (4/26/15), “All property owners within the NCOD have a stake in these guidelines and no property owner(s) should have an unfair benefit or burden due to the revision of the guidelines.” Based on the relatively short timeline from concept to adoption and the serious potential impacts of the changes, we conclude that the revision process was rushed without adequate time for stakeholder notification and input. This assertion is backed up Planning Staff report about their being “minimal time for collaboration” and that a decision was made to move forward in an “extremely timely manner,” Recent involvement in and observation of the current Black Olive development review, has also led us to conclude that intended-to-be-temporary subchapter 4B design guideline revisions and the Downtown Improvement Plan (DIP) are being given unreasonable and improper “weight” to the exclusion of the references to the importance of neighborhoods found in the Bozeman’s growth plan, NCOD and design guidelines. This biased and flawed process that left out critical stakeholders and the resulting B-3 design guidelines - which are currently being applied to current projects under review (e.g., Black Olive) - have the potential to lead to unfair and unjust decisions which negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods. It also creates the appearance that citizen input was not proactively sought and may even be disregarded in future development decisions in the halo area surrounding downtown Bozeman’s historic core (or elsewhere, for that matter). Specifically, this is what we’ve discovered as it relates to the development of Subchapter 4B of the NCOD: 1) The process was initiated in order to relax the NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines for the purpose of benefiting profit-oriented investors seeking B3 properties to develop in the B-3 halo area (developers either knocking at Bozeman’s door or existing developers looking for a next B-3 project) 2) The process to update the codes was initiated and led by the Downtown Bozeman Partnership (Chris Naumann), who’s primary goal is to represent the historic downtown core neighborhood and placing less emphasis on protecting adjacent neighborhoods and historic areas in the NCOD. 3) The task force, led by Downtown Bozeman Partnership, focused on ensuring that B-3 development in the halo are is in line with the objectives of the Downtown Improvement Plan (DIP) with little or no input from affected B3 property owners and adjacent neighborhoods. 4) The task force that was given the responsibility of drafting the NCOD B-3 design guideline changes were primarily architects with a vested personal business interest and potential conflict of interest related to the NCOD B3 changes which would benefit their existing or potential clients in developing such properties. COVER LETTER “How and Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised. Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 3 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Continued) 5) The NCOD B-3 revisions were developed by the task force without representation or input from parties most effected by the changes (e.g., B-3 property owners and citizens living in neighborhoods surrounding or in proximity to the B-3 Halo area). Again, per the Planning staff report (4/26/15), “All property owners within the NCOD have a stake in these guidelines and no property owner(s) should have an unfair benefit or burden due to the revision of the guidelines.” 6) The process for developing the guidelines was rushed, given the significant changes being proposed and the impact of those revisions on the community and citizens of Bozeman (6 weeks from initial City Commission request to first draft changes and an additional 3 weeks to approval). 7) The City Commission was warned (and shown visual examples) on at least two occasions by the Community Planning Director (Wendy Thomas) of how the proposed design guidelines could pose the risk of large dominating buildings being built without transition to or without consideration of the impacts to neighborhoods residing adjacent to or in proximity to B-3 properties developed. The City commission did not adequately address this risk to the neighborhood and the neighborhoods were not invited to participate in the task force (via the survey) in support of creating the revisions, nor otherwise asked to weigh in. 8) The general public was notified (via a paper notice) and B-3 owners were sent a postcard mailing “after” the guidelines had been drafted and presented City commission for input on May 4, 2015 -- just prior to the final decision to approve the revisions on May 18, 2015. Aside from the notice in the paper, we are unaware of any direct effort made to inform the neighborhood stakeholders about these significant revisions that had the potential to affect the “use and enjoyment of their property” and potentially result in an “unfair burden due to the revisions of the guidelines.” For the purpose of understanding the specifics of the flawed and biased process which resulted in the re-write of the NCOD design guidelines for B-3 halo properties, we have developed a chronology of the events that led up to their adoption. This attached chronological report included documented and dated excerpts and quotes from City Planning staff memorandums, planning staff presentations, City Commission meeting minutes & videos and task force process information. Due to the unfair and unjust manner by which the Subchapter 4B codes were developed, we contend that these revisions should not be relied upon as a decision making tool affecting development review decisions now or in the future. Sincerely, Randy Peters and Kate Bryan CHRONOLOGY REPORT: How & Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 1 of 6 Subchapter 4B – Development Chronology NCOD B-3 Design Guideline Revisions December 2014: The Idea for an “Update” is Floated: “Acutely aware of the potential impediments to downtown redevelopment the guidelines could cause,” Chris Naumann (Downtown Bozeman Partnership – DBP) worked with Wendy Thomas (Community Development Director) in December of 2014 to address the issue of convening of a task force to work on re-writing the B-3 Design Guidelines within the NCOD. (See 4/26/15 Planning Staff Report entitled “B-3/Design Guidelines Conflict”) NOTE: It is interesting to note that HomeBase 5 West project was approved by the City Commission in Dec. 2014 and per Mr. Holloran’s own public comment, subsequent to that project being approved, he began looking for another B-3 property in Bozeman to develop. At some point, HomeBase, Montana began exploring various B-3 locations, including Black-Olive, with input from the Community Development Department and the DBP regarding various sites and their respective potential for development. Dec. 2014 - Feb 2015: Informal Exploration for the Potential for NCOD Changes: Subsequently, under the leadership of Chris Naumann,informal discussions with planning department staff and the City commissioners occurred regarding the potential for changes to the NCOD B-3 Design Guideline changes. March 16, 2015: Formal City Commission Idea for Pursuing Changes: A formal presentation for considering potential updates was made to fellow commissioners by then Mayor, Jeff Krauss, re-stating the need to fulfill the goals of the DIP (Downtown Improvement plan) for greater infill create infill with greater height and density to spur greater investment in downtown Bozeman. Then Mayor, Jeff Krauss, stated that it’s important to “Strike while the iron is hot” and create changes to the NCOD which will “provide the kind of contemporary height and design that people are asking us to do.” Then Mayor, Krauss, formerly proposed the idea of changes to the NCOD and spoke of the NCOD being “at odds” with the quest for downtown development. The City Commission under the leadership of the Mayor directs the staff to look into and suggest possible changes to the NCOD. See 4/16/15 - City Commission Meeting Minutes and Recorded Video. Our Question/Concern is: “Who” are the people Mayor Krauss is referring to – the ones asking for the changes to the NCOD? The DBP “people?” The Developer “people?” It certainly doesn’t appear to be the Neighborhood “people” mostly affected by the proposed changes. March/April 2015: By-Invitation Survey Sent to a Select Group of Architects and Design Professionals Led by Chris Naumann (Downtown Bozeman Partnership), a survey was sent out to a select group of 50 architects and design professionals inquiring about their level of interest in participating in a task force for updating the B-3 Design Guidelines with the NCOD. See City Commission Staff Report, April 26, 2015. NOTE: Only architects and design professionals were personally invited to offer input on the changes. Residents and neighborhoods bordering the B-3 Halo area surround the downtown historic core were not invited to participate in the task force. CHRONOLOGY REPORT: How & Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 2 of 6 April 2015: Task Force – Formed with Architect and Design Professionals Eight (8) architects and/or design professionals responded to the survey and were subsequently made part of the B-3 Design Guideline revisions for the NCOD. Two People with some knowledge of the NCOD and/or interest in historic preservation were placed on the task in an informal capacity at some urging by the Historic preservation advisory board (only a few on the task force live in neighborhoods potentially affected by the B-3 Design Guidelines). The Community Planning Department was represented by Wendy Thomas and Brian Krueger) at these task force meetings in order to listen, observe and answer questions. See City Commission Staff Report, April 26, 2015. NOTE: The changes were pursued as a means of spurring investment in downtown and making it easier for potential for B-3 Development near neighborhoods and historic areas. These changes, however also came with the simultaneous potential for weakening and undermining the efficacy of the NCOD which was created to protect neighborhoods and historic areas. NOTE: “Seeing the Need, the Downtown Partnership (Chris Naumann) took a leadership position and started working with Stakeholders to see if there was a solution to address the issue (i.e., changes to the NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines) that wouldn’t require a significant commitment of tax dollars to remedy the need” See City Commission Staff Report, April 26, 2015. NOTE: A great deal of community input and planning staff/City commission time and financial investment went into creating the NCOD. On May 16th, 2015, the City commission referred to the need for potentially “big tweaks” in B-3 Design guidelines within the NCOD. Given the expected big changes, we contend that all stakeholders should have been involved. See 4/16/15 – City Commission Meeting Minutes and Recorded Video. Our Question//Concern: “Who” are the stakeholders being referred to? The architects and design professionals had a potential conflict of interest, given their business is highly impacted by their ability to gain professional services work associated with new development in Bozeman. We contend that the stakeholders (e.g., neighboring property owners and neighborhoods( with the most to lose from relaxing B-3 development standards within the NCOD, were not at the task force table and were left out of the process. April 6 and April 13, 2015: Architects & Design ProfessionalsTask Force Meets Facilitated by Mr. Naumann (Downtown Bozeman Partnership), the Task Force met on 2 occasions April 6 and 13th for 4 hours (from 8-12 AM). In these meetings, the task force “identified impediments to redevelopment within the B-3 outside the historic district” in preparation for drafting the guidelines. They also agreed that the current NCOD guidelines should apply in the downtown historic core, but should be revised for B-3 properties residing in the halo B-3 areas bordering neighborhoods. NOTE: The task force “rewrite effort was not without its challenges” and the task force spent a “disproportionate amount of time in the brainstorming phase.” This timeline left “insufficient time for additional collaboration.” In spite of this, it was the decision of the task for to “move forward without delay” in order to propose changes to the NCOD in an “extremely timely” manner. See 5/18/15 Planning Staff Report (B3/Design Guideline Conflicts) NOTE: We have learned that Brian Caldwell (Task force member) was the person on the task force primarily tasked with drafting the B-3 Design Guideline changes to the NCOD. Then, subsequent input from the other task force members was sought on the final draft accomplished via email. Our Question//Concern: Since it has been indicated that the Task force process for developing the B-3 Design Guideline revisions involved mostly brainstorming, what guidance was given to Brian Caldwell and by whom in crafting the initial draft of the guideline changes. This seems like a pretty major responsibility for a person who is not typically involved in writing code. How involved was the DBP in directing the content of the code. CHRONOLOGY REPORT: How & Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 3 of 6 April 26, 2015: Staff Memorandum “B-3/Design Guideline Conflict” was created for presented to Commission (Initial “Draft”) of the Design Guidelines with Options for Approach) The staff presented an initial “draft” of B-3 Design Guidelines as APPENDIX A of their memorandum to the City commission. This was introduced as the initial draft of the task force B-3 Design Guidelines and presented to the commission for feedback. In their Staff Memorandum, the City Staff clearly states: “Where the B-3 interfaces with the historic neighborhoods in a critical area. Staff recommends that additional text be added to the Task Force Chapter to address this interface in order to allow all property owners the use and enjoyment of their property. It is critical to realize that all property owners within the NCOD have a stake in these guidelines and no property owner(s) should have an unfair benefit or burden due to the revision of the guidelines.” See 4/26/15 Staff Report – B3/Design Guideline Conflict (page 6) NOTE: The first draft of the revisions to the B3 NCOD Design Guidelines shown in APPENDIX A of the staff report took 6 weeks to complete. This is a relatively short period of time for such a significant update to the code and for one that has such as a significant impact on the community, historic neighborhoods and residents living in areas bordering the B-3 Halo area around Bozeman’s core. As part of the presentation, the staff recommends: • The Commission Resolution enabling the proposed modifications include an expiration date to encourage completion of a more comprehensive design guidelines/ design strategy for this area. • For all three options the chart titled “How the Guidelines Apply” on p. 13 of the existing Guidelines should be revised. • The introduction chapter places emphasis on new infill projects fitting within the established neighborhood character. The City commission agreed to move forward with the staff’s recommendation create a temporary amendment to the NCOD “Option 2, the creation of a new chapter of the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Conservation Overlay District.” The City commission also requested:  Associated changes to the ‘How the guidelines apply’ chart on page 13 of the current NCOD document.  The commissions states that it hopes the new chapter “brings together relevant guidelines for both commercial and residential uses that are consistent with the B-3 district.”  As a more long-range solution, staff recommends Option 3, completion of a new set of design standards and design guidelines that are downtown specific. Public comment at this meeting consisted of Chris Nauman and Brian Caldwell (Task force members and the leaders of the task force who, we understand, took on the primary task of developing the draft of the B-3 revisions, due to “minimal time for additional collaboration” with other task force members. CHRONOLOGY REPORT: How & Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 4 of 6 May 4, 2015: Staff Memorandum “B-3/Design Guideline Conflict” presented to the City Commission for feedback. At this meeting, Wendy Thomas presented the changes to the design guidelines and there was discussion with the City Commission about the extent to which block character should be included or minimized as a consideration in the design process. There was also discussion regarding whether there should be “transitions to” or a “hard edge” between these B-3 halo properties and neighborhoods or historic structures in their proximity. She shared examples of what the impact would be of large buildings would be in terms of shadows cast and the extent to which the fit with the topography and streetscape within which they reside. In her presentation related to transition, Wendy Thomas made the statement that the then Mayor “specifically, believes in a hard edge and may prefer to see less guidelines than more.” She also stated, in a description of how the code revisions were created, that the “folks who participated were primarily architects” that offered input based on situations where they had “personally experienced, on behalf of clients, a rub between their client’s vision, their vision and the requirements of the NCOD.” She also referred to the process of developing the B-3 revisions a “community driven process” even though the only people involved in the process of developing the revisions were architects and not stakeholders (B-3 property owners. adjacent property owners and neighborhoods) which stood to be impacted most by the changes. After the presentation, public comment occurred which only included 3 members of the task force (Chris Naumann of the DBP, Brian Caldwell, the key task force person that was involved in drafting the B3 revisions and Jeff Thompson).  Chris Naumann stated that he felt the renderings (illustrating the risk for B3 high rises being built in immediate proximity to residential neighborhoods) were a bit off because they “showed every building at the maximum height.” At the same time he said “This is about transitions” but that he wasn’t sure that the “burden of transitions should fall on the B-3.”  Brian Caldwell (a principle member of the task force involved in the creation of the initial draft of the B-3 Design guideline revisions) stated that the conflict in the B-3 design guidelines “doesn’t exist between the task force, planning staff or commission or anyone else.” He also states that there is a “2009 downtown design guidelines objective plan” which is an “actual form of Growth policy and that design guidelines need to come from that policy.” He also stated that he believes that the community is well-served by the task force by their“ making the design guidelines match the policy of the Downtown Improvement Plan.” CHRONOLOGY REPORT: How & Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 5 of 6 May 8, 2015: Codes Finalized with Task Force for City Commission Consideration and Potential Approval (Public Notice Given & B-3 Property Owners Informed) The City planners and the task force met on May 8th to discuss final revisions to Subchapter 4B Around this same time, a public notice was placed in the newspaper and a postcard was sent to the B-3 property owners. It appears that this all transpired after the May 4, 2015 commission meeting, giving at the most 14 days for B-3 property owners to respond. In Wendy Thomas’ comments at the May 18, 2015 City commission meeting, she did not indicate that any postcards were sent to the neighborhoods. This is a serious issues as it appears that the residential neighborhoods were not informed of the B-3 design guideline changes and/or the potential impact on their properties. NOTE: The first draft of the revisions to the B3 NCOD Design Guidelines took 6 weeks and the final changes were approved by the commission in a mere 8 weeks. This is truly and extremely fast timeline for making “big tweaks” to the codes which have such a significant potential impact on the residence of historic Bozeman and the all the neighborhoods bordering the B-3 Halo properties. NOTE: If the design guideline changes were created with “minimal additional collaboration” a logical conclusion would be that a few people consulted with Mr. Caldwell on the first draft. We’d like to know who those people were? Were they from the task force? Were they primarily Chris Naumann and the City Staff? How was the initial draft content created and by whom? NOTE: On May 8th, City planning “Staff met with the task force to review the suggested changes to the draft per City Commission input. No reference is made as how the final draft of the guidelines was created and by whom. Our Questions/Concern: We’d also like to know why the process was rushed (“move forward without delay) to completion. Were there specific projects in the pipeline or investment transactions that were dependent on these changes going through in an “extremely timely fashion?” CHRONOLOGY REPORT: How & Why NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines Were Revised Prepared by Randy Peters & Kate Bryan - 210 S. Black (Phone: 406-585-1320) Page 6 of 6 May 18, 2015 – Staff Presentation and City Commission Adoption of NCOD B-3 Design Guidelines (Subchapter 4B) The commission meeting started at 4 PM. Around 10 PM, there was City Commission discussion about whether to continue the meeting and discuss the proposed NCOD B-3 Design Guideline revisions (the new, Subchapter 4B of the NCOD). Although the City commissioners expressed fatigue and some resistance to delay or coming back another time, the commission decided to continue the meeting until 11 PM in order to vote on the revisions. After this decision to move forward, Wendy Thomas made a presentation starting 10:15 PM to the City Commission. In addition to presenting the revised B-3 design guidelines, she visually illustrated the risks associated with the proposed revisions to the B-3 Zoning. She shared stark visuals ” (before and after images) of what she deemed “Worst possible scenario” that might happen that could occur as a result of approving these revisions without significant consideration of transitions between B-3 and adjacent or close-proximity neighborhoods. See 5/18/17 City Commission recorded video In Wendy Thomas’ presentation, she showed the potential for a hard edges between large buildings and adjacent neighborhoods (in the Bozeman B-3 Halo area surround the Downtown Bozeman historic core). In this presentation, Wendy Thomas is quoted as follows.  “It is my firm belief that consideration in the amendment of these guidelines should be given to abutting property owners next to this B-3 District”  “This is a worst possible case scenario.”  “This type of development in a backyard of a residential property owner would have an adverse affect on the residences and the people living there“  “I also make the supposition that this could possibly have adverse affects on their (i.e., the neighbors) property values” After the presentation, there was little to no discussion of how to guard against or adjust the B-3 Design Guideline revisions to address the worst possible case transition scenarios presented. Most of the discussion by the City commission focused on a what-if scenario involving a situation where a property owner owned a residential property and an adjacent B-3 property and whether the B-3 design guidelines should still apply The B-3 Design Guidelines were approved at 11:05 PM.