HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-17 Public Comment - P. Neubauer - Black Olive IIFrom:Paul Neubauer
To:I-Ho Pomeroy; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; Jeff Krauss; Agenda
Subject:Black Olive
Date:Friday, August 04, 2017 10:14:32 AM
Attachments:Black Olive.pdf
Commissioners:
Despite being as busy as you are and as much time as this takes, it is appropriate that you are
once again hearing the Black Olive application. This is a test case for Bozeman to determinewhat type of city we will become, and how will we respond when stated values in our
governing documents are in conflict, as they are here. As the body who sets policy for ourtown, it is your charge to take on these challenging issues. Thank you for doing so.
I realize you are likely tired of this topic, as are many others in town. But fatigue is no reason
to lower the bar on this application.
Yes, developers need certainty and have rights. But residents do as well. You are elected andentrusted to represent the rights and concerns of BOTH.
As well, though some may pursue this issue through ways unappealing to you, please don’t let
that discredit others who argue the same side in different ways. In other words, I hope you canseparate the message from the delivery, and hear the arguments afresh for what they are
worth. Allowing the rewrite of Subchapter 4B of the NCOD without adequate residentialhomeowner input was an unfortunate decision. Wendy Thomas’ memos and presentations
show that she anticipated some repercussions from that. Had that been done differently, Ithink we could have avoided a lot of this.
Similarly, if the applicant attempted to do a project that fit into its environment in both scale
and design, many of us would support it. By contrast, this application uses the minimumpossible setbacks, the minimum possible parking, and is trying to build the biggest structure
the city will allow. We need to remember that the parameters of the code are not guarantees. They are limits to be hit under ideal conditions, not numbers to be used in every site of the
same zoning designation.
Specific clauses may trump broad ones, but subjective and aesthetic concerns are addressedthroughout the Growth Policy AND UDC and cannot simply be dismissed in totality for
convenience. To say the application, “meets code” does a major disservice to the people who
spent hundreds of hours drafting documents that address things like neighborhood character,mass and scale, and preventing adverse impacts to city facilities (like parking). More to come
on that.
Some people say that South Side residents have way too much influence on city policy. Butyou know what? Policy is shaped by people who show up. And ‘South Siders’ do because
they care about their neighborhoods. That is not a failure, it’s a success. The desirability ofmuch of our town is a result of such activism.
Not every neighborhood is the same, so they should not be treated like they are. More to the
point, NOT EVERY INCH OF B3 ZONED PROPERTY SHOULD BE TREATED THESAME. Why should it? Context and democracy have to count for something. We don’t live
in a homogenous town. People would not continue to move here if we did.
The draft UDC would require a 15-foot setback on the South of the building per Section38.520.030.C to allow solar access for apartment dwellers. If the building is to remain a 5-
story vertical wall on that side, five feet is a ridiculously small setback, 15 being much better. Additionally, 15 feet is required between zone transitions. Considering the stark interface (the
sharpest density transition in town) and the fact that adjacent buildings are in residential use, a15-foot setback is far more appropriate for the S and E boundaries.
I urge you to go to the site, and face the adjoining neighborhoods to the South and East. Put
your toes 5 feet from the property line, like the building will be, and imagine yourself as theFederal Building, which is almost identical in size. Ask yourself if that seems right for the
site. If that is fair to the adjoining property owners who may never again park near the front oftheir homes, hauling kids and groceries.
If you are facing South, into the Black / Tracy Historic District, reflect on the notion that the
city would regulate the paint colors, window sizes, roof pitches, roofing materials, porch sizes,and all sorts of details on these homes TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC
DISTRICT. Yet, 5 feet off the property line, you can drop this big rectangular block? Really? Can that really be “right” on both sides of that line?
I also get the argument that property owners can’t claim ownership of parking spaces in front
of their homes. But then, Home Base gets credits for 3 on street parking spaces it does notown. How is that fair?
The applicant will likely cite the fact that his proposal is exactly what the Downtown Business
Improvement Plan calls for. Except that the “ideal” projects outlined in it have one off streetparking space for every dwelling unit. Without giving away the street spaces and car share
credits, this application STILL falls short. Recall as well that the DBIP is merely a chapter ofthe Growth Policy, which also REQUIRES that “future development patterns should not be
detrimental to the existing community, with special attention to be given to the support of theexisting Historic Core and Downtown of the community.” That’s us neighbors, whose
opinions SHOULD matter. Approving this application as it is would NOT be supportive ofour neighborhood.
In fact, “relevant comment from affected parties” is an official “REVIEW CRITERIA” of the
UDC Section 38.19.100.
This same section (OF LAW) REQUIRES YOU to consider, “compatibility with andsensitivity to the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods…
including mass and height, historical character, etc…”
Section 38.34.010 says the purpose of plan review is to, “prevent demonstrable impacts of thedevelopment upon…public facilities (parking),” and to, “conserve the value of adjoining
buildings or property.”
This project will regularly fill 50 parking spaces on the street. Downtown, and the rest of ourcommunity NEEDS those spaces. That IS a “demonstrable impact.”
The point I am trying to make is, it’s simply not that cut and dry. To say this application
“meets code” ignores far too many lines of our guiding documents and in my mind, is aninaccurate oversimplification.
Having been to the vast majority of the public meetings and hearings on this topic, I can say
from observation that at least half of the opponents of this project are NOT from theimmediate neighborhood. By contrast, nearly every proponent of the project is either a friend
or business associate of the applicant. The majority of opposition to this project is not fromobstinate, anti-growth, sprawl-loving NIMBY’s, but from people who want infill that
recognize the value of existing neighborhoods, and the capacity of current infrastructure.
This assertion is supported by the fact that the DRB has rejected this proposalUNANIMOUSLY, THREE TIMES. The project is out of scale for the site and they agree.
You have the authority to reshape this project up to the point of being, “arbitrary and
capricious.” Considering the findings of the DRB, and the language found throughout theGrowth Policy and the UDC that corroborates and bolsters the concerns brought up by copious
residents, you have a lot a latitude. I hope you have the will to use it.
Thank you VERY much for your time, consideration, and continued service to ourcommunity. I appreciate the great deal of work it takes.
Paul Neubauer