Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-17 Public Comment - A. Kirk - UDC Update Subchapter 4B Mr. and Mrs. Allan R. Kirk 227 East Olive Street Bozeman MT 59715 17 September 2017 Bozeman City Commission Bozeman City Hall North Rouse Street Bozeman MT 59715 RE: Comments on Agenda Item G5, Ordinance 1981 Reaffirming and Reapproving Resolution 4598 To the Bozeman City Commission: We respectfully ask the City Commission not to reaffirm and reapprove Resolution 4598. In 2015 this resolution created Subchapter 4B of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, removing block character provisions protecting historic neighborhoods from the construction of high-rise apartment buildings overlooking private residences, with insufficient setbacks and parking. Inadequate notice about Resolution 4598 was provided, preventing adjacent landowners (like us) from participating in the public discussion about Subchapter 4B and objecting to it in a timely manner. Legal notices published in the newspaper on short timelines do not constitute effective or adequate notice about decisions affecting real property, and the current, accelerated process of review allowed for Ordinance 1981 is further evidence that the Commission is not listening to its constituents on this subject. The Commission should address its inadequate notice procedures as soon as possible through rulemaking. Further, hundreds of Bozeman citizens have expressed their expectation for timely and effective notice in a Save Bozeman petition submitted to the record for this hearing. This includes more than 25% of residential property owners within 150 feet of the B3 commercial property, who have formally objected to the adoption of ordinance 1981 in a separate petition. As in 2015, your vote to pass this motion to meet short term development objectives will fail to address the far more substantive and important need to develop meaningful transitions that will allow for appropriate infill development within the halo zone. This act of “rubber stamping” the mistaken decisions of 2015 is nothing less than a violation our property rights, which again fails to actually consider the opinions of affected landowners. We urge you not to repeat this mistake again, based on the following Montana law and Bozeman City statutes o The public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law.” Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 8. o The City’s notice provision further contemplates meaningful citizen participation, providing that “[n]otice is required in order for citizens to participate in decision making which affects Kirk Comments Ordinance 1981 September 18, 2017, p. 2 their interests and provides opportunity to receive information pertinent to an application that would not otherwise be available to the decision maker.” See UDC, Section 38.40.010. o The Design Guidelines were adopted in 2006 through an inclusive public process. We as citizens merely expect the same process for amendments to the Design Guidelines, including Subchapter 4B, which has had and will continue to have consequential impacts on numerous property owners if affirmed and readopted as is. We support continued, orderly development and growth in Bozeman, and agree with the 2015 opinion of City Staff that “[w]here the B-3 interfaces with the historic neighborhoods in (sic) a critical area, additional text [should have been] 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 page April 26, 2015 City Memo entitled “B-3 Design Guidelines Conflicts”, page 6/127. The City of Bozeman was advised by a consultant to revise and update the NCOD in a December 2015 Final Report, see https://www.bozeman.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=3128. Although funding has been available for this work for many months, the City is only now making preparations to revisit the NCOD guidelines in response to these recommendations, to address the following: o Some development professionals were and continue to be encouraged by the recent redevelopment efforts within the NCOD noting that Bozeman is transforming into a more sophisticated city. As noted in one neighborhood meeting, residents were not against future development and the demolition of buildings. Rather, residents wanted to be more informed of upcoming projects and the potential impacts – good and bad – future projects would have on their property. See page 33. o The 2014 Parking Study further states, that “while the results of the occupancy rate analysis did not indicate any problems at present, it is possible that issues may arise in the future. This is particularly true if downtown tourism traffic continues to grow.” With the recently completed high density developments along Mendenhall and proposed development along Lamme, parking will undeniably continue to be a premium for infill developments. The Study further notes, “While adequate parking capacity still exists in the downtown area to absorb these peaks at present, occupancy rates (and possibly dwell times) should continue to be monitored in the future.” Parking adequacy is a frequent subject of public comment on development applications and is likely to continue to be a “hot topic” going forward. See page 33-34. o R-4 zoning near Mendenhall and 7th may be appropriate as this location to encourage higher density residential development with walkability to downtown and close proximity to public transportation and businesses. Based on the development patterns of the area, this type of development and massing could potentially have a negative impact on the historic character of the area and would be visually in conflict with the current massing and scale. Other than the NCOD guidelines that are currently in place and the available historic inventories for these buildings, there is nothing to preclude this area from that type of development and change. See page 38. (Emphasis added). Kirk Comments Ordinance 1981 September 18, 2017, p. 3 o In accordance with the NCOD Guidelines, the 1950s residence would need to follow the Design Guidelines for All Properties, Guidelines for Residential Character Areas and District Specific Descriptions and Guidelines. If the adjacent land became vacant and the owner of the 1950s ranch made a decision to acquire the property and to demolish the existing non-contributing structure for new development, there would be little from a zoning position to discourage the high density residential (multi-story apartments) in that location despite its obvious conflict from the established residential, low density context. o In this area, an R-4 zoning pattern is inconsistent with the current character of the area. Permitted setbacks, height and lot coverage would stand in stark contrast to the surroundings. This type of high density development, while permitted, would likely have a negative impact on the character of the area. The solution would be to rezone the property or at the very least develop stronger design guidelines to ensure context sensitive design. The context of the area is generally single-household homes. See page 44. (Emphasis added) o An R-4 zoning pattern bordering the business zoning districts that make up the city core (Downtown, Main Street, Mendenhall, Babcock, etc.) is logical and a sound concept, especially as it serves as a buffer to a lesser density residential district. It is contrary for two reasons, however. Residential high density zoning conflicts with the general historic development patterns of the area. The current NCOD District Specific Descriptions state about the Bon Ton District: “Because of this combination of both vernacular architecture, which is similar to that found elsewhere in the city, and high style architecture, which is found nowhere else in the city, the Bon Ton District possesses a character that is unique, but that is nevertheless consistent with the character of the two bordering historic districts. The Bon Ton Historic District is therefore the centerpiece of a vast historic, residential area in Bozeman. o The NCOD guideline also notes the similar building setbacks, similar building façade widths and lengths, alley access, the presence of secondary buildings at the rears of property and front porches as defining characteristics of the district. It would be difficult for a new apartment building to meet these criteria. Second, the NCOD guidelines also recommend that the identified district characteristics are reflected in the building design when constructing a new building, including use of wood and masonry, and simple rectangular building forms with sloping roofs. Because of the foreign nature of an apartment building within the district, these criteria would be difficult to accomplish, despite the adjacent apartment complex which could easily be identified equally as the single household residence when considering context. See page 46. (Emphasis added). Any process affecting the revision of the NCOD, including the subject ordinance, must be comparable to the formal, transparent process which involved all stakeholders in 2006, as described in the NCOD itself: o “The City of Bozeman resolved to create an interactive process for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Design Guidelines project, through which the residents of Bozeman, the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) and Design Review Board (DRB) Kirk Comments Ordinance 1981 September 18, 2017, p. 4 expressed their concerns and expectations for the final product. The result has been a cooperative system of dialogue and values-clarification from which the City determined relevant concerns and goals for the District. This was accomplished through several public workshops. At these sessions, participants discussed positive attributes of the City’s historic neighborhoods and identified design issues that cause concern about future development. By completing exercises and discussions, the Bozeman residents took an active role in shaping the guidelines for the District.” See NCOD Guidelines, Introduction, page 3. NOTE: This is a quote from the Design Guidelines. o As you know, in 2015 Subchapter 4B was not adopted by in interactive process through which residents of Bozeman were allowed to participate. It should not be rubberstamped now furthering that lack of participation. Rather, the same exercises and discussions in which Bozeman residents took an active role in shaping the guidelines for the District in 2006 should be undertaken. As in 2006, a cooperative system of dialogue and values- clarification must take place and residents’ relevant concerns and goals for the District must be considered. Sincerely, Lisa Bithell Kirk, Ph.D., P.Geo. Xc: Martin Matsen, Director Community Planning Save Bozeman, Inc.