The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-18-17 Public Comment - J. Ball - Black Olive II, UDC, B-3, NCOD (4B)City Commission City of Bozeman, Montana September 18, 2017 Re: City Master Plan issues; Black Olive Project; ADU’s; B-3 Zoning; NCOD Dear commissioners, I am writing concerning several items that are on your plate at the moment. 1. Black Olive Project denial as presented: I request that you follow through on the recommendation (3x) of the Design Review Board, and on your own observations- that the project as submitted, re-submitted multiple times- falls short. The synopsis is, wrong site for the project as presented. Issues cited were height and mass for the location, inadequate parking. I’d add that the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District indicates that projects in or adjoining historic existing neighborhoods should make an effort to be in sympathy and respect the existing conditions. Black Olive does not. Examples of projects in the area that HAVE made an effort are legion: Re-development of the old Willson School; Goetz Law Office Expansion; Jacobs Crossing; 777 East Main Building. Locati development--and others--on East Main. This is not NIMBYISM, or BANANA. It is the opposite. This IS my back-yard. It’s akin to the Supreme Court definition of pornography— we know it when we see it. Black Olive falls short under the NCOD mandate. Deny the project as proposed. You are not saying no, you are saying what you said before--come back with a meaningful revision. Four stories, adequate parking. The disrespect shown by the developer to the DRB and the Commission for their time, input, feedback and direction is galling, perturbing, and fosters palpable antipathy and ill-will from the community. 2. Conversion of temporary B-3 revisions, from 2015, to permanent code: I request the Commission NOT make the changes permanent. In fact, the Commission needs to slow down, and revise the temporary B-3 provisions, as it works through in codifying the new Master Plan ordinance. Specifically, the City should do at least these things: -Re-draw the boundaries of the B-3 so that in NO CASE does the line go through a block mid- block. The lines should follow streets, never alleys, and never bisect a block. This will force into place a de-facto buffer of at least 60 feet (or whatever the right of way width for the given street is). It creates a buffer between the hard line of the various Zone interfaces. For those properties that previously had a B-3 zoning designation after my proposed realignment, the following process should be implemented: If a project is proposed, and suffers ANY comments that are unsupportive, negative, the objector(s) and developer should meet, with volunteers from the Community Mediation Center, to hammer out and make the project palatable, and the Amended project should move forward. Take the DRB and City commission OUT of the process. Force both the aggrieved impacted neighbors and developer to figure it out. Put it back on them. Get out of the way of lawsuits and acrimony. -Notice: Notice provisions should be broad and deep. Project developers should deliver in writing the notice of the proposed development and plan to anyone within 300 feet of a project. The Notice should also be placed on-site, on a wedge-shaped two-panel 4’ by 4’ fluorescent orange sign, placed at least 60 days prior to the first hearings on the project. NO EXCUSES or accusations of lack of notice, or the choice to sleep on/ waive rights. -Delete the ‘chaos theory’ irresponsible approach to inadequate parking. Require adequate parking on site. If the site cannot endure parking requirements, it should not be presented. The presently malfeasant inadequate irresponsible cash-in-lieu, collecting $5,000 per space from developers for what will cost $25K to $30K , is criminal and unfair. Expecting the residents to subsidize a project by 80 cents on the dollar, PLUS endure a parking shortfall until a parking garage can be constructed, smack of the worst aspects of Fascism. Socialism turned inside out: socialize the costs of development into the tax base, privatize and internalize the gains and profits into the pockets of the developers, at the expense of the taxpayers. I resent this with every fiber of my being. It is revulsive. -Lower the maximum building height to three – at most four- stories, as is the pattern of downtown. Going up WILL NOT prevent sprawl. The City of Bozeman has no control over outlying sprawl. Wages and housing costs in and close to town are driven by the magical Mr. Market. Unaffordability and wage gains are not in the cards in this dreamy college town. The toxic mix of college and amenity/appeal make sprawl and parking/traffic issues inevitable. Much of the valley was subdivided after the 1972 Subdivision and Platting Act came in to effect. Land division, and the implicit ensuing sprawl were baked-in decades ago. I would be happy to show any of you this fact which is ascertainable with a glance at the records at the Clerk and Recorder at County Courthouse. The sprawl horse left the barn years ago. Quit using this ‘prevent sprawl’ canard. It is embarrassingly disingenuous. Yesterday’s perusal of the real estate listings uncovered a Gem: 5 West – a 2 Bath 1 Bedroom unit, $500K, with views of the mountains. How nice that the developer can offer the viewshed that he took from the rest of us!! I can’t wait to see the dark canyons of these post WW2 Soviet style featureless monoliths and the cold, icy aesthetic they will foster from mid-October through April. Can you say Icy Streets? Ponder the real estate values on Main--- higher on the north side, the ‘sunny side’ of Main. We are a phototrophic creature--- these tall buildings will make the town colder and less inviting. At two to three stories, the sun has a fighting chance to peak over the roof-tops mid-winter. “The Pattern Language”, a wonderful tome on design, architecture, and successful, universally appealing development patterns throughout the world, admonishes towns to never allow buildings over four stories. The Commission should NOT make the interim provisional 2015 changes permanent. They should slow down and revise them to keep and defend what makes Bozeman’s aesthetic alive. 3. ADU’s: Fully functional ADU’s, with Kitchens and Bathrooms, should be encouraged where the lot size and site has adequate space. The guidelines should be the same as those mentioned above: plenty of and proper notice, the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District protections respected, and a mediated collaborative Project developed by the developer and neighbors. 4. NCOD prevails in cases of conflict: Again, this goes back to the unquantifiable feng shui appeal of the historic portions town. Respect, cherish, forster and protect the appealing downtown historic core. The dense development on Oak, between north 11Th (extension) and north 15th is an example of areas where no one is quibbling. Ironically, the buildings never seem to exceed three stories! I implore the City to slow down and take a breath. The speed and haste that seem to be prevailing right now is alarming. Act in haste, repent in leisure. Blowing this will be a legacy that will be on your head and shoulders. The haste regarding 2 issues in particular— -making permanent the 2015 B-3 interim code permanent, and -the apparent desire to make the NCOD subservient to the new proposed Planning code are of particular concern. A cynical view would hold that it appears that the City is attempting to avoid the hard work of getting it right, and instead using a clever parliamentary dance to avoid litigation, accommodate the development community, and completely disregard a significant amount of public concern and outcry that has emerged in the last year. One might reasonably question who is being represented- the citizens at large, whose collective property values and tax base far outstrip that of the handful of developments at issue, or the developers. Paradoxically, the TIF districts make many of these developments non-contributary to the broader tax base and town. I’d like a TIF!! It would appear that there is significant regulatory capture- the DRB has NO ONE serving from the historic preservation arena, or a lay person from the community at large. Non-architect/ builder types need not apply. Why is that? The Planning and Zoning commission is soley comprised of builder, developers, and architect-types. Really bad in appearance and in fact. The irony of not looking at these issues and making significant changes to the zoning code will ensure the furor over the present Black Olive situation over and over again. You all can and should do better than that, both for the community, the developers, and the legacy that you all are creating going forward. I appreciate your consideration- sincerely! Jeff Ball 323 S. Wallace Bozeman