Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-17 Public Comment - P. Neubauer - Black Olive II1 Robin Crough From:Paul Neubauer <prneubauer@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2017 10:15 PM To:I-Ho Pomeroy; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; Jeff Krauss; Agenda Subject:Black-Olive Attachments:BO final.doc Categories:Public Comment Commissioners: 8 October, 2017 This application has succeeded in bringing many of the shortcomings of our city code to the attention of its citizens. It has also highlighted a number of things that challenge our aspiration of living in a “well run city” that encourages, honors, and acts upon the human capital invested in our city through volunteerism and activism. Worthy and legitimate development proposals are often met with opposition. But if a project that “meets code” can repeatedly draw scores of people from their homes in opposition, municipal code is most likely NOT reflecting the values of the residents. If that’s true, it’s a problem. We have contradictions within single city documents. The best example of which is the copiously cited Downtown Business Improvement Plan, and how it calls for greater density downtown. Cited as if this were the trump card for approving the Black Olive, the Downtown Plan is merely a chapter of the Growth Policy. The Growth Policy is explicit in its charge of safeguarding downtown neighborhoods. To cite the Downtown Plan as if it obliges overfill is counterproductive and dismissive of many pages of the Growth Policy. Historic Preservation is so important to Bozeman that we regulate all sorts of details on private homes within Historic districts. We have a Historic Preservation Board that is also charged with a preservation effort that has served us well. Yet in our codes, we encourage infill projects that fly in the face of Nationally Recognized Best Practices for preservation. Code contradicts the efforts of this board. All three of these conflicts need to be reconciled, and all are at the forefront of this application. I am sympathetic to the stress you commissioners face in these deliberations. But I’d like you to consider for a moment the stress of the people who live in these interface zones. These people come here to protect their neighborhoods, their investments, their families, and their homes. We hear a great deal about how developers “need certainty”, but what about the certainty of the existing residents? You had a chance to codify neighborhood protections within the NCOD, but declined. Though I have faith in the process, having your discretion and judgment as our sole protection is not that comforting. This has been a long and stressful process, and other than the findings of the DRB, we have not heard much in the way of consolation from the commission 2 or staff. I am NOT excusing it, but with all the stress and uncertainty faced by the residents, it is not surprising to me that some of the discourse has been less than cordial. We should have more certainty on BOTH sides of this equation. This lack of certainty guarantees a waste of human capital that no community can sustainably afford. I urge you to reflect on the many, many people who have come here in opposition from every corner of this valley, and compare that to the few who have spoken as proponents. Recognize that of the proponents, nearly all are either friends of the applicant, or in business with the applicant. If your deliberations have anything to do with democracy, this should be recognized. As I have said at nearly every public meeting on this application, I do support infill that recognizes the context of its surroundings. What we are opposing is a project with mass and scale that is simply too big for the site, as corroborated by the DRB three times, unanimously. This project should be no more than four stories and have ONE TRUE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT. Use of that parking space should run WITH the rental of the dwelling unit and not be an additional cost that will encourage people to park on the street. You have the authority and latitude to shape and scale this project in a way that can work for everyone. Please, show this town that you value the input of advisory boards and concerned citizens. The very future of citizen involvement does depend on it. Respectfully, Paul Neubauer Commissioners: 8 October, 2017 This application has succeeded in bringing many of the shortcomings of our city code to the attention of its citizens. It has also highlighted a number of things that challenge our aspiration of living in a “well run city” that encourages, honors, and acts upon the human capital invested in our city through volunteerism and activism. Worthy and legitimate development proposals are often met with opposition. But if a project that “meets code” can repeatedly draw scores of people from their homes in opposition, municipal code is most likely NOT reflecting the values of the residents. If that’s true, it’s a problem. We have contradictions within single city documents. The best example of which is the copiously cited Downtown Business Improvement Plan, and how it calls for greater density downtown. Cited as if this were the trump card for approving the Black Olive, the Downtown Plan is merely a chapter of the Growth Policy. The Growth Policy is explicit in its charge of safeguarding downtown neighborhoods. To cite the Downtown Plan as if it obliges overfill is counterproductive and dismissive of many pages of the Growth Policy. Historic Preservation is so important to Bozeman that we regulate all sorts of details on private homes within Historic districts. We have a Historic Preservation Board that is also charged with a preservation effort that has served us well. Yet in our codes, we encourage infill projects that fly in the face of Nationally Recognized Best Practices for preservation. Code contradicts the efforts of this board. All three of these conflicts need to be reconciled, and all are at the forefront of this application. I am sympathetic to the stress you commissioners face in these deliberations. But I’d like you to consider for a moment the stress of the people who live in these interface zones. These people come here to protect their neighborhoods, their investments, their families, and their homes. We hear a great deal about how developers “need certainty”, but what about the certainty of the existing residents? You had a chance to codify neighborhood protections within the NCOD, but declined. Though I have faith in the process, having your discretion and judgment as our sole protection is not that comforting. This has been a long and stressful process, and other than the findings of the DRB, we have not heard much in the way of consolation from the commission or staff. I am NOT excusing it, but with all the stress and uncertainty faced by the residents, it is not surprising to me that some of the discourse has been less than cordial. We should have more certainty on BOTH sides of this equation. This lack of certainty guarantees a waste of human capital that no community can sustainably afford. I urge you to reflect on the many, many people who have come here in opposition from every corner of this valley, and compare that to the few who have spoken as proponents. Recognize that of the proponents, nearly all are either friends of the applicant, or in business with the applicant. If your deliberations have anything to do with democracy, this should be recognized. As I have said at nearly every public meeting on this application, I do support infill that recognizes the context of its surroundings. What we are opposing is a project with mass and scale that is simply too big for the site, as corroborated by the DRB three times, unanimously. This project should be no more than four stories and have ONE TRUE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT. Use of that parking space should run WITH the rental of the dwelling unit and not be an additional cost that will encourage people to park on the street. You have the authority and latitude to shape and scale this project in a way that can work for everyone. Please, show this town that you value the input of advisory boards and concerned citizens. The very future of citizen involvement does depend on it. Respectfully, Paul Neubauer