Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-18 Public Comment - A. Breuer - Van Winkle Stadium ProposalFrom: Abigail Breuer To: Agenda Cc: Tanya Andreasen; Courtney Johnson Subject: [SENDER UNVERIFIED]Van Winkle Stadium- detailed comments Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 10:26:15 AM Attachments: City Commissoners_Van Winkle Stadium_Informal Review comments_Feb 2018.docx Dear City Commissioners: I am glad to learn you are re-considering additional investment in the Bozeman Sports Park, and wonder if your timing might mean the out-of-the-box suggestion for moving the new Van Winkle Stadium to that location could be re-considered? I am attaching detailed comments on the Van Winkle Stadium proposal, in the attachment. As the comments are lengthy, I am providing my first page in the body of this email, so you can gain my perspective at a glance. Given the District’s history of strong-arming its way into a reality with complete disregard for its mid- town location and neighbors on the BHS campus, I provide specific comments on the Van Winkle Stadium proposal detailed in the attachment. Yet, I believe the stadium relocation proposal to be the nail-in-the-coffin for my once up-and-coming mid-town neighborhood. Given the District’s regular disregard for the UDO and well-vetted planning principles along North 11th Avenue, the proposal solidifies the new role of neighboring properties as adjuncts to the District’s purposes and activities, rather than private homes capable of retaining their own integrity. Essentially, the stadium relocation guarantees that homes surrounding BHS will revert to rentals as the degree of disturbance to neighboring properties resulting from the lack of Master Planning on the BHS campus is already at untenable proportions. Further, the Stadium is now the fourth Bozeman High School renovation project in which the District has shown or described one version of events publically, pre-bond, yet executed another post-bond without providing an opportunity for meaningful—or in two cases, any—public involvement. In all three prior cases, the lack of transparency has resulted in ongoing, active infringement on neighboring properties that would have been avoided through the use of standard planning processes. Neighbors’ request for a publically-vetted, inclusive Master Planning process—in which the District has refused to engage—is an appeal to regain the ability to invest in our homes. In the past 2.5 years, I have seen the District propose a building, a road, and now a stadium across from my home. BHS neighbors need to know that changes to the campus will no longer be made without the benefit of transparency, proper impact identification, and accountability. We wish to understand the up-to- date needs of our larger neighbor, be informed of planning processes in a timely and inclusive manner that allows for meaningful participation, and find means to ensure that we are not caught by surprise in a way that renders our own investment near the BHS campus null and void. Moreover, avoiding the expense of water main relocation is the public rationale stated by the District for the proposed relocation of the stadium. Given the fact that DRC review shows there are electric line, sewer connection, gas main, and chemical contamination issues in relation to the proposed stadium location, this rationale can no longer be claimed. I would like to see a proposal for the stadium rebuilt in place, as was described to the public in over 65 outreach meetings pre- bond, in numerous articles in the Chronicle, and in the video, still posted, on the District’s Future High Schools website. Thank you, Abigail Breuer 502 N 11th Avenue February 12, 2018 Dear City Commissioners: I am glad to learn you are re-considering additional investment in the Bozeman Sports Park, and wonder if your timing might mean the out-of-the-box suggestion for moving the new Van Winkle Stadium to that location could be re-considered? Given the District’s history of strong-arming its way into a reality with complete disregard for its mid- town location and neighbors on the BHS campus, I provide specific comments on the Van Winkle Stadium proposal below. Yet, I believe the stadium relocation proposal to be the nail-in-the-coffin for my once up-and-coming mid-town neighborhood. Given the District’s regular disregard for the UDO and well-vetted planning principles along North 11th Avenue, the proposal solidifies the new role of neighboring properties as adjuncts to the District’s purposes and activities, rather than private homes capable of retaining their own integrity. Essentially, the stadium relocation guarantees that homes surrounding BHS will revert to rentals as the degree of disturbance to neighboring properties resulting from the lack of Master Planning on the BHS campus is already at untenable proportions. Further, the Stadium is now the fourth Bozeman High School renovation project in which the District has shown or described one version of events publically, pre-bond, yet executed another post-bond without providing an opportunity for meaningful—or in two cases, any—public involvement. In all three prior cases, the lack of transparency has resulted in ongoing, active infringement on neighboring properties that would have been avoided through the use of standard planning processes. Neighbors’ request for a publically-vetted, inclusive Master Planning process—in which the District has refused to engage—is an appeal to regain the ability to invest in our homes. In the past 2.5 years, I have seen the District propose a building, a road, and now a stadium across from my home. BHS neighbors need to know that changes to the campus will no longer be made without the benefit of transparency, proper impact identification, and accountability. We wish to understand the up-to-date needs of our larger neighbor, be informed of planning processes in a timely and inclusive manner that allows for meaningful participation, and find means to ensure that we are not caught by surprise in a way that renders our own investment near the BHS campus null and void. Moreover, avoiding the expense of water main relocation is the public rationale stated by the District for the proposed relocation of the stadium. Given the fact that DRC review shows there are electric line, sewer connection, gas main, and chemical contamination issues in relation to the proposed stadium location, this rationale can no longer be claimed. I would like to see a proposal for the stadium rebuilt in place, as was described to the public in over 65 outreach meetings pre-bond, in numerous articles in the Chronicle, and in the video, still posted, on the District’s Future High Schools website. Stadium lighting As a resident of N 11th Avenue, I know what it is like to have stadium lights and events ‘moved’ opposite a R-1 zoned home without public input. In my case, it was not the lights that moved, but the tennis courts. Absent the screening of the tennis courts since their relocation in 2015, I now quite literally jump inside my home when the soccer stadium lights are turned on. 2 In the past, the soccer stadium lights were used primarily for school events. However, in recent years, the lights and practice fields have come into use for marching band and football practices, and also been rented for community use. I imagine this is the same type of multiple use envisioned for the proposed relocation of Van Winkle Stadium. Absent a plan for additional screening from neighbors, I expect the nearby residents of North 15th, like me, will now live ‘at the game’. If I were more enterprising, I would sell comfort-seating from the vantage of my dining table for sports enthusiasts who wished for a perfect view of the fields and fans without braving the elements. Rather, I would like the opportunity to host my own guests without regular interruption, or to trim any of the large evergreens in front of my home, including the one that forces me to duck as I reach my driveway and is now scraping my car, whose protection I can’t give up given the District’s refusal to respond to appeals to help reduce the impact of its vastly increased evening field and parking lot use through some sort of screening—say a row of trees on its property and/or along the boulevard--from North 11th homes. Stadium parking I also have first-hand experience of the addition of expanded, night use of on-street and on-campus parking for BHS events, without any chance for public review of associated infrastructure changes. As with the Van Winkle Stadium proposal, the parking lot expansion associated with the District’s Support Services building renovation in 2012 was not revealed publically pre-bond. Instead, as a neighbor within 200 feet, I learned of the project when my younger child looked out of the window and exclaimed: “Look, mommy, trees!” in response to seeing the bucket-loader remove vegetation that had served as a screen between our home and District activities. If the support services building parking lot, and the teacher’s lot near the North 11th entrance are to be counted towards the 1000 spaces for the re-located stadium, I ask they be screened from neighbors. This screening needs to be along the east-west axis of the parking lots, as well as north-south along North 11th as the turning of cars inside the lots is as prominent as their exit. In the case of the Support Services building lot, I would also like night exit to become one-way, onto Durston, as even with wooden blinds I am keenly aware of all cars leaving the lot after-business hours. Two months ago, a hit-and-run truck departing the lot on a Friday night swerved onto the street and caused over $1500 in damage to my car, parked on the street. Passers-by witnessed the incident, and reported it to me and the police. The subject has not been found. Similarly, parking on North 11th Avenue on both sides of the street has already been commandeered for District activities, given that the teacher’s lot near the North 11th entrance does not serve this need adequately. I am already aware of the many night activities of the High School as it is often more convenient for facility users to park on the street to access the North 11th entrance than the on-campus lots, given the location of the entrance. As a result of the Stadium relocation, the BHS Parking District on both sides of campus must be expanded until 10pm, no matter the additional cost to neighbors or the City of doing so. Already, my guests regularly encounter difficulty parking due to the numerous night events taking place inside BHS. It is worth noting the parking lots along North 11th Avenue are the 2nd and 3rd parking lots added to the BHS campus without screening from neighbors. The lot on North 15th was screened by vegetation 3 following objections from North 15th neighbors. Even with this prior knowledge, the District subsequently added two lots on North 11th Avenue that also disregard neighbors and the City’s UDO. As on the second high school campus, all of these lots would typically have been placed interior to the school campus, rather than at property boundaries where they stand as permanent sources of disturbance for neighbors and eyesores for all. This example is one of many where a Master Plan for the campus would have yielded a different result. A North 15th neighbor has described the addition of the perimeter parking lot on that side of campus as the ‘undoing’ of her neighborhood. And, that is before the lot becomes a significant source of night disturbance. With the stadium entrance planned to face North 15th, rather than interior to the campus, it will grow the degree of impact upon nearby properties in the manner the North 11th entrance has done on my side. Parking lots with ready access to neighborhood streets serve not only as spots for game attendees to congregate and share their enthusiasm, but for also for others to test car speeds doing donuts and others to deal drugs. There is little other explanation for the hit-and-run I experienced recently. Pick up and Drop Off Area While neighbors share the District and City’s enthusiasm for improving access to the campus from North 15th, it is unclear from the informal review schematics if the narrow ingress/egress lanes would be appealing enough to encourage their use by parents. Further, the District has not sought to include bus pick up and drop off on campus. I am assuming the failure of the plan to accommodate fire trucks also means there is insufficient ability for bus use. So, it is unclear whether the entry, as planned, would serve any purpose other than stadium access. While buses are the most orderly part of student arrival/departure from campus, and not a problem unto themselves, the District’s reliance upon on North 11th for bus pick up and drop off is undesirable because of the issues they create in relation to the unregulated pick up and drop off that occurs from private vehicles. Bus parking along North 11th effectively pushes student drop off by parents onto neighborhood streets. It is a fallacy to think an improved North 15th access will remedy this issue. As a parent speaking in favor of the stadium at the December 14, 2017 public meeting of the School District stated, he dropped off each of his three children at the best entrance for the child, depending on the day. This is rational human behavior that can be expected to continue. It is noteworthy that the configuration of the North 11th entrance violates 8 of 21 simplified guidelines in the well-vetted document, Traffic Operations and Safety at Schools: Recommended Guidelines (2004), which summarizes school access recommendations from many states and was developed by the Texas Transportation Institute with funding from the US Department of Transportation. The guidelines refer solely to the entrance’s ability to serve as a functional school entrance in terms of student and school safety. In addition to the guidelines violated, similar configurations are used in figures in several parts of the document under the header “Examples to Avoid”. Violations occur in the following areas: Guideline 1: setbacks, Guideline 5: separation of modes of transportation, Guideline 7: review by proper road agency, Guideline 9: space for proper stacking on-site, Guideline 10: unloading directly onto the right- hand sidewalk, Guideline 11: short-term parking, Guideline 12: parent loading in designated zones, Guideline 15: crossing guards. The guidelines refer solely to the ability of the North 11th entrance to 4 serve as functional school entryway in terms of student safety. Impacts on neighbors are in addition to these failings. Despite the numerous violations of best practice and the UDO represented by the North 11th entrance, neighbors have been left to grapple with the fallout of this entrance since its completion, with both student pick up and drop off, and day and evening parking now occurring on our doorsteps, rather than on BHS property as would be expected. The impacts of the North 11th entrance, its lack of setback and pick up and drop off area, are notable daily at homes within a 2.5 block radius in each direction. While fewer students may reduce this radius, the student safety and neighboring property infringement violations will only be alleviated by ending the use of this entrance as a pick up and drop off location, or creating a place for these activities to occur in proximity to this entrance on campus. Future building: Need for a Master Plan As the District intends to add 3 more buildings to campus in the near future, including an auditorium currently shown with 8 doors and a box office along North 11th, we need a full plan for the future BHS campus before adding a $7.4M stadium without understanding the potential for the best whole campus design that allows the District to achieve its goals in concert with its in-town location, surrounded by private homes. Lack of Transparency and Accountability in District Planning Processes Like the tennis court relocation and Support Services building examples above, which were never subjected to public comment, despite occurring after the signing of the Inter-local Agreement, the Van Winkle Stadium relocation proposal is also taking place in in a less-than-fully-transparent manner. As disturbing as the active downgrading of my neighborhood, the District is damaging its own integrity by refusing to hold itself to the basic standard of verity required of a public entity. Here is what recently transpired with the stadium relocation proposal: a) In the District’s visual representation of improvements to the existing BHS campus used in pre- bond open-houses and on its Future High Schools website, the stadium is depicted as remaining in its current location. b) At numerous open houses, over 65 outreach meetings, and multiple articles in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, the District transmitted that the future stadium was to be rebuilt in place, with improvements to include handicapped-accessible South bleachers and artificial turf: c) Bozeman taxpayers voted upon a package of funds that included over $7M to renovate the stadium, based upon the widely-shown rebuilt in place image and accompanying information. Yet, within 4 months of the May 2017 bond’s passing: a) The District convened a working group to consider stadium options. Development of this internal working group was not disclosed to the public. b) The working group researched options that apparently built upon two prior internal stadium re- development processes, both of which had identified a new stadium location, as per email from the District’s Deputy Superintendent of Operations, in which the Trustees were cc’d , on 1/8/2017. 5 c) A presentation and anticipated vote upon the “new” design was made public only due to the reporting of the Chronicle’s education reporter—and not at all by the District—with a mere 9 working days’ notice. d) A single public meeting was scheduled retroactively, as a result of individuals who took note of the new location via the newspaper and were able to attend the atypical, Thursday, noon meeting. This is in stark contrast to the District’s more than 65 outreach meetings in which the rebuilt in place model was shown, and the Future High Schools website (Video #3: The Renewed Bozeman High School: Detail and Diagrams, March-April 2017). These facts might seem less problematic, if neighbors had not discussed equally disingenuous cases with District staff and members of the Board of Trustees, and gained assurance, in writing in October 2015, that the District would work to correct its past lack of transparency. Concurrent with the ongoing stadium discussions, neighbors have submitted repeated, unmet requests to become engaged in planning discussions to both to help remediate the mistakes of the past and to ensure future BHS renovations do not further infringe upon property rights. While a generalized representation of improvements may satisfy a number of District supporters, for those living near the property, the specific location of buildings and ensuring that their impacts are mitigated and absorbed within District property is essential. This need is even more acute, given neighborhood experience of three prior campus changes, each of which failed to follow reasonable and customary practices required under the City of Bozeman’s UDO, and resulted in infringement upon the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring properties. I appreciate the City’s careful DRC review of the proposed stadium relocation. I request that the points above be added to the discussion, with specific requests in terms of planning. However, no matter how well planned, the proposed relocation site is incompatible with prior neighborhood uses. Thank you, Abigail Breuer 502 North 11th Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715