HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-18 Public Comment - P. Neubauer - South Side Lofts10/11/18
RE: South Side Lofts Application
Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Matsen
If this proposal were to be located on a parcel of unencumbered B3 land in the same
location, I would have virtually no issues with it. I support tastefully done infill. The
scale of this project is not overwhelming. There is an off street parking spot for each
dwelling unit, and it is on the South side of Olive St. Streets can make IDEAL
transition zones, and it is my opinion that Olive St. would be a great place to change
density and scale allowances.
Sadly, as a recipient of official public notice due to my residential proximity to the
project, and after doing some research into the mechanizations by which this
proposal is moving forward, I am EXTREMELY DISSAPPOINTED to learn about some
of current practices being employed by the city that bear on this application.
My first issue is the noticing process. For notices to go out to affected landowners
that do NOT include links to application materials is pathetic and in no way
constitutes the actions of a “well run city” seeking to foster community involvement.
Even now (though I have gotten distracted by the things I will get into and thus
reduced the time I would allocate to looking at the proposal) I don’t even know how
many bedrooms this project has.
People (particularly those within noticing distance) should not have to struggle AT
ALL to find application materials they are being asked to assess. Official form letters
that are dispersed to adjacent property owners should include direct links to
application materials AND email addresses for people to send comments to. These
changes need to be made YESTERDAY (or better yet, about 5 years ago), and need to
be at the top of the TO DO list in the Community Development Department.
The next few issues I have relative to these happenings are considerably more
complicated, and it is only because I can dedicate more time than most (and that city
staff and volunteers are willing to educate me) that I have even become aware of
them.
I was very disappointed to learn that the city is issuing parking credits to applicants
who were subject to fees incurred by the creation of SID (Special Improvement
District) 565, which was adopted (roughly) in the late 1970’s to finance the
purchase of land for improving parking options in our downtown core.
For decades (nobody seems to know exactly) the city has been enabling applicants
to claim credits relative to their parking requirements due to participation in this
40+ year old SID. Nowhere in the municipal code or in the SID language does
participation in the district entitle property owners to indefinite credits for their
contributions to the SID.
The SID was created to expand parking options and landowners were assessed fees
based on their existing impacts to (and demand on) parking resources. How this
was EVER construed to become some type of perpetual and transferrable credit is
mind-boggling. The city knows they made a mistake, but now, since they have set a
precedent of enabling these credits, those who would profit from their possession
are (not surprisingly) quite eager to cash them in.
Additionally troubling, when one looks at the language in code section
38.540.050.2.b(4) it says that real property will “not be required to provide
additional parking spaces beyond those required at the time of SID adoption,
provided that the use of the real property and improvements remains unchanged.”
So…lets see here. The lot we’re talking about has 18 enclosed parking units and 9
surface parking units. ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO BE REMOVED TO FACILITATE
THIS PROJECT. How can that be construed as “remaining unchanged”? Really? A
parking lot is being eliminated.
Claiming of these credits should fail on TWO counts: The first is that additional
spaces are NOT being required. The city is merely asking (barely) to be
compensated for what is being lost. The second failure is that the use of the
property is OBVIOUSLY changing. Of course, lets not forget that there is no mention
in any city documents that such credit would ever be given, its just that the city has
set this poor precedent that many seek to capitalize on (no pun intended).
If there were to be any debate about how the city should be compensated by the
removal of the 27 spaces being lost to facilitate this project, such a debate would be
held at the meetings of the quasi-judicial Parking Commission. Unlike other
volunteer boards, the decisions of the Parking Commission are more than just
advisory. For that reason, people might expect that considerable effort would be
made to avoid the appearance of any conflicts of interest.
When I served on the Planning Board, people would often recuse themselves from
deliberations they had a personal interest in. As a far more powerful decision
making body than most advisory boards, you would expect this to happen even
more frequently at the Parking Commission.
The chair of the Parking Commission (I just learned) is Chris Naumann, Executive
Director of the Downtown Business Partnership. As the representative of a group
with strong opinions about downtown development and parking supply, I think
many people would agree that he should be removing himself from the frequent
deliberations about parking downtown. This did not happen, and the application
was passed unanimously by the board members in attendance. If this standard of
conduct (removing oneself from decisions where one had a personal interest in the
outcome) were to be upheld, and Mr. Naumann were to recuse himself from the
many deliberations about downtown parking, he might not even want to serve on
the board, much less be its chairperson.
All of this makes me sad, because I still believe that you (Tom and Marty), as well as
Chris Naumann all have the best interests of our city in mind. The aforementioned
operational shortcomings are known to only a handful of people beyond those
working for the City of Bozeman, volunteering on the Parking Commission, or
holding these (misguided) parking credits.
I am further saddened that I have not had the time to address these issues earlier,
and to alert people to the fact that the comment period on the S. Side Lofts ends
today at 5pm. Nonetheless, since I believe this letter to be factually correct and no
more inflammatory than “necessary”, it is my intention to distribute it widely, since I
think that most of my fellow citizens would agree with the sentiments contained
above.
Respectfully submitted (with a heavy heart),
Paul Neubauer
210 S. Bozeman Avenue