Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-19 Public Comment - Z. Osman - Downtown Bozeman Improvement PlanFrom: Chris Mehl To: Agenda Subject: FW: DBIP Annotated Framework Feedback Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 6:17:00 PM Attachments: DBIP Review Comments.docx Chris Mehl Bozeman Deputy Mayor cmehl@bozeman.net 406.581.4992 ________________________________________ From: Zehra Osman [zosman534@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 5:11 PM To: bozeman@agencylp.com Cc: Cyndy Andrus; Chris Mehl; Martin Matsen; Chris Saunders; tcunningham@msn.net; Phillipe Gonzalez; Hampton, Kate; chere@preservemontana.org Subject: DBIP Annotated Framework Feedback Dear Downtown Bozeman Partnership, City Commissioners, and City Planners, Please see my attached 4-page review comments on the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, which provides some detail on the following concerns: * I oppose the removal of the downtown from the NCOD. * Infill within the downtown and NCOD should be compatible with historic character of historic properties. Preserve the historic integrity of old Bozeman. * Look to areas outside the NCOD to mitigate sprawl by "building tall." This is where we should concentrate taller, higher-density, walkable commercial/office nodes within walkable distance of housing. This includes the west, northwest, and midtown areas of Bozeman. We also want to have desirable communities for local/new employers. * Integrate affordable housing in all areas. * Plans and development/infrastructure projects that use federal funds should receive Section 106 review by the Montana State Preservation Office. Thank you, Zehra Osman 312 Sanders Ave. Bozeman MT. 59718 406.640.1088 DBIP Review Comments Zehra Osman 312 Sanders Ave. Bozeman MT 59718 Dear Downtown Bozeman Partnership, City Commissioners, and City Planners, Comment Summary There are sections of this draft plan that are innovative and exciting, and I have positive comments regarding these sections. My comments below emphasize that I am not opposed to infill. However, I am opposed to infill that is incompatible with the historic character of our town’s historic buildings and districts. Please remember that historic preservationists are not a tribal political enemy consisting of NIMBYs and elitists. This is unfair and untrue. We can be your biggest allies if you can just tweak the plan to build only historically compatible infill and support the preservation of downtown’s historic character. I live on the west side of town, but for me, Bozeman’s downtown evokes the meaning of home. Compatible infill still meets all of our needs for growth, and at the same time preserves the sense of place resonant in our downtown— the Bozeman we love waking up to every day. I support many innovative elements of the DBIP, however, I oppose the DBIP proposal to remove our downtown from the NCOD. If the city truly wants to mitigate sprawl and combat climate change, then concentrate on the west and northwest side of town – where the sprawl is happening. This is where you should build taller. Take the ideas of walkable commercial/office nodes of this Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (DBIP) and overlay them on the west and northwest parts of town where all the sprawl and traffic congestion are taking place. Let’s be real, most of the people who can afford to live downtown are not the same people who are part of the sprawl. We west-siders cannot afford to live downtown. The west side is where the city should plan diverse housing densities with walkable communities with commercial/office nodes, so our side of town is a desirable location for employers. I am also concerned about the reach of the plan, which I discuss below. What gives the Downtown Bozeman Partnership the authority to overturn code and redirect city funds away from other city needs? Is the DBP an elected body? How are they accountable to taxpayers? Detailed Comments I’ve organized my comments according to the plan’s framework, which consists of the “five big ideas.” The Heart of a Thriving City (pages 28-47) 1. Infrastructure/Utilities: Who will be paying for upgrading undersized infrastructure and utilities in order to accommodate new downtown development patterns and higher density? a. If tax-payers will be paying for these capital improvements so high-density buildings can be constructed rather than other city needs, then we should be given the opportunity to know this ahead of time and be included in utility project plan reviews and comment periods. b. We will let Montana State Historic Preservation Office know that your plan states that it is proposing the use of federal funds for this infrastructure upgrade within historic properties, which will trigger Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act review of the plan and future projects. c. If you truly wanted to mitigate sprawl, then you’d up-size infrastructure on the west side so we could build taller here – where housing is more affordable. The city has stated that Bozeman’s west side cannot accommodate walkable commercial/office nodes due to undersized utilities. Why would the city invest in more downtown infrastructure/utility upgrades when we need utility upgrades on the west side? We would like to have the choice to use some of that funding in areas of Bozeman other than just downtown. 2. On page 36, the plan states that local businesses, offices, employers, CEOs of high-tech companies, etc. would be encouraged to locate downtown if there were more multi-modal options and a simpler commute; an urban lifestyle with proximate retail; access to amenities like restaurants and outdoor recreation. a. Is the city of planning on creating these commercial/office nodes in other parts of town, such as the West Side? The west side is where the sprawl is happening and where a lot of the traffic is generated. If the city truly wanted to mitigate sprawl and climate change, the focus for commercial/office nodes would be where most of us live - - and most of us cannot afford to live downtown and we would like to have walkable, livable communities, too! More Than Mainstreet (pages 48 – 77) 1. On page 72, the plan states that buildings such as the Element connect indoor to outdoor spaces. a. Actually, the Element connects to the outdoors in their own back courtyard, away from the front the public streetscape, and leaving the streetscape a sterile, cold space. b. In fact, the Element and Five-West completely turn their backs on public streets. c. Please ensure future buildings will have an indoor-outdoor connection on the street side. 2. Your proposal for tree-lined streets is great! Good for the environment. Greenspace and trees also create a nice micro-environment, where pedestrians can feel cooler in the summer. Nature should be everywhere in our city. 3. On page 34, the idea of enlivening the alleyways is an exciting concept. What will happen with delivery trucks? Walkable and Accessible (pages 78-97) 1. The west side of Bozeman is not even shown in the maps and graphics. Please show Bozeman’s West Side as well as the Northwest side in all maps, graphics, and include these areas in proposals for strengthening connectivity, improving walkability, and creating a safe multi-modal network. Do not leave us off the maps. Do not leave us out of the plan. In fact, perhaps these areas should receive city funds to create these systems first – so we’re not stuck in traffic everyday trying to get downtown. Welcoming to Everyone (pages 98-113) 1. This section makes it sound like the historic district compatibility requirements are keeping downtown housing expensive. Please do not insult our intelligence. Recent downtown housing developments (that are not at all historically compatible) are way too expensive and out of reach for most local residents. a. You use Block M as a good example of “welcoming everyone.” Seriously? In 2015, the Chronicle ran an article that stated Block M unit prices ranged from $650,000 to $1.2 million. How is this welcoming to everyone? b. Downtown apartment rental rates are way too expensive for most local residents. We require evidence – a strategy – that proves you will build affordable infill housing. c. Affordable housing needs to be a significant percentage of the (historically compatible) housing infill you’re proposing downtown. d. Do not let short-term vacation rentals take up all of the available housing stock downtown (or anywhere in Bozeman). This is a huge problem throughout the world, and especially in tourist towns. Vacation rentals also contribute to the outrageous rental rates that are impossible to afford. e. Page 104: There is no such thing as “trickle down housing.” 2. I am vehemently opposed to the removal of the downtown from the Neighborhood Conservation Overlap District (NCOD). This idea is unacceptable. Why inflame the community when infill that is historically compatible can do the job? The city must keep the downtown within the NCOD and infill must be compatible with the downtown historic districts—new and necessary, but in harmony with the materials, features, size, scale, proportion, and massing of the adjacent, original buildings, in order to protect the integrity and character of the historic architecture and districts. 3. Many of us can get behind compatible infill within the NCOD that honors the genuine, authentic architectural character that conveys Bozeman’s history. The historic buildings and districts within the NCOD have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places through rigorous processes, requiring proof of the property’s value—architectural, cultural, historical. Each time a designer arrogantly disrupts the historic character of a district by building something particularly differentiated from adjacent historic buildings, no matter how “hip” it may be, they are contributing to the gradual erosion of that authentic historic character. This leads to just a hodgepodge of different architectural styles and, sadly, loss of sense of place. Sure, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties warn against creating a false sense of historical development, but they also frown upon too much differentiation. In fact, the standards state that new construction “will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” 4. The 2015 addition of Subchapter 4-B Guidelines for B-3 Commercial Character Area inappropriately encouraged developers to create “diversity of design.” Whoever convinced the city that this 2015 revision was in line with the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards was incorrect and misleading (see my comment #3 above). The SOI standards say new construction should be compatible and should be differentiated just enough to not be confused as being original to the building/district. Why inflame the community when compatible infill could do the job? 5. Conflicts within the B-3 district boundary and the transition areas can be resolved through compatible design as defined in my comments 2 & 3, above. 6. If developers yearn to build stylish new creations, please build these structures outside of the old town sections of Bozeman. Create walkable communities in Bozeman’s Midtown, West Side, and Cannery areas, which will one day be historic districts that convey the hip styles of 2019. This is where we should build taller buildings – where we can actually mitigate sprawl. 7. Please define what changes you propose for Accessory Dwelling Unit guidelines. This section is poorly described. Please note that ADUs need to be designed and developed to be compatible to historic buildings and historic districts. ADUs must be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of historic buildings, their settings, and in historic districts. New additions should be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features of the historic building, its site, and setting are not negatively impacted. Generally, a new addition should be subordinate to the historic building. 8. Page 108 says that a “diversity of building heights across the district adds interest and visual relief to the street, creating a rhythm of variation and change that is an important ingredient of dynamic downtown urban design.” This statement sounds like one made by an inexperienced architecture student. What is actually an important ingredient to downtown urban design is the richness of authentic historic character. Please delete these kinds of inaccurate statements. 9. A popular photo of the Christmas Stroll shows downtown Main Street from above, showcasing the iconic and noble Baxter Hotel with the mountains in the distance. I wonder how this image would change, should the current DBIP be implemented, which proposes removing protections from the historic district in favor of tall, contemporary-looking buildings. I wonder, if a photo from the same perspective were taken in the future, would our downtown even be recognizable? Would tall and pointy angles and shiny glass block the sun, shading the sunny side of Main Street on cold winter days? Would we still be able to see the mountains and the big sky? Connected to Nature and Culture (pages 114 -129) 1. Show a necklace of parks and public spaces, connect by trails, and that extend to all of Bozeman including the west side of town. 2. The flexible Soroptimist Park ideas are very innovative and exciting. Appendices 1. The above comments regarding compatibility of infill extend and apply to your proposed changes to the codes in these appendices. Historically compatible infill is acceptable. Incompatible infill downtown is not. 2. The downtown should not be removed from the NCOD. Please do not inflame the community relationship with the city with this terrible proposal. 3. The Leland report should state how local residents will be able to afford this proposed housing infill. What mechanisms will allow these units to be affordable? Who are these bikers/walkers and how are they going to be able to afford to live downtown? 4. The final page of the Leland report substantiates the need for Section 106 review by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. 5. This last page of the Leland report implies that you will be creating reviewers who are committed to your plan, rather than to the needs of Bozeman residents. These comments are submitted within a very tight and unreasonable timeframe. Nine days to review and comment on such a controversial plan is overly cumbersome to Bozeman residents. I’d like to see the 2,100 comments submitted by noon on 1/18/2019. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like further clarification on my comments. Many of us care about the downtown because it is our home. Best regards, Zehra Osman 312 Sanders Ave, Bozeman, MT 59718 406.640.1088 zosman534@gmail.com