Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18197 Public CommentFrom:Josh Rassi To:Agenda Subject:Downtown Plan Public Comment- no vehicular traffic on Main Street downtown Date:Thursday, January 17, 2019 11:56:35 AM To Whom It May Concern, Hello and thanks for the opportunity to be heard! As a year round biker/ commuter I am excited that new bike routes/ paths are being considered in the downtown area. I believe that many people avoid going downtown due to the difficulty of access in ways besides motor vehicles. That being said, it is my hope that the committee considers closing all of Main Street in the downtown area (between Grand & Rouse) to all vehicular traffic. I believe that this would have large positive economic & social impacts on the greater downtown area. If Mendenhall & Babcock were updated/ widened and additional parking areas provided for, I would think this possible. I would still propose creating bike lanes to approach downtown before allowing some type of bike lane through Main Street in this area. Main Street would be converted to largely walking/ pedestrian space with benches, art, natural landscapes, etc. Downtown festivals could increase in number without the headache of re-directing traffic. I have been to several mid-size cities where this has occurred with phenomenal results and a much improved sense of community (and at a slower pace!). Charlottesville, Virginia, another university community quickly comes to mind as does our very own MSU’s campus removing the road that used to run directly west and east through the heart of campus. I hope this option is considered as we think of creative ways to use space into the 21st and allow people to step away from such dependencies on motor vehicles and improve the beauty of our manmade physical spaces. Thank you for your time, Josh Rassi From:Chris Mehl To:Agenda Subject:FW: Annotated Framework Feedback Date:Friday, January 18, 2019 11:04:59 AM Chris Mehl Bozeman Deputy Mayor cmehl@bozeman.net 406.581.4992 ________________________________________ From: Jane Klockman [jdklockman@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 11:01 AM To: bozeman@agencylp.com Cc: Cyndy Andrus; Chris Mehl; Terry Cunningham Subject: Annotated Framework Feedback Hello, I’m concerned that plan disengages downtown Bozeman from the NCOD. I believe this is a serious mistake. I hope you will rethink this, and keep the NCOD in the downtown area aligned with the NCOD as it is with the neighborhoods. Otherwise, I believe the downtown will lack historic preservation oversight and possibly lose its status with the National Register of Historic Places - which is key to our communities economic vitality. My other concern is a missing piece in the total review of what has been stated so far. That is any mention of a true transition zone between the downtown and the adjoining historic neighborhoods. As it stands now, we have a sharp edged boundary, and it seems to me and many others that a graduation of height and mass is necessary to integrate neighborhood with the downtown area. Thank you for your consideration of these points. Sincerely, Jane Klockman Please note: I’ve watched this town in its various stages of growth for over 90 years, and hope to leave it with a solid plan for the future. From:Chris Mehl To:Agenda Subject:FW: Comments on DBIP Date:Friday, January 18, 2019 5:14:32 PM Attachments:image001.png Save Bozeman.docx Chris Mehl Bozeman Deputy Mayor cmehl@bozeman.net 406.581.4992 ________________________________________ From: lisakirk@enviromininc.com [lisakirk@enviromininc.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 5:00 PM To: bozeman@agencylp.com; Chris Mehl; Martin Matsen Cc: info@savebozeman.org Subject: Comments on DBIP HI Chris, others- Out of time to do more with this under this deadline. Would you please share with the rest of the commission? Lisa Lisa Bithell Kirk, Ph.D., P.Geo. Principal – Biogeochemistry lisakirk@enviromininc.com<mailto:lisakirk@enviromininc.com> [Enviromin-Logo-2015] 524 Professional Drive Bozeman MT 59718 Lab +1-406-581-8261 Cell +1-406-224-5154 www.enviromininc.com<http://www.enviromininc.com/> Save Bozeman 524 Professional Drive Bozeman MT 59718 18 January 2019 To: The Authors of the DBIP Bozeman City Commission The annotated Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (DBIP) plan recently posted on the city website does little to address neighborhood concerns or historic preservation, though it claims to “enhance residential neighborhoods through context sensitive development.” It also does little to align with the draft results put forward by the NCOD consultants, as is suggested in the plan coordination section. It focuses on commerce, events and festivals, and sustaining a destination restaurant and entertainment scene. Rather than focusing on a true sense of community, with all that implies it focuses on spontaneity and play. It absurdly asserts that the DBIP serves as a neighborhood plan for the entire city….and suggests that it should be used to shape code, guidelines and policies. Though this presentation it cites the value of a strong connection to sense of place, the proposals outlined in this document will forever alter our sense of this place. The “wall around the city” is being advanced, although this plan illustrates that growth in a figure which appears to deliberately downplay its height and intensity. Its map showing projected development is misleading in scale and format – with dark green showing actual height of buildings and pale pink showing potential locations but not probable height for some 20 projects. City zoning should clearly delineate which areas will be taken by downtown expansion. Results from the NCOD consultant and our collective feedback to the city suggest that the NCOD will continue on, but this document suggests that single household detached residual uses are not anticipated downtown. This document does not address the conflict between proposed growth and development and the historic single family neighborhoods. It seems clear that the place needing the most work is revision of zone edges vs. transition zones as they affect property immediately adjacent to the B3; this plan skirts this issue entirely. We have the distinctly uncomfortable feeling that, despite clear public feedback via NCOD consultants, that the DBP is continuing to have its way with our community. Neighborhood character and historic preservation are not being appropriately addressed. The parking plan fails to address protecting on street parking for residents living in proximity to the downtown. These folks often share a driveway and have little off street parking. Parking is valuable – and the cost for creating those resources should lie with those gaining from growth. The 9-day timeline provided for review of this document, due Jan 18, was very short. We request a full 30 day review period. We recognize that there will be future opportunities to comment, but also recognize based on painful past experience that these recommendations are likely to evolve significantly from this point forward – such that no one will listen when we comment later. From:Steve Kirchhoff To:Agenda Subject:DOWNTOWN PLAN COMMENTS Date:Friday, January 18, 2019 1:41:25 PM DBIP Review Comments Steve Kirchhoff 516 South 6th Avenue Bozeman, MT. 59715 Dear Downtown Bozeman Partnership, City Commissioners, and City Planners: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the improvement plan for Bozeman’s downtown. The comments here are in connection to Chapter 6, “Welcoming to Everyone.” The chapter shows thoughtfulness and a genuine desire to be of help to Bozeman as we confront a growth and development blitzkrieg. Many passages in the chapter are useful. I want to speak only to the assumptions directing the authors’ attention and recommendations for handling growth and development in Bozeman’s downtown district. I believe the authors’ assumptions about population growth, supply and demand, and the impact of regulations lead to suggestions and recommendations that only superficially alleviate the problems that growth poses for housing affordability and community character. First, sustainable population growth. Bozeman is growing faster than 4% per year—an unsustainable rate, by all measures. Yet the chapter makes no mention of the amount of population growth that is desirable with sustainability in mind. Nor does it connect future development downtown to different scenarios for growth in the city as a whole. How big a slice of future growth is downtown supposed to have? What is the basis for calculating “optimal” rates of growth and development downtown with respect to optimal growth in all of Bozeman? How many new residents can the downtown sustainably accommodate between now and 2045? What is a sustainable population growth rate for the core? The chapter does not answer these questions—but it does say that from 400 to 800 residential units “are projected to be developed 2045.” This number is taken from another consulting firm’s estimate of Bozeman’s future growth without mentioning whether or not it represents a sustainable rate of growth. Why is there no comment about the desirability of this number, the growth rate it represents, and whether it is sustainable? Shouldn’t there be a precise knowledge of what constitutes sustainable future population growth, including a specific description of core area build-out scenarios that are sustainable? Shouldn’t this knowledge be brought to bear in this chapter? The authors comment on sustainability elsewhere in the chapter, noting that “walkability” (i.e., sustainable transportation) is enhanced by urban density. But “walkability” doesn’t suffice all that should be said about sustainability. Elsewhere in the chapter the authors also warn the city not to “constrict supply” of new housing, which the city could do, presumably by adopting burdensome regulations. In tones pleasant and upbeat, the authors suggest that local government adopt a nuanced, not a regulatory, approach to growth. In fact, the authors appear to believe that rapid growth provides increased opportunities for civic leaders to use their savvy by trying nuanced approaches—mostly incentives— to increase affordability and retain neighborhood character. Such incentives are briefly described in sections on density bonuses and height relaxations and linkages between affordable housing and new parking structures. It must be said, however, that these savvy, non-confrontational approaches seem to promise small benefits, since they are derivative of growth and do not fundamentally re-shape or slow or steer it toward sustainability. Even with savvy incentives in place, Bozeman’s growth rate will continue at its unsustainable rate; in fact, the savvy incentives appear to depend on unsustainable growth in order to be less burdensome. In short, the chapter suggests that continued growth can provide the answer to the headaches of continued growth. This notion is facile and also frustrating to many Bozemanites, who have rejected it and seek more meaningful discussions about growth. Second, concern with regulations. Governments regulate housing to achieve the goals of compatibility, quality, and affordability. The chapter clearly warns that prices increase and supply decreases when governments over- regulate in pursuit of these goals. The authors write as though the negative outcome of “overly burdensome” regulation is so patently obvious that it does not even require substantiation. Presumably the authors are also familiar with exemplary communities that have achieved affordability, compatibility, and quality without “overly burdensome” regulations. The chapter, however, provides no examples of these communities. It is not clear which exemplary jurisdictions the writers of the chapter have in mind when they suggest easing up on regulations. Are there, in fact, shining examples of communities that have peeled back regulatory layers to achieve the goals aimed for with regulation? At the same time, the chapter is silent about the role that banks, financiers, developers, and builders play in controlling the supply of new housing. Surely it is in the best interests of these parties to slow supply and therefore to realize a higher return on each new housing unit that is developed. This seems like such a patently obvious motivation that it should require no substantiation—but good luck finding it in mainstream literature on growth and community development! You will not find it in this chapter. Furthermore, the chapter says nothing about the fact that, while builders have presumably been building in Bozeman for years “as fast as they can,” the median price point for housing has been beyond the reach of “working people” for a long time. Discussions about the increasing price of housing in Bozeman that leave out the influence of the building and finance communities on prices are lacking important explanatory information. Keeping the builders and financiers out of the question helps to perpetuate a fascination with over-regulation and government’s culpability in jacking-up prices. Finally, if we were to accept the logic in the chapter, which is that supply must be encouraged and government should act to encourage it, a big question still remains: Just exactly how much supply is needed? Can the authors say at what precise point in the supply curve prices truly will begin to decline? Should Bozeman be trying with all diligence to grow faster and faster, increasing supply year after year? Does Bozeman need to build enough housing units to support a population growth rate of 7% per year? 8%? 10%? And, what happens to communities that grow faster to get a better price point? These are not academic questions, but matters of everyday common sense. Third, removing B-3 from the NCOD. To facilitate growth and diversify housing offerings in the core, the chapter suggests removing the core from the NCOD—that is, removing the core from the “extra” regulatory structure of the NCOD. This easing of regulation is supposed to provide builders and developers more flexibility, thereby increasing housing supply and diversity and hopefully stabilizing prices. I suggest the supposed negative impact of NCOD regulations on flexibility and supply and price is an assertion parading as an empirical fact. The assertion has it that a less regulated environment will push diversity and supply up while moderating prices or even pushing them down. This assertion, however, seldom if ever achieves genuine maturity in the real world. The assertion is an empty form forced upon the complexities of reality, as if to make reality “behave” and leave us free of worry about things as they actually are. Take Bozeman as an example. In the core of Bozeman, in the B-3’s “soft” regulatory regime (compared to the strictness of the NCOD and compared to the B-3 itself when it used to include more restrictions on design and materials) housing costs are higher than in other zones in Bozeman. In the past decade Andy Holloran has erected mediocre buildings on Mendenhall using mediocre, cost-effective materials and designs, efficient labor, and efficient construction techniques—in other words, by capitalizing on “flexibility”—and yet his properties command some of the highest prices and rents in all of Bozeman. This means that an environment of easy regulations with plenty of flexibility results not only high prices but also mediocrity and public distaste. Such a scenario should give us pause before we bow to the assertion that flexibility delivers what we are seeking from new development downtown. Clearly, “heavy-handed” regulations don’t explain the expensive mediocrity of recent downtown developments. So, what does explain it? It seems reasonable to believe that price increases in Bozeman’s core housing market are due to a “supply” of a different kind: the increased supply of out-of-state financing and especially of moneyed buyers from out of state. Surely the willingness, and the capacity, of out-of-state purchasers to spend more than the local median amount for housing drives up prices—as much if not more so than the other factors mentioned in this chapter and in the literature about growth. Wealthy buyers can and do spend dearly for mediocre housing. In any event, when pondering the housing market in Bozeman, there is more to consider than just a supposed connection between regulation and prices. Therefore, removing the downtown from the NCOD in the name of flexibility is not a sufficient reason. Many Bozeman residents living near downtown feel as though they are being engulfed by a growth machine that is financed by out-of-state interests and that constructs new residential “units” primarily for out-of-state buyers. Bozeman is the gold mine and its gold—which is to say, its character—is being extracted and leached by the process of growth. What is left behind, that is, what becomes our new built environment, after all the wealth has been taken during the “growth process,” is unwholesome piles of faux masonry, crappy openings, and broad swaths of EIFIS. That is hyperbolic language, I know, but I am certain you have heard versions of it —some less emphatic, some more—many times by now. Now is time to hear these voices. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. And best wishes to all. From: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 From:Agenda To:Agenda Subject:BHPAB Comment: Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan Annotated Framework 1-8-2019 Date:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:38:25 AM From: Jeanne Wilkinson <jmwilkinson4@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 4:35 PM To: bozeman@agencylp.com; Chris Naumann <chris@downtownbozeman.org> Cc: Crystal Alegria <crystal.alegria@gmail.com>; Jennifer Dunn <jennifer.a.dunn@gmail.com>; Eric Karshner <ekarshner@hotmail.com>; michaelwallner@u.boisestate.edu; Chelsea Holling <chelseaholling@ctagroup.com>; Phillipe Gonzalez <PGonzalez@BOZEMAN.NET>; jkrauss@bozeman.net Subject: BHPAB Comment: Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan Annotated Framework 1-8-2019 Dear Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan Update Consultants and Task Force: As members of the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHAB) we wereencouraged to see additional references to Bozeman’s history and historic character in thelatest draft of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan Annotated Framework 1-8-2019. Our historic downtown is unique and worth preserving. Thank you for adding a section on the history of Bozeman’s Downtown, and the history of thisplace prior to Euro-American settlement in 1864. It is important to note that many tribalnations used this land for thousands of years before the town of Bozeman was established. Itwould be important to also mention the Crow Nation in the historical overview, as this areawas their homeland as well. Would it be possible for you to find another quote for thehistorical section on page 20? We don’t know if “swallowing up all the tenderfeet . . . withtheir golden fleeces to be taken care of” is the image the City would like to portray. On page 108 the draft states, “Going forward, the Downtown study area should be removedfrom the NCOD boundary and continue to be regulated by the DBIP, similar to the path that isproposed for Midtown. This will allow the NCOD to continue to guide residential areas, whileDowntown is guided by the DBIP.” We strongly disagree with the statement. The mosthistoric aspect of Bozeman is our Downtown, this is the area that should never, under nocircumstances leave the protections of the NCOD, especially to be “regulated” by an entityother than the City of Bozeman. The Main Street Historic District is our most significantNational Register district. The surrounding B-3 zoned area should be guided by a documentthat is even more specific than current NCOD guidelines to provide historic and neighborhoodpreservation. The City of Bozeman is in the process of updating our historic inventory of buildings. Thedraft mentions the partial 2016 historic inventory. With the full historic inventory update,hopefully in the next year or two, many more historically significant and contributingbuildings within the Downtown area will need to be considered. The updated historicinventories will guide decision making in relation to these historic properties and this shouldbe considered with this plan. We again encourage you to state implicitly that the historic qualities of Downtown Bozeman,and its surrounding neighborhoods, - cultural vitality, walkable streets, distinct blocks ofarchitectural diversity and flexible adaptable buildings - have catapulted the area to be theeconomic development engine of the state. Downtown and the core neighborhoods are a placewhere development has occurred incrementally, over many decades, resulting in a texture,richness, and distinctiveness that we call character. Historic heritage and character are the most important traits of this area. Without them, downtown would be another anywhere USA. If you would like to discuss this or have questions, please do not hesitate to contact any of theboard members. Thank you, Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Jennifer Dunn, Chair Jeanne Wilkinson, Vice- Chair Crystal Alegria, Member Michael Wallner, Member Eric Kushner, Member Chelsea Holling , Member From:Randall Russo To:Agenda Subject:Downtown Plan Question Date:Friday, February 08, 2019 3:02:40 PM In the Final draft of the Downtown plan there is no mention of changes to Babcock and Mendenhall. Can you tell me if there are plans to changes those roads and if not why? Thank youRandall -- Randall Russo 406-214-8125 Email. russorandall@gmail.com From:Donna Murphrey To:Agenda; Addi Jadin Subject:Downtown Plan Date:Saturday, February 09, 2019 8:23:50 PM Excellent plan with a few exceptions. *Stepped story design is good, however, there is no governance regarding rooflines. All new high-rise buildings currently being built in Bozeman have flat roofs. Please consider some kind of encouragement for developers to make their rooflines interesting before it’s too late. *If the new buildings, whether in the city center or in the neighborhoods, can be picked up and transferred to Dallas or Detroit, they do not belong in Bozeman. Please consider other resort strong areas which have restricted this kind of development and continued to enhance our their original character. *Yes, it might be more expensive for developers to develop with these requirements in mind, but true Bozemanites do not want growth for growth sake but want it done correctly to preserve Bozeman’s character. The planning commission should have architectural guidelines which stick to this type of development. Thank you for your hardwork. From:Chris Naumann To:Susan Denson-Guy Cc:Addi Jadin Subject:RE: Draft Downtown Plan Correction Date:Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:12:56 PM Attachments:image001.png Susan, I have added this change to a running list of revisions to the final plan. I also cc’d Addi at the City Community Development Department as she is compiling all ofthe “public comments”. Thanks for catching that error. Chris Naumann Executive Director Downtown Bozeman Partnership 222 East Main Street #302 Bozeman MT 59715406-586-4008 www.downtownbozeman.org From: Susan Denson-Guy <susan@theemerson.org> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:40 PM To: Chris Naumann <chris@downtownbozeman.org> Subject: Emerson in the Draft Plan Importance: High Hello Chris - I called your office earlier this morning. I have found one mistake in the plan that I would like to have corrected. On page 120 annotated - it shows the Emerson Lawn as a S - sports space. According to our insurance - the Emerson Lawn cannot be used for Sports fields. To avoid any confusion with the public would you please correct this? I would be happy to have a R and P next to our lawn. Please let me know when you have been able to make this correction. I do not recall seeing this type of “key” on the earlier version. Peace, Susan     SUSAN DENSON-GUY | Executive Director susan@theemerson.org | 406.587.9797 x102 111 S Grand Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 | www.TheEmerson.org BUILDING COMMUNITY THROUGH THE ARTS + CULTURE   From:Chris Mehl To:Agenda Subject:FW: DBIP Annotated Framework Feedback Date:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 11:43:18 AM Chris Mehl Bozeman Deputy Mayor cmehl@bozeman.net 406.581.4992 ________________________________________ From: Zehra Osman [zosman534@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 11:11 AM To: bozeman@agencylp.com Cc: Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; Chris Saunders; Martin Matsen Subject: DBIP Annotated Framework Feedback Hi DBIP and City Commissioners! Please provide a public presentation(s) of the draft DBIP plan. Also, the current deadline (this Friday 1/18) does not give us all enough time to review this extensive document, which was only sent out last week. We request this deadline be extended to a more reasonable comment time period. A 30-day comment period is standard, which would extend the review period to February 9. There is quite a bit here to review and there are some big changes proposed and you've given us a very quick deadline for written comments. We all care about our downtown and want to make sure we have enough time to understand plan elements so we can give the best feedback possible. A public forum would also help our public participation. At your earliest convenience, please provide the new, revised deadline extension for comments. A 30-day comment period is standard, so February 9 is more reasonable. Thanks! Zehra Osman Bozeman resident