HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-19 Public Comment - P. Neubauer - Downtown Bozeman Improvement PlanFrom: Chris Mehl
To: Agenda
Subject: FW: DBIP comments
Date: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 6:24:23 PM
Attachments: DBIP sumitted comments
Chris Mehl
Bozeman Deputy Mayor
cmehl@bozeman.net
406.581.4992
________________________________________
From: Paul Neubauer [prneubauer@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 5:00 PM
To: Agenda; Addi Jadin; Chris Naumann; Chris Mehl; Jeff Krauss; Bill Stoddart; mkwhope@aol.com;
dploseff@gmail.com; Tom Rogers; Martin Matsen
Subject: DBIP comments
Please see the attached and accept them into the record as my official comments for the Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan
Thank you for your consideration.
Three things that bother me:
1) Page 44, third paragraph states roughly, “recent parking counts show
that…utilization…does not exceed 85%.”
That seems to me a pretty biased and misleading statement, particularly considering
that on the next page there are 28 stars indicating city blocks that exceeded 85%
capacity at a certain time.
We’ll be able to have more productive dialogue on this touchy issue if we put
forward an even-handed document that doesn’t so clearly show its bias.
2) On page 86 its states that vehicular traffic downtown, “has been the same for 30
years.” It goes on to suggest that we should focus on encouraging alternative modes
of transport.
The heading under which we find this quote says that, “Vehicular demand
downtown is level.” To assert that since demand has been flat for 30 years it will
stay that way is very faulty logic. I support the assertion that we should be
encouraging alternative transport modes, but…lets either just say that is what we
want, or put forth better logic to get there. Backing a desire with faulty logic does
not help the cause.
3) The first paragraph on page 98 says that Bozeman has a choice in how it will,
“allocate land and funding: for cars and parking, or for housing jobs and people.”
I dislike that line on many levels. For one, it’s a false paradigm akin to saying that
we can either have a good economy or a clean environment, but not both. Its not an
either / or situation. The statement is an antagonistic oversimplification that
marginalizes people who would take a more conventional view of our parking
assets. If the document wants to urge certain actions, it should just do it, or show
its reasoning…not put forth condescending text as justification. It serves no purpose
in the broader context and should be removed.
More content- based comments:
I accept the suggested changes urging simpler math for commercial parking
requirements.
Changing the residential parking requirements to be tied to bedrooms versus
dwelling units is a very positive step, but there is room for improvement.
For starters, there is no reason why a studio should be treated any differently than a
one bedroom apartment. Each will have at least on bed in it, so they should have the
same requirement of .75 spaces.
Bear in mind that, unlike the suggestions made for commercial requirements, where
all of the reductions have been eliminated…residential requirements still include
ALL the various reductions. This is a substantial shortcoming, and I fear that if left
as is, gives away too much or our limited supply. If we want to simplify the
requirements and use ratios, then lets eliminate the reductions. At a MINIMUM,
there should be no reduction credit for applicants due to their street frontage. As
we all know, street parking is a PUBLIC asset. It makes no sense that a PRIVATE
entity should be able to attain credit for a PUBLIC asset.
The logic employed to have requirements be lower for smaller units to incentivize
their construction is okay…but it fails to address the problem that the city has in
that, when projects are reviewed, advisory boards and staff have no idea if the units
will be for rent or for sale. So while the requirements may encourage smaller units,
they will still be sold at premium downtown rates, and will unlikely be affordable to
those living on the financial margins.
To counter this uncertainty in the application process, I think the plan should
suggest incentives that could be used ONLY in the case of an applicant building “for
rent” housing (as the plan states a desire for multiple times, but explicitly on page
106, paragraphs 4 and 5). I encourage the Commission to consider eliminating the
reduction credits on “for sale” units, and enabling them on “for rent” units as one
possible incentive option.
Lastly, in the UDC suggestion appendix, suggestion #6 relates to Maximum Building
Heights, but uses only stories as a metric for heights. Any suggested code change
should include hard caps in feet so as not to be so ripe for abuse and contention.
Thank you all for your time and consideration of my suggestions.
Paul Neubauer