Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-19 Publc Comment - A. Hoitsma (with NENA and VisionNE) - NCOD ReviewFrom: Amy Kelley Hoitsma To: Agenda Cc: NENA-VisionNE Subject: Comments on NCOD recommendations Date: Saturday, March 16, 2019 5:33:02 PM Attachments: VisionNE_Comments_on_NCOD_Recommendations.docx Mayor Andrus, Deputy Mayor Mehl, and City Commissioners: We respectfully submit the attached comments in advance of your April 8 Commission meeting, and hope that you will take them into consideration as part of your discussion about updating the NCOD. Best, Amy Kelley Hoitsma Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) President www.NENABozeman.org 406-581-1513 Date: 15 March 2019 To: Mayor Andrus, Deputy Mayor Mehl, and City Commissioners: From: Amy Kelley Hoitsma, President of Bozeman’s Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) and Members of the VisionNE NENA subcommittee RE: Comments on BendonAdams Policy Recommendations to the Bozeman City Commission for revising the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and Historic Preservation VisionNE is a volunteer subcommittee of the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA) that formed in response to the positive neighborhood participation in a R/UDAT in April 2017 (a design assistance team sent to Northeast Bozeman by the American Institute of Architects — see https://www.bozemanrudat.com). One of the goals of VisionNE is to ensure that new growth and developments maintain the vitality and character that is Bozeman’s unique Northeast Neighborhood. We feel that many of the recommendations made by BendonAdams to maintain and strengthen the NCOD bolster that goal. Specifically: NCOD PURPOSE + BOUNDARY We support the following recommendations: 2.1 Retain the NCOD and focus on two programs to distinguish two separate goals: promote historic preservation through local designation and establish neighborhood character areas. 2.3 Create Neighborhood Character Design Standards and Guidelines [specific to areas/neighborhoods within the NCOD], which necessitates “defining neighborhood character” as part of the process. Discussion: RETAINING THE NCOD: VisionNE has discussed the idea of creating a “sub-area plan,” similar to how the Downtown has its own plan. We understand the time, expense, and expertise required for such a plan. We feel that retaining and strengthening the NCOD will benefit the goals and vision not only of NENA but also the City as a whole. DEFINING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: In our vision statement, VisionNE states that we “embrace the notion that change can be positive” and that it can “enhance our neighborhood’s unique character and vitality.” We have worked on various fronts to define what that “neighborhood character” is as well as to highlight and celebrate it by holding regular neighborhood events, including the Parade of Sheds and the Northside Stroll, which local businesses hold several times each year. During the R/UDAT process the neighbors that participated found that we shared more in common about our vision of the neighborhood than disagreed. The problem is putting that into words or policy: specifically defining neighborhood character and creating actionable standards to protect that character. It is difficult, but it has been done in other cities. I participated in the second annual Inter-Neighborhood Council Retreat a few weeks ago and we looked at what several other cities have done in terms of defining and utilizing neighborhood associations. One of those cities was Bellingham, WA. They managed to define the Alabama Hill neighborhood quite succinctly and visually in two paragraphs: https://www.cob.org/services/planning/neighborhoods/Pages/alabama-hill.aspx We very much welcome a coordinated effort to not only define neighborhood character across the city, but to create actionable design standards that will preserve and enhance neighborhood character rather than mere guidelines that are overruled when in conflict with the UDC. Please know that we are willing and, in fact, eager to participate in that discussion. RELATING ZONING TO CONTEXT We support the following recommendations: 4.1 Create a B-3 transitional zone for areas located beyond the Core. Incorporate additional transition standards within the existing zone edge transition requirements. 4.3 Align zone districts with neighborhood character. Update form and intensity standards to better address concerns about mass and scale. Update current design guidelines and add standards to better address concerns about mass and scale. Discussion: The City has made very clear in its adoption into the existing NCOD of “SUBCHAPTER 4-B: GUIDELINES FOR THE B-3 COMMERCIAL CHARACTER AREA” that “Downtown Bozeman should be the location of buildings of greatest height and intensity in the community.” The problem for the neighborhoods is the transition, where B-3 zoning is across the street from R-2. The NCOD guidelines speak of “compatibility” and “transition” and “sensitivity” to the neighborhood, but they are not sufficiently defined; they are mere guidelines, which will inevitably be overruled when a new development meets code requirements. TRANSITION ZONES: If we are successful in “defining neighborhood character,” we agree that the next step would be to identify where zone boundaries conflict with neighborhood character and either create transition zones or create transition standards to apply to edges of B3. STREAMLINE PROCESS We support the following recommendation: 5.1 Map out the different review processes to determine overlap and areas to simplify and consolidate. Develop review criteria that are objective and allow some flexibility. This can be achieved through a mix of regulations, design standards and design guidelines. Discussion: Streamlining the various review processes should facilitate citizen participation in the process, which we wholly support. PROJECT INFORMATION We support the following recommendations: 6.1 Explore working with GIS Department and web administrators on how to integrate additional information into the existing GIS layers and website to make detailed project information more readily available to the public. Look into an educational campaign through City social media channels discussing where to find planning project information. 6.2 Explore meetings prior to application review (with impacted neighbors). Explore collecting input from neighborhood associations on large scale projects. Discussion: In order to be effective in our efforts, VisionNE members have been educating ourselves and meeting with City staff in order to understand various City codes and design guidelines, as well as how the development process works. We have also participated in public meetings pertaining to the updates of the major City planning documents. We commend the City for its revised Strategic Plan, which articulates a vision of “fostering civic engagement and creativity” in part by “dramatically increase[ing] transparency and creat[ing] access to all city documents.” We also appreciate efforts to improve access to information through the Community Development interactive map. What we believe is missing, however, is an established process for meaningful neighborhood participation in the development review process. It is our belief – and experience – that neighbors understanding and engaging in the process early on allows for advance knowledge and, ideally, constructive feedback that results in better building projects for all. VisionNE has endeavored to engage with potential developers early on in the planning process for projects in our neighborhood. The Cottonwood + Ida PUD is one example of how developers have shared their vision with the neighborhood early on in the process, seeking constructive feedback in order to help make their project stronger, and working through potential conflicts before finalizing plans. We support not only EXPLORING “meetings prior to application review (with impacted neighbors)” and “collecting input from neighborhood associations on large scale projects” but STANDARDIZING that as an official part of the design review process. Thank you for consideration of our comments in your review of the NCOD Update recommendations. Best, Amy Kelley Hoitsma, NENA President and VisionNE Committee members: Vickie Backus Leah Belair Barb Cestero Cathy Costakis Chandler Dayton Joe Hagemeister Suzanne Held Dani Hess Todd Hoitsma Paul House Jane Jelinski Whitney Lutey Beth MacFawn Paula Mozen Jay Pape Shana Wood Ted Wood