Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-19 Protest - C. Brawner - HRDC Warming Center SiteFrom:clbrawner@aol.com To:Sarah Rosenberg; Agenda Subject:[SENDER UNVERIFIED]HRDC Warming Center Development Proposal - 3025 Westridge Dr. Date:Monday, November 04, 2019 12:07:33 PM I am hereby submitting my written comment and written protest against City approval of the above-referenced HRDC Application for the Warming Center at 3025 Westridge Dr. WRITTEN COMMENTS - HRDC WARMING CENTER - 3025 WESTRIDGE DR. SUMMARY The current SUP process precludes reasonable public input by the impacted neighborhood concerning principal and fundamental considerations regarding the Suitability, Nature, Scale, and Scope of this type of proposed nonconforming use and the degree and severity of such impacts on properties within the neighborhood. This is myopic, one-sided and absolutely unfair! I am opposed to the Bozeman City Planning Department's Administrative issuance of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the HRDC Warming Center at 3025 Westridge Dr. BACKGROUND City Code generally requires that a nonconforming use proposal of this type and magnitude obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP process involves Staff and various planning and development review committees’ review and recommendation advice to the Governing Body, and required a formal Public participation and Public Hearings process. The final decision of suitability and appropriateness of a proposal is ultimately made by the Governing Body – ELECTED by the Public. The CUP process prescribed a means for the Developer, City, Stakeholders, the Public, and importantly, the impacted Neighborhoods to work together, express and resolve their concerns, and become a part of the process for the preservation and betterment of their Community and Neighborhoods. Yes, the process requires time and significant effort on the part of the City Staff, the Governing Body, the Developer and the Public. It is at times a messy process; but democracy is messy!! The current City Code allows review and approval of government or non-profit agency Transitional and Emergency Housing proposals through the Special Use Permit (SUP) process, where the review and final approval is made solely by single, unelected individual through a staff Administrative Process. The SUP requires no official Public Meetings or Public Hearing, allowing only a public comment period. Furthermore and as significantly, the Code restricts legitimate consideration of public and neighborhood impacts (and therefore legitimate comment of Public concerns of such Impacts) to ONLY those "material adverse effects of Abutting Property" and puts the "burden of proof" of such negative impact upon them! Expression of other concerns and impacts raised by the Public and Neighborhood are not considered through the Administrative review and decision making process! While this makes it easy and convenient for the government or non-profit agency, and the City Staff and Governing Body, it is unfair to the concerned and impacted public, and excludes them from participating in developing and preserving the character of their neighborhoods and community. Approval of a nonconforming use of this magnitude and impact, in an R-1 Residential Neighborhood, which includes nearby Elementary and Middle schools, ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE MADE BY THE GOVERNING BODY, through a process which includes (not restricts) a formal Public process allowing adequate Public participation, review and comment. COMMENTS Unfortunately, the current City Code for an SUP for use of a site by a government or non-profit agency for Transitional and Emergency Housing, provides only for Administrative issuance of a Special Use Permit, following a written comment Period. As said, the process significantly limits impacts and issues utilized in making a final determination. It precludes a bonifide Public Participation process involving the Governing Body which would allow and consider the Public's input, concerns, and opinion regarding the suitability of the proposed Nonconforming Use and impacts upon the Neighborhood beyond the abutting property. That being reiterated, I have the following comments regarding the City Code criteria for Administrative issuance of the subject SUP for HRDC. City Code Sec. 38.230.100.A.6.a.(1) & (2) - Plan review criteria, and Sec. 38.230.120.E.1: Prescribe that the review authority must, in approving the application, consider and determine and that the site for the proposed use is adequate, and that parking and loading are adequate. Comment: First, on-street Parking and Loading/Unloading is not safe or possible on S 3rd / W. Graf Street frontage due to the existence of high traffic volumes, and obstruction of the Pedestrian walk and Bike lanes that would result adjacent to the site. Parking: On Westridge Dr, there are only two (existing) off-street parking spaces, which presumably will be used by the two HRDC employees. HRDC says the clients will be bused to the property. However, some clients will absolutely and inevitably not use HRDC's busing services and will instead provide their own transportation. HRDC cannot, and has no realistic means to’ prevent this from occurring. No off street parking is proposed for their clients. Only one (20' City standard) on-street parking space is available adjacent to the property, the use of which cannot be counted in determining if adequacy parking has been provided under the proposal. Adequate parking is not provided by the proposal. Loading: There has been no provision for safe and adequate off-street loading/unloading of the 36+ clients (which will include children) utilizing the HRDC busing. Given its geometry, the existing Graf St / S 3rd / Westridge Dr intersection works essentially as one large, offset intersection. It is a busy intersection which, due to said geometry, has traffic flow and capacity limitations. Specifically, the East leg of Graf St (technically S 3 rd) off S 3rd/Graf, has inadequate separation from Westridge Dr for storage and staging of Eastbound (EB) vehicles attempting to turn left (NB) off S 3 rd, onto Westridge (NB). Since there is no dedicated left turn lane on S 3rd to (NB) Westridge Dr, the left turn movement conflicts with on-coming WB S 3rd traffic and presents a traffic flow (and possible Grid lock) problem on for the entire off-set intersection. This is especially significant given the traffic volumes and that this serves a major route to MSU, and the Elementary and Middle Schools, and is used as a Bus route by the schools. Additionally, pedestrian volume on the on-street S 3rd (shoulder) pedestrian walk (there is no off-street Sidewalk on South 3rd) is significant. It is a popular public running/walking route and is used by children to access the school playgrounds during nonschool hours. Peak AM vehicular and pedestrian traffic starts to build near 7AM. As such, pedestrian and vehicular safe is a significant issue at this location. If adequate off-street loading/unloading is not provided and is instead allowed to occur in the Westridge Dr traffic lane; and if adequate off-street parking is not provided; Westridge Dr and the Graf / S 3rd / Westridge intersection will be measurably impacted, and pedestrian and vehicular safety will suffer. The site proposal provides no adequate provision for, safe and effective off-street Loading l Unloading for the HRDC buses, and provide Off- Street Parking for private vehicle use which inevitable WILL be generated of their clients. Subsection 2: Prescribes that the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof. Comment: That the only "material impacts" may be considered for "abutting property" only, is ludicrous, and likely would not withstand court scrutiny. It ignores that there often can and will be other significant Non-material impacts associated-with a Project. None-the-less, I submit the following regarding impacts to the abutting (and the surrounding neighborhood!) properties. There are numerous examples of real and predictable Reduced Property Values resulting to abutting property, as well as other neighborhood properties, due to development of substantially nonconforming uses in residential neighborhoods, such as is currently proposed by HRDC. The reduced Property Values impact is not hypothetical, nor conjecture; but, is a documented and predictable researched fact (though not by me). Regarding the “burden of proof” - significant details of the factual basis and supporting references and documentation of such reduced Real Property Value impacts, were previously provided to the City of Bozeman Planning Department and City Commission, by a professional experienced in this topic, through and during the public written comment and testimony for the City's 2014/15 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment (and Site Plan) Public review process and Public Hearings. While I do not currently posses the specific data and references, they are readily available to the Review Authority in the City's Public Record for the Campus Crest proposal. I have no doubt that the summary details will absolutely be remembered by those current City Commissioners who were involved with the review of the Campus Crest Project. Sec. 38.360.135. - Transitional and emergency housing Subsection C.6.c: Requires a management plan from the applicant addressing “intake screening of clients to insure compatibility with services provided at the facility”. Comment: The code requires that HRDC provide a plan which includes intake screening of clients to insure compatibility with services provided at the facility. It is unclear if and how HRDC will or can effectively and adequately "Screen" more than 36 potential clients (presumably not all will qualify) each day, in a manner that will adequately ensure the health and safety of its clients, no less the surrounding neighborhood. CLOSING HRDC has already proven to be a poor neighbor in that they made only a superficial attempt to notify the Neighborhood Residents of their plan inform. Their lack of real effort belies their insincerity to solicit and consider input of the from the Neighborhoods and the Public. Their efforts fall significantly short and ring hollow. The public need for Transitional and Emergency Housing / Warming facilities in Bozeman does not and should not override HRDC's responsibility to thoroughly, rationally and appropriately plan and locate said facility in an area appropriately zoned for such, in order to minimize the impacts of their facilities on the community and the neighborhood. To wit: HRDC's current main Emergency Shelter / Warming Center is located at 2104 Industrial Drive, which is in an M1 Zoning District. The mere availability of the residential home at 3024 Westridge Dr., in an established R1 zoned residential area, does not warrant or justify HRDC locating their new Warming Center in an R1 neighborhood. HRDC should invest-in and develop their facility in an appropriately zoned location. Thank you for your consideration; Craig Brawner 703 W Arnold St Bozeman, MT 59715