Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout191101_Bozeman_PublicEvent_SummaryBOZEMANMT COMMUNITY PLAN PHASE 4: THE PLAN 14 November 2019 BOZEMANMT COMMUNITY PLAN COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE | SUMMARY 14 November 2019 PURPOSE The purpose of the Open House was to present Future Land Use Categories and Maps to the public for feedback. Public input and comments will be integrated into the final Community Plan. Each step in the Community Plan update process is built to collect a greater level of detail than the previous step, through thought provoking questions and exercises. NOTIFICATION The Community Open House was publicized through television; at updates to the City Commission and Bozeman Planning Board; direct emails to those who have supplied their contact info as part of this process; and social media outlets, including the City’s existing Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter accounts. THE EVENT The Community Open House took place at the Bozeman City Hall Commission Room on Thursday, October 17th, between 4 and 6pm. Members from City staff provided summaries of the draft Future Land Use Categories, and presented the Future Land Use Map. A number of thematic representations of the map were created and displayed for the event (one example is shown to the right). Participants were asked to assess whether the Future Land Use Categories match the needs of the community, and to provide input on the Future Land Use categories’ spatial placement in the City. Meeting participants wrote their answers to three main questions about the categories on white boards. Approximately 73 people attended the event. BOZEMANMT COMMUNITY PLAN PHASE 4: THE PLAN 14 November 2019 Feedback on the Future Land Use Categories and Mapping 1. Do you think the 8 land use classifications match the needs of the community?  Definitely. I love the emphasis on mixed-use development for future planning.  I like that the number of categories has decreased, but categories still need work. Urban Residential is improved from Residential. Residential Emphasis Mixed Use needs to be distinguished from the zoning designation that shares its name. Industrial should have “mixed use” in its name. No City Services is interesting and improved from Present Rural. Positive for Community Core to now also encompass 7th.  There is too much density overall.  Needs for layout and infrastructure – yes; needs for livability – no. Preservation of existing neighborhood character and use not included. Changes to quality of life at expense of growth – how to mitigate?  Perhaps call out higher density (we need *more* density). Designation for affordable housing?  NO. Open land/parks should not be the same as institutional classification. i.e. Jake Jabs building is not a park! 2. The pink areas represent commercial areas. Would you feel comfortable walking or riding a bike to the commercial area nearest your home? Why?  It must be *comfortably* and *safely* walkable for kids and elderly. Not requiring a crossing of a 5-lane road. (Knolls Homeowner)  Mostly yes! I live by MSU campus and love all of the sidewalks and bike lanes, Kagy Ave between 11th and 19th does need a full sidewalk though!  Currently yes – Oak Spring resident – easy walkable to 19th area.  No, South 3rd needs pedestrian facilities to promote walking between neighborhoods South of Kagy and the commercial node located at the corner of Kagy and South 3rd.  I feel comfortable walking (except past construction projects with no pedestrian walkways), but then I live a block from Main Street.  Yes, but not the ones farther from my home, i.e. down 19th to Costco/Target area. The speed limit is 40 mph, but people go 40-55 down that road.  Somewhat – there are several sections of trails that are incomplete. Overgrown vegetation along streets/sidewalks make it difficult for pedestrians/vehicles to see each other. I would bike much further from my home in Bozeman if the asphalt trail to Four Corners was complete – same with the asphalt trail along the northbound side of N 19th.  Yes, some of them.  Yes because I live downtown but would like to see more designated bike lanes in the area. Not just the bike symbol on the street.  Kind of. I wish that the pink commercial areas were integrated on a more granular level. I should always be comfortable walking to meet my basic needs. The residential plan seems very sprawling and walking will be hard to service.  I am comfortable walking/biking to a pink area near my home because 11th has a great sidewalk. BOZEMANMT COMMUNITY PLAN PHASE 4: THE PLAN 14 November 2019  I am not in favor of sprinkling new commercial centers south of town because in my experience commercial roads are designated for *cars*, and I envision that would lead to stand alone suburbia.  Yes – but only seasonally and for social activities – restaurants, shows, bars, etc. Not for commercial such as groceries, healthcare, etc. 3. Does the map communicate what is intended to the different users – residents, landowners, developers, City and County staff, City and County elected officials?  The density map shows incorrect “density” categories for my neighborhood – hopefully it is not used to make decisions on business needs (growth) in the area. (See The Knolls at Hillcrest-Highland Blvd)  The density map shows 406 S Church as 4-6 family units dense. Really? Next to single family units across from Bogert Park? Does the homeowner know this? Why is there a little silver area next to Peets Hill zoned 11-16? Are these mistakes?  The map is very confusing as to what is, what should be, and what you want. I will have to study it online.  Density is a relative term.  Probably, not sure.  I don’t think so. There is not a cohesive vision, hard to tell what the *improvement* is.  No. Have an accompanying narrative from the perspective of all of the different users listed above that communicates the intentions – what does it mean to you? Your neighborhood? The economics of the city?  No – the map alone can’t do that…education is also necessary. Comments from the Community Plan Handout  Category 1, Urban Residential o Rename to “Urban Neighborhood” o Allow the tiny corner grocery store here  Category 2, Residential Emphasis Mixed Use o Needs a new name – people get *very* confused with the REMU zoning designation o Does this require commercial? o Reword second and third sentences to clarify that single story commercial is what this is trying to avoid.  Category 3, Community Core o Fourth sentence edit: Residential development (insert: “and offices”) on upper floors (“are”) well established. o Fifth sentence regarding the use of “high density”: “density” is a relative term. What does this mean?  Category 4, Commercial Emphasis Mixed Use (CEMU) o Let’s just not use acronyms at all BOZEMANMT COMMUNITY PLAN PHASE 4: THE PLAN 14 November 2019 o Third sentence edit: Residences on upper floors (insert and replace: “is encouraged”).  Comment on original sentence: No! Why would you ever not encourage residential on upper floors!  Category 5, Regional Commercial and Services o Fourth sentence: delete whole sentence and replace with “Residential development on upper floors is encouraged.” o Why do we need this? Combine with Commercial Emphasis Mixed Use. If Costco wants to build 3 floors of residential above the store, that’s great!  Category 6, Industrial o Rename to “Industrial Mixed Use” o There are lots of industrial uses that would work well with residential above. Let zoning dictate use and not a land use designation. (ex: M-2 doesn’t allow residential)  Future Land Use Classification to zoning correlation table o Residential Emphasis Mixed Use & R-3 box: taking this dot away just made the Bridger View redevelopment non-compliant. Please add dot back or change us to urban neighborhood.