HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-1-2020 - Public Comment - G. Thompson - Aviator BuildingFrom:George Thompson
To:Agenda
Subject:Aviator Building
Date:Friday, May 1, 2020 8:13:00 AM
May 1, 2020
Mayor Mehl and Commissioners, Community Development
RE: Aviator Building and Site Z
Having reviewed the drawings and spoken with the developer, I am in full support of the AviatorBldg and Lot Z. This project reflects good design considerations and sensitivity for a rapidlygrowing, progressive community.
My concerns for the project is based on the loss of tax revenue occurring from lengthy reviews andre-submissions to independent City agencies with no absolutely regard to expense in both time (tocity staff and project team) and money. Perhaps the reason staff is so overwhelmed with projects isthey can’t, refuse to, acknowledge that demanding multiple resubmissions essentially triples theirwork load for each project. Expediting project reviews will reduce staff workloads and increase taxrevenue.
Delays to the Aviator project completion have already resulted in one year of lost tax revenue, well
over $200,000, due to insignificant demands by City staff resulting in substantial delays for redesign
by architectural and engineering. This does not include the lost cost of creating jobs, having newbusinesses, jobs and tenants being delayed in their expansion plans and contributing to our taxbase.
If our commissioners removed $200,000 from the Planning and Building Departments for theirunnecessary delays on this one project, I am confident that staff’s timely resolution and approvalswould not detract from our design guidelines and UBC safety concerns.
It is time that long time city staff members interpret codes as guidelines and not shibboleths toslow job creation in the city.
For example: 1) it was proposed by Park staff that a park surrounded by streets must be insertedinto the urban complex of office buildings/shops to receive “park land credits”. This is ludicrous,Linear Parks should also count as park land as they would provide public access, recreation trails andconnectivity from MSU Innovation Center to grocery store and, commercial venues away from abusy street. 2) A proposal to have a residential building with covered parking fronting Garfield wasrequired to have retail frontage facing Garfield because “the code said so”. Totally ignoring the factthat a busy arterial separates the condos from MSU agricultural land which will not see a change inuse. This section of Garfield will never be a preferred pedestrian destination.
It appears that city staff operate in the business term “silos of thought” woefully independent of the
ripple effects of their decisions and frequently at odds with other city dept’s requirements.
The obstructionist approach by long time city staff is unacceptable. The city has changed since I firstlived here in 1976-1980, but I don’t think staff has. Our city staff needs to remove unnecessarydelays for inconsequential demands and take a constructive comments approach to assisting “work-arounds” to address the code guidelines and create beneficial projects for our residents andenvironment in a timely manner.
Thank You,
George Thompson, 12 Hill St, Bozeman