HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-20 Public Comment - L. Semones - Community Develpment PlanJuly 20, 2020
To: Bozeman City Commission
Chris Mehl, Mayor
Cyndy Andrus, Deputy Mayor
City Commissioners Terry Cunningham, I-Ho Pomeroy, Michael Wallner
Bozeman Planning Commission
From: Linda Semones
Re: Bozeman Community Plan (Growth Policy) Update
I have read the update for the Community Growth Policy and I have the following comments.
On p. 10, the plan states, “The needs of new and existing development coexist and they
should remain in balance; neither should overwhelm the other.” That sounds like a
protection for our historical downtown neighborhoods. In paragraph N-4.1, the plan
states that the growth policy should “Continue to recognize and honor the unique
history and buildings that contribute to Bozeman’s sense of place through civic
action.” Depending on what is meant by civic action, this also seems to be a
protection for historic downtown neighborhoods. I have attended a series of public
comment meetings over a period of 2 years and attended city commission meetings
where apparent protection was offered to the downtown neighborhoods in this
fashion.
I also, as an environmental activist, am very pleased to see the plan state that it
should (p. 19 – N.25) “Ensure that new development include opportunities for urban
agriculture, including rooftop and home gardens, community gardens and urban
farms.” Equally reassuring is that (p. 20) “Innovative design and planning include
ideas like Pocket neighborhoods, smaller housing, green alleys, urban agriculture and
creativity in our public places.” All this was included in the vision sessions I attended
with my neighbors, friends and families over a period of 2 years, and this is what we
expected to see in the growth policy. Downtown Bozeman, the business zone, was
to experience growth, and higher density while the historic neighborhoods were to
receive protection from massive high density inappropriate development and zoning
changes. The characteristics of old Bozeman neighborhoods were deemed valuable
to a livable city, with their green spaces, gardens, trees and single family residences
that could host apartments or ADU’s. However there is a problem inherent in the
document as written.
I fail to see how the following measures in any way can ever work hand in hand
with the livable community measures I have just outlined: On p. 18 – N 1.2 the document states we should “Increase minimum density in residential districts.” and
section N 1.3 states we should “Revise the zoning map to lessen areas for single type housing.” What I am reading here is a go-ahead to change the zoning of the downtown neighborhoods to allow developers to create high density high rise structures in our downtown neighborhood areas. Any change in zoning after citizens
buy their homes and have lifelong expectations of what can happen structurally in their neighborhoods is a betrayal of ownership expectations. And, further, the document states in N 1.11 that the plan should “Enable a gradual and predictable
increase in density over time”. Nothing is predictable unless the city planners allow it to become so. Predictability is a function of permissibility.
In short, I see conflicting interests at work in this document. I am opposed to the short sighted opinion that every downtown should look the same, with high rises,
great density with little green relief and no consideration for average income to low income families. If the current development of the city is any indication, the
developers will be allowed to create buildings that cut down trees, eliminate green space, and house only the rich. And, the developers will push their boundaries into the
traditional downtown neighborhoods with little or no responsibility to the environment or affordability. They will do so by buying up border properties, and
asking for deviations and variances, as well as asking for zoning changes. We have already seen an example of this with the Medical Arts parking lot. Now is the only
time that this unlivable trend can be stopped. If this plan is passed, it will become impossible to fight the destruction of our livable city. Zoning will be changed, single
family homes will be replaced with large inappropriate structures, and we will be just like every other unlivable city in the US.
There is more. On page p.23 DCD-2.8 it says the city planning should “Revise the ordinance, reducing the number of zoning districts to be more consistent with the designated land use classifications, to simplify the development process and support affordability objectives of the plan.” In other words, the plan recommends upzoning
of current neighborhoods, with the possible elimination of R1 and R2 zoning, and the reinterpretation of R3? How would this in any way protect the nature of the livable
downtown? And on page 30, M-1.12 states we should “Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas and reduce parking
minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new supply being built.” This is what has been going on in the downtown for several
years, resulting in insufficient parking in the business downtown. Who is going to build this additional new supply of parking? Obviously the developers are off the
hook. Is the city going to undertake more parking garages? Will the spots in the garages then be leased to hotels and businesses so that the public is eliminated? This
would explain the hard push for the passing of the Parking Benefit District plan. The downtown neighborhoods will become the parking areas for business clients in the downtown, and property owners will be hit again with a fee to park vehicles on the street.
Obviously I have a lot of questions. To be clear, I cannot see how the forward thinking, creative ideas proposed in this plan will mesh with the mediocre uncreative and unlivable ideas proposed. This plan should present a unified policy if it is to be a
living, valuable document. Right now, this plan offers up dreams of livability for those who wish to see the dreams and some real choice gifts to the developers who
could care less about those visioning sessions and public comment meetings we all went to. If you think about it, my home of 25 years, built in 1940 on less than an acre
has raised beds, green grass, established trees and gardens. It seems to me that this is what is envisioned in the more creative section of the plan quoted at the beginning of
my letter. Why would this have to change? Are we going to destroy a beautiful livable neighborhood just to try and recreate it somewhere else more convenient for
developers? Again, predictability is a function of what is permissible. Will this kind of livability have to be created in the city outskirts as my property becomes the typical
inner city unlivable nightmare? I cannot support this plan as it stands.
You actually get what you dream of. I ask our city leaders to dream bigger, to put livability for all residents first. Please consider environmental issues, green spaces, solar energy, and affordability before caving to the vested interests of developers.
I write this letter in all respect for our city leaders. It is a hard job to look forward in creative hope. Please do not approve this plan. It offers lip service to our visions and gives the city away to developers.
Thank you,
Linda Semones 404 S. Church Ave. Bozeman MT 59715 lindasemones@hotmail.com