Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-20 Public Comment - J. Dimarco - Community Plan commentsFrom:jerrydimarco@mail.com To:Agenda Subject:[SPAM] Community Plan comments Date:Monday, November 2, 2020 9:06:27 AM Attachments:Bozeman Community Plan comments.doc Attached are my comments regarding the Bozeman Community Plan. I appreciate all the hard work that went into this very professional document. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Jerry DiMarco Bozeman Bozeman Community Plan Comments Jerry DiMarco 11/1/2020 General comments: I do not understand some features of the Future Land Use Map. Maybe I already missed it, but the Map could be the subject of a public (not virtual) meeting all by itself. Complementary districts should be like new downtowns. They should replicate the downtown area, in function if not form, as Bozeman grows, becoming the new downtowns in their area. However, the complementary districts shown on pg 23 vary in size and shape, and the locations of some do not seem to make sense. * The North 7th and North 19th districts make sense, and correlate well with the assigned land uses. * The Fowler district seems oversized, and there is almost no correlation with assigned land uses. Existing businesses on the south side of Main St seem to dictate that the district should straddle Main St in that area. * The Cottonwood district is too large, and because land uses in the middle are not correlated, it might make more sense for the district to be on both sides, and close to Huffine. * The Baxter/Cattail district is a puzzler. The diagonal orientation and lack of correlation with assigned land uses makes one wonder why it was selected. A better choice might be Baxter Lane, west of the new high school, combining the RMU and commercial node to the west. * The Story Mill district seems very inappropriate. There is very little correlation with assigned land uses, and it encroaches on the foothills, which should be protected by a buffer zone. If you want a commercial district in that part of town it should stop where Bridger Dr begins. Why don't commercial nodes look like the complementary districts? Aren't they the complementary districts of the future? * Why are there 3 commercial nodes between Baxter and Valley Center? That seems overdone, especially in light of my comment about the Baxter/Cattail district above. A node along Valley Center may be needed someday, but the one in the middle seems excessive. * The commercial nodes near Bear Canyon and out South 19th are too close to foothills. Commercial development should not be in or near that buffer zone. Why don't the industrial areas at 19th and Goldenstein, and Huffine look more like the north industrial area? Why are they on only one side of the road? The location of Commercial Mixed Use areas makes sense. The placement of Residential Mixed Use areas seems arbitrary. The idea of mixed-use areas makes sense because people want to live in a walkable community. However, that does not necessarily translate to people wanting to live in a mixed-use building. Mixed-use buildings may have certain efficiencies, but they also have problems with trash, smells, traffic, parking, maintenance and noise. Are people beating down the doors to live in a mixed-use building, or are they hoping to get out and have their own place someday? A quick check of planning documents online finds statements like: * Allow different uses on the same site or within walking distance rather than in the same building. * Control the mix of uses at the district level rather than at the project level. * A checklist for mixed-use planning asks: are the uses linked by sidewalks or paths, within convenient walking distance, are walking routes short and direct? So it appears to me that the concept of mixed-use has been taken too far, with mixed-use buildings. Quality of life must also be considered. It seems to make more sense to replace Residential Mixed Use with Mixed Residential Use areas, and locate them around Commercial Mixed Use areas. The residents would be within walking distance, and the problems of mixed-use buildings, including quality of life issues, would be avoided. The draft Map does not make sense in its placement of Residential Mixed Use areas, and mixed-use buildings do not improve quality of life, and likely do not contribute to affordable housing. There are many Objectives that could have a negative impact on affordability. Some encourage greater diversity or density of housing. This increases property values in the area. Others encourage housing to be built near assets, or seek to expand historic districts which are some of the most expensive areas in town. Objectives that appear to impact affordability include: N-1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.11, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2 DCD-1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 4.4 M-1.1, RC-4.4 Affordable housing is already an uphill battle. I hope this plan doesn't add to the problem. The Community Housing Action Plan addresses only the supply side of the issue. As recent events show, we must also address the demand side of the issue to have any hope of making housing affordable. It is no longer acceptable to be limited to only encouraging where we want development to occur. Urban sprawl is not sustainable and raises the cost and energy needs of everything. The city must strongly advocate for state-wide comprehensive land-use planning. Looking to a future with a much higher world population, it may be necessary to bring urban sprawl back to town, and reclaim that land for agriculture. So we must stop adding to the sprawl problem. What is healthy growth (pg 14)? More importantly what is the limit on growth? Population change was not mentioned as a stressor, but it certainly is. The document mentions the rapidly growing population several times, and grappling with the impacts of population, yet there was no consideration of the limit to growth. However, it should be obvious by now that there is a need to know the carrying capacity of the valley (the population that can be sustained indefinitely) for planning purposes. So I think it is important to include this as a goal. Assuming I understand the meaning of R-2.7, here is a suggested rewording of this objective -- Ensure measures are flexible and adaptable to accommodate changes in climate, economy and social conditions. On page 11, the City Responsibilities paragraph needs an ending sentence. It currently comes across as an unresolved issue. Will the Planning Area boundary ever change? Can there be restrictions inside the boundaries? Comments regarding specific Objectives: N-1.8 -- We must also address the problem of tree roots, see my comment for EPO-3.3. N-2.3 – Shouldn’t there be some guidance about where neighborhood commercial development will be located? How will it be coordinated with the complimentary districts? N-2.5 -- Community gardens and urban farms have problems associated with them. Too, I wonder if they will increase vehicle miles traveled and the use of more motorized equipment, and whether water resources will be negatively impacted. I think a more desirable solution, that also increases the quality of life, is to keep lots big enough so that the owners can have a garden. Our public green spaces should be for all to enjoy. N-3.8 -- Compact development and density negatively impact affordable housing and quality of life by increasing property values in the area. Will all affordable housing be apartments? Are trailers and modular housing being left out of the affordable housing mix? Density may also compromise fire safety, and an enhanced urban forest compounds this problem. N-4.1, 4.2 -- The historic districts are overdone. They are some of the most expensive properties in town. The concept of “sense of place” should not be applied to the historic districts. The original use of the term was in reference to the Northern Rockies or the Gallatin Valley. Then it was extended to neighborhoods. It should not be further extended to historic districts because no one said that in those public meetings. The historic districts, especially the NCOD, have a major impact on affordable housing. As such, further expansion of those districts should be discontinued until we make significant progress on the affordable housing problem. DCD-2.4 -- The size of the downtown area and the height of buildings affect affordability. If the downtown area expands horizontally or vertically, it will negatively impact affordable housing in adjacent areas. So for the sake of affordability, I hope the downtown area stays at its present size forever, and maximum building heights are not allowed to increase. Likewise for the complementary districts, they should have a predetermined size that does not change. DCD-3.6 -- I have not heard ground-floor parking discussed as another solution for parking problems. It would address the problem of giving up building space for the sake of a parking lot. Theme 4 -- Protecting ecosystems requires us to be mindful of our impacts. The wording on this page takes the burden off the individual. I think it would be helpful to change the wording of the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph, to put the onus on us so we all become more aware of the impacts we are having. EPO-1.3 -- I would add that we place artwork only where it is appropriate. The artwork in the wetland at the south end of Story Mill Community Park detracts from the naturalness of the area. EPO-2.2 -- I would like to see this Objective changed to be more like the wetlands goals in the Climate Plan. EPO-3.3 -- I think water conservation would be helped by sculpting the ground in boulevards and parkways below grade, with the low spot in the middle. This will allow them to hold water better, less water would go down storm drains, and it would help keep ice off of sidewalks in the wintertime. Trees will benefit from the extra water, and since they would be planted lower, sidewalks may be protected from root damage. EPO-4.2 -- Why is the focus only on the environment and not private property too? M-1.1 – Mixed-use land use, yes, but not mixed-use buildings. Presumably the highest density uses and structures would be next to the major roads. M-1.8 -- Bus shelters should be portable since routes and stops may change in the future. M-1.9 -- Please keep sharrows out of the traffic lanes. Think of the children. Note in the Climate Plan, separation of bikes and vehicles is recommended for safety. M-1.12 -- Does this conflict with DCD-3.6? EE-2.3 -- How will this affect our water needs? RC-2.1 -- What about development already in environmentally sensitive or hazard prone areas? Is there a provision to move development out after an event that causes damage, or a change in ownership, and then reclaim the land? Does this conflict with EPO-2.2? Are fault lines included on the list of hazard prone areas? RC-2.4 -- I would like to see a stronger regulation here that keeps development out of the wildland urban interface above the valley floor. This also appears to conflict with RC-2.1. RC-2.5 -- Instead of land acquisitions and conservation easements, please lobby for a comprehensive land-use plan. This appears to conflict with RC-2.1 as well.