Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-21 Public Comment - A. Kelley Hoitsma - WildlandsFrom:Amy Kelley Hoitsma To:Sarah Rosenberg; Agenda Subject:Application 21326 Date:Wednesday, November 17, 2021 1:47:23 PM Attachments:Screen Shot 2021-11-17 at 10.32.47 AM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello: I would like to submit public comment regarding Application 21326, aka the “Wildlands Development” proposed for the corner of E. Peach and Wallace. My comments are directed toward one of the documents submitted as part of the Application Plan: 21.09.14_Wildlands Development_GENERAL & ARCH REV1 This document details the commercial and residential spaces that will comprise the development, and the parking spaces required by code for those commercial and residential units. It also spells out the parking reductions they feel they are allowed according to various sections of the Bozeman City Code. I feel there are several problems with the parking plan for this development. Questionable Arithmetic in Calculating Number of Parking Spaces Required On page 2 they provide a chart summarizing the number of parking spaces/stalls that will be required by the City for each level of the proposed new building: Unless there is something I don’t understand, 4+34+18+10 does not equal 56, it equals 66. Questions about Allowable Parking Reductions I also do not understand the numbers provided in the table detailing the reductions in parking requirements the development feels they are allowed according to code. 1. I understand the reduction of 3 stalls because of the 3 x 24’ of street frontage on Wallace (although these existing spaces are currently almost constantly occupied). 2. I do not understand the numbers presented for mixed-use reductions. According to Table 38.540.050-2 of the City Code, a reduction of 50% of required parking spaces is allowed if the ratio of required non-residential to required residential parking spaces is greater than 1:1 but less than 3:1. In this section they show 28 required residential spaces and 28 required non-residential parking spaces. That is a ratio of 1:1, which would allow NO reductions in required residential parking (they calculate a reduction of 14 spaces). If they used the number presented in other tables in the document, they would have shown 38 required non-residential spaces. That ratio WOULD allow the reduction of 14 residential spaces. Why do they use the number 28 here and not 38? I see in the “Project Narrative” of 29 July 2021 a table on page 4 (“Stalls Required, Reductions, & Total Provided”) showing 12 parking spaces to be provided off-side at Bronken’s (via a shared parking agreement). I see no mention of this in document 21.09.14, and the numbers in the Narrative do not match the numbers in document 21.09.14, so I’m not sure whether that arrangement still exists or not. But perhaps they are lessening the number of required spaces on-site by providing off-site parking? Regardless, subtracting 12 spaces from 38 required non-residential spaces still does not equal 28 spaces, it equals 26 spaces. If that were the case, the mixed-use comparison ratio would now be 26 to 28, which is less than 1:1 and would not allow the 50% reduction in required residential parking spaces. 3. In this section (justifying reductions in non-residential parking requirements based on providing covered bike parking and showers/lockers/changing area) again they use the figure of 28 total non-residential stalls required instead of the 38 listed in other tables. Regardless, they plan to provide 4 covered bike spaces AND a shower, changing room, and 5 showers, which certainly justifies the proposed reduction of 2 non-resident stalls. With all that said (or questioned), even if a reduction of 24 total parking spaces were allowed, 66 required parking spaces (as shown in the document tables and drawing annotations) minus 24 reductions = 42 TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, NOT 32. Current Parking Situation Living less than two blocks from the proposed development, I witness daily the traffic situation on E. Peach and Wallace. The Wild Crumb and Finks Delicatessen (as well as Treeline Coffee and various other businesses on the block) are extremely popular, and there is a constant bustle of pedestrian and vehicular traffic at that corner. Arguably there is currently barely enough parking to accommodate that traffic. Some would say there is not enough. Regardless, the proposed development will not change Wild Crumb or Finks; in fact, it proposes to enhance the Wild Crumb by providing a bakery prep kitchen/artisan food processing space in the basement of the existing building. So there is no reason to think the amount of traffic will change; indeed it likely will increase. What will change is the addition of several new commercial spaces, plus the addition of 28 residents (if each proposed bedroom = 1 new resident). There could be even more actual new residents, and each might each own a car. What also will change is the LOSS of many current parking spaces: 18 spaces lost in the demolition of the current Wild Crumb parking lot 12 spaces lost in the demolition of the neighboring parking lot to the east (6 spaces currently reserved by Envi Interior Design, 3 reserved for Field Studio, and 3 with no signage but not appearing to be public parking) Unchanged will be the 3 street spots available on Wallace. Perhaps another 6 will open up on E. Peach because the development will remove the parking lot entryways and have a solid street front that currently does not allow parking. That is not spelled out in the document. So the current parking situation is: 3 street spaces on Wallace18 in the West parking lot 12 in the East parking lotTOTAL: 33 SPACES According to the development document, they want to provide: 14 residential parking spaces (3 of which will utilize the current street spaces on Wallace plus 11 in the new garage)18 non-residential parking spaces (3 in the garage and 15 in the new, open lot)TOTAL: 32 SPACES IN CONCLUSION: The Wildlands development proposes to add residential units and new commercial enterprises to the Northeast Neighborhood—potentially a great thing! And yet, they propose to actually REDUCE the currently available parking in an area that is already experiencing traffic and parking problems. THIS WILL NOT WORK. The parking requirements need to be significantly increased from what theWildlands development is seeking. Respectfully submitted, Amy Kelley Hoitsma706 E. Peach Street Bozeman, MT 59715406-581-1513 aok@mcn.net