HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-22 Public Comment - H. Fretwell - North Central AppealFrom:Holly Fretwell
To:Agenda
Cc:annette.piccirillo@gmail.com
Subject:North Central Site Master Plan Appeal - application number 22005
Date:Wednesday, March 2, 2022 3:03:01 PM
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.
March 2, 2022
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to comment on the appeal to the North Central Site Master Plan application number
22005.
I live at 320 North Grand. My home sits directly behind the proposed Ives building, which is a part of
this Master Plan. I understand the need to increase density and housing opportunities in our
community. The proposed North Central Site Plan, however, has not appropriately considered the
character of the neighborhood or the additional costs being put onto neighbors and the community.
The current public input process frustrates this issue because it does not provide the community a
method to be engaged in an impactful way. While the majority of public comments submitted about
the Master Site plan (application 21029), the Ives building site plan (application 21165), and the
change of zoning for the Medical Arts parking lot in 2019, have been in opposition, the commission
Staff Report and decision to accept the Master Site Plan did not address most of these concerns.
Rather it nearly wholly accepts the vision from this developer. Several commissioners have called
the public input on this project a NIMBY response. No doubt there is truth there. And it is true that
the Bozeman planning process allows the proposals to work through most permitting before public
notice. Hence, neighbors have little time for input and are constrained from thoughtfully engaging in
the process with developers and the commission.
It is clear that the Commission, developers, and neighbors have different visions for the future of
Bozeman. More consideration of public input and engagement with adjacent landowners could
better align these interests to produce win-win results. The commission, for example, could take
more careful consideration of the undue impacts the proposal puts on neighbors, the historic nature
of the neighborhood, and transitions between commercial buildings and residential housing.
Following are a few specifics the Commission could be more mindful of that would help ensure that
while we see increased density in our city we maintain its character.
As noted in the Community Growth Plan and the Master Site Plan staff report, “Future
development should be intense while providing areas of transition to adjacent
neighborhoods.” On page 6 of the appeal it is noted that: “ The Master Plan meets density
goals but makes no mention of any attempt to preserve the character of the neighborhood, or
how the development is context sensitive - goals which are of critical importance in the
Community Plan.”
For example, the Commission’s Staff Report for the Ives building proposal notes that the
transition on the north and west side of the proposed Ives building is not congruent with the
current neighborhood character. “The Ives building would appear to tower over the smaller
one-and two-story older homes to the north and west (page 19).” Rather than using the
proposed Ives building as an opportunity to help the city develop transition zones between
residential and tall commercial buildings, the report identifies the Ives as incongruous but
then uses it as an example of transition for the rest of the 4-block development. On the same
page, the report states that the “Site’s new residential building would contribute to a new
urban form in this part of the City’s Downtown neighborhood. “ This allows the developer to
dictate what the “new urban form” looks like with little consideration of current character or
community input.
Softer transitions between commercial buildings and residential homes could help alleviate
the abrupt nature of the transition. This could include “missing middle housing” that “are of a
size and design compatible in scale and form with detached individual homes” as is called for
by the community plan (page 145). Increased landscaping can create an appealing transition
between tall buildings and residential zones. Reducing the height of buildings adjacent
residential zones could be exchanged for greater height on the interior of the community
core where development is adjacent other tall commercial buildings.
Under the North Central Master Site Plan, each individual building within the planned
development is conditionally approved by the city, suggesting that the City Commission
approves the developer’s vision of the four-block area and essentially surrenders rights to
evaluate individual projects as inconsistent with current community character as long as they
are consistent with the character proposed in the Master Site Plan. This conditional approval
should be reversed so that each building is independently reviewed for its suitability in that
location.
The commission should take careful consideration of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District , which has a stated intent “to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of
structures, and all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established
neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas (Bozeman’s Unified Development Code
Article 38.340.010).” The Armory is an excellent example of rehabilitating a historic structure.
The UDC continues, that “New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary
emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and further provided the design of
such new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the
property and the surrounding neighborhood area.” The building design in the North Central
Site Plan, however, does not include historic building restoration, rehabilitation, or similar
architecture to the current neighborhood character. Instead, there is significant demolition
being done to open space for new buildings.
Bozeman’s Unified Development Code Article 38.200.010 states the desire “to conserve the
value of adjacent buildings and to protect the character of the city.” Yet, the proposed
demolition of the old Deaconess Hospital dismisses that and the intent of the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District (Bozeman’s Unified Development Code Article 38.340.010). This
historic structure was opened in 1920 and designed by local architect Fred Wilson. The
hospital building has been deemed unsafe making the proposed project exempt from the
code-required review by the Design Review Board. An assessment by a local firm in August
2020, DCI Structural Engineers, however, recommended repairs that could make the building
safe for new occupancy. Furthermore, Bozeman’s UDC Article 38.220.090 requires developers
to submit a cost-benefit analysis of rehabilitation compared to the demolition of the building.
The commission should reevaluate the Master Plan and how it will impact existing problems
of parking and congestion as defined by the city code, Bozeman Guidelines for Historic
Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The neighborhood has
already seen an immense amount of increased traffic, reduced parking availability, and
diverted traffic flow from current construction and city growth. The bulk of that cost is borne
by the adjacent neighbors.
The commission should consider better tools to allow increased community engagement to
help create innovative methods that allow dense development while maintaining the
character Bozmanites desire. Public comment is not an effective tool for information
exchange.
Thank you for your consideration to reevaluate acceptance of the North Central Site Plan. Win-win
results come from cooperation among stakeholding parties.
Best regards,
Holly Fretwell
HollyLFretwell@gmail.com
320 North Grand Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-579-3658