Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-22 Public Comments - C. Herrick - Comments for North Central Master Site Plan Appeal (22-005)From:Crowell H To:Agenda Subject:Comments for North Central Master Site Plan Appeal (22-005) Date:Sunday, March 6, 2022 1:38:05 PM Attachments:NorthCentralAppealComments.pdf 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. I am submitting the attached comments to the above referenced appeal. Please read and addthem to the project records. Thank you. Crowell Herrick 401 N. Black Ave. COMMENTS Project Name: North Central Master Site Plan and North Central Block 4 Site Appeal Appeal Number: 22-005 I would like to comment on the appeal priamarily from the perspective of the Master Site Plan (MSP). This should not have been approved as submitted. As a resident of the neighborhood (401 N. Black) this project is a major encoachment on the North East and North Central character. As I’ve commented on other projects and zoning changes, the North Central Project’s (NCP) shear size and proposed building purposes is inappropriate. As it stands right now this project is a giant “tumor” invading the neighborhood. The Commission in its Long Range Plan has an objective to increase housing density through infill. The North Central Project isn’t effective in achieving this goal. First off, let me say I understand the focus of developing this area. I get it that the hospital outgrew it’s location in downtown and needed to relocate so it could expand. And to that end the Medical Arts building, which was supporting the hospital “suffered”. The Mountain View care facility also took a hit. So the time seemed right for repurposing the site but rather than focusing on creating a primarily housing dominated objective the Commission chose to go along with a Master Plan that isn’t consistent with higher density housing infill. Rather, the NCP is the same old cookie cutter project Home Base has pitched all around Bozeman. Retail on the first floor, business on the second and the remaining floors are large single family units. How is this adding the desired higher density infill? It would be better off with R-4 zoning which is more in line with maintaining the neighborhood character. Retail has no business being in this area. When the City approved the zoning change on the parking lot, which was the designated parking for the AC Marriott, it was a clear message to the developer that they would have “carte blanche” to do whatever they wanted. That change should never have happened and a nice apartment complex on the site would have been a better alternative than what is proposed in the MSP. R-4 or at least lower profile buildings should be required for the perimeter of the NCP. A 5-story high rise has no place across the street from single family residences. Thus, the proposed Henry building is inappropriate as shown in the NCP plans. At the very least it should be set back from the property boundary a greater distance (I have no idea what that would be) to create an open space buffer. Better yet, create a greater set back and step down the building profile on the north and east sides so it isn’t so imposing. If this isn’t part of the Commission’s concern, then perhaps the Planning Board isn’t doing their job. I saw recently that the Commission denied a developer’s plan to build single family residences on a plot of land zoned R-4. The developer, accepted by the City planners, chose this approach due to the high costs of building multiple unit buildings. If the Commission is going to create a situation where making a profit is at risk, then I suggest you make the same kind of decision on the NCP. Don’t let the developer drive the project and alter the Long Range Plan. Insist on more residences, higher density and encourage him to sharpen his pencil. If he wants to do business here in Bozeman he may have to accept a lower margin. You can do this. I’d also like to comment on part of the intial scoping of this project. Home Base created this Project Compass as a way to incorporate amenities and attributes into the project. It stated “…creating a sustainable, adaptable community hub that adds economic vitality and human vibrancy…”. The items that appeared in the compass were marginally quantifiable and significantly of a subjective nature. Mr. Halloran of Home Base has called the claims in the appeal to be “clearly subjective” which seems to be a double standard here. The end result is that Mr. Halloran has a number in mind that he wants to make off the development and creating a project that meets the compass objective is a minor element. This project does nothing to meet the needs of the neighborhood and would result in a loss of community feeling. The proximity to Main Street and those businesses is sufficiently close to serve the neighborhood. What more could the businesses in the NCP provide that don’t already exist? The majority of the “activity” associated with the project would be of a transitory nature, be it from the businesses or the proposed hotel. As proposed, the NCP is an assault on the character of the neighborhood, “urban” or whatever you want to call it. I must also add, SAVE Deaconess Hospital! I don’t care whether there is a side of the building is unsafe. This is an iconic building, designed by Fred Willson, and should be “memorialized”. Make the developer spent a little money to make it structurally sound as a way to give back to the community. Mr. Halloran may think he’s doing Bozeman a great service by providing all these wonderful housing projects but he just happens to be reaping the benefits of a situation that is ripe for the taking, given the current social and economic conditions. He’s has no real allegiance to Bozeman, all he sees is “dollar signs”. Mr. Halloran needs to be reminded that Bozeman had been here long before he came along and we need to be able to remember Bozeman’s history after he’s gone. I commented previously on the parking plan. Frankly, I find it a joke that parking space credits are given for bike racks and proximity to public transportation. Bike racks are for seasonal use and the the Streamliner is hardly a public transportation system. How many of you commissioners have used it? It’s a service, yes, but not a viable means to get around Bozeman. And ride share? Who does that in Bozeman and where do think we are? This is Montana, not a suburb or a larger metropolitan area. Consequently, when I read the Parking Plan in the MSP I found it bafflaing and a lot of hand waving to get to a desired number. In closing, I urge the Commission to take the necessary steps to make the NCP a project that is part of Bozeman’s future by incorporating the communty’s input, rather than having a mass of structures that were burped out. Call on the Planning Board to take a closer look at whether this project makes sense, not just on paper, but how it meets the intrinsic character of the neighborhood and the City. I hope that the Commission can make the correct call and ask the developer to reconsider the designs and configuration of the project. Don’t be complicit. In the past the Commission hasn’t been tough enough on the new projects. If the status quo remains and no action is taken I have a “vote of no confidence” in your ability to look out for the future growth of Bozeman while respecting the current community. Many of you have been in your positions for too long and should be removed if you continue down this path of acquiescence. Commentor: H. Crowell Herrick, II 401 N. Black Ave.