The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-13-23 Public Comment - C. Dayton - Re-Consideration Of A Zoning Item Feb 14 agendaFrom:Chandler Dayton To:Cyndy Andrus; Terry Cunningham; I-Ho Pomeroy; Christopher Coburn; Jennifer Madgic; Agenda Subject:Re-Consideration Of A Zoning Item Feb 14 agenda Date:Monday, February 13, 2023 5:12:12 PM Attachments:Reconsideration.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. Dear City Commissioners, I am submitting my written comments, attached to this email, regarding the upcoming discussions on reconsideration of a past decision for the Feb 14 Commission meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you have anyquestions. Best regards, Chandler Dayton716 E Peach St, Bozeman, MT 59715 FEB 13, 2023 TO: CITY COMMISSION FROM: CHANDLER DAYTON, 716 E PEACH ST, BOZEMAN, MT RE: CONSENT ITEM G.11 RECONSIDERATION OF THE CLOVERLEAF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT DECISION; THE CLOVERLEAF ZONE MAP The appearance of the G. 11 consent item to reconsider a previous decision to deny B2M zoning on the Bronken property has caused quite a stir in the community. Many residents who followed the discussion are left wondering what has changed that would encourage a no vote to change to a yes in this case, and why is the reconsideration item placed on consent, where it will receive no discussion by commissioners, unless one requests it be removed from the consent list. At minimum, I hope for a greater transparency about the decision to vote for a reconsideration by removing the item from the consent list. In answering the question, what has changed since November 22 when the zoning request failed, I have reviewed the meeting videos and related documents. This reconsideration is likely wrapped up in the notion that this project will represent a successful effort to include a few affordable and attainable units within a much larger 110 unit project, with TIF assistance. I think the number is 11 attainable and 3 affordable units tied to restrictive covenants for the next 30 years, unless the developer exercises the walk away clause, in which case all restrictive covenants will cease. This project seems to meet inﬁll development goals, but for the current zoning, which restricts housing to 40% footprint on the ground ﬂoor and a use mix of 50/50 for residential and commercial. This can’t ‘pencil out’ as sensible for the costs of development, so the developer needs to do a largely residential project for return on investment. A change to B2M is seen as the only expeditious answer to move the project forward. We do not know if the buy/sell agreement between Wildlands and Bronken’s, due to close March 15, is contingent on getting the zone change. If it is, then there is an extra sense of urgency to expedite the change asked for by the developer. The sense of urgency could be described this way: if we don’t reconsider the vote, the deal won’t go through and the property will remain a blighted area or something worse will come along that doesn’t address affordable housing in any way… I’m left wondering if we are all being held hostage to a buy/sell agreement between the developer and the owner of the property because time will run out to close the deal. The problems noted by the discussions about this zone change remain, even though a development agreement for TIF assistance was approved, which contains restrictive covenants that will run with the land for 30 years regarding the affordable units and height restrictions. However, there is a walk away clause that would allow a dissolution of this agreement and we could be left with a B2M zone. The project doesn’t actually ﬁt the intent of B2M either, one that envisions a mix of commercial and residential for walkability and permeability. This project is a high density residential project without the mix of uses that would ﬁt the goals of the community plan. B2M is designed for larger commercial nodes with better transportation and parking infrastructure. NEHMU may be outdated in terms of its housing and use mix requirements, but it is preferred over B2M for its ability to preserve a sense of place. NEHMU can be updated to allow 100% footprint and ground ﬂoor residential. A mix of uses should still be encouraged in both zones. Surely there are other options to allow the project to go forward without changing the zoning to B2M. I realize other options might not be as expeditious for the developer, but let’s have a look at the alternatives anyway.