HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-30-24 Public Comment - M. Palffy - Application 24051; 8 Aspen Site PlanFrom:Danielle Garber
To:maxeyltdptr@gmail.com
Cc:Bozeman Public Comment; Brian Krueger; Erin George
Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL]Application 24051; 8 Aspen Site Plan
Date:Monday, July 29, 2024 2:37:39 PM
Attachments:8 Aspen, 2024.07.28.pdf
Ms. Palffy,
Thank you for the public comment. I have CC’d the City Clerk’s public comments email
(comments@bozeman.net) for distribution to city management and elected officials, as well as the
Interim Community Development Director as requested below. I will also add this letter to the
project file for the 8 Aspen site plan (24051) review.
Thank you,
Danielle Garber | Senior Planner, Community Development
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2272 | E: dgarber@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
Information about the Development Code Update can be found at https://engage.bozeman.net/udc
NEW Landscape and Irrigation Design Standards - Ordinance 2155 amends the development code
requirements for landscaping and irrigation plans. Resolution 5586 adopts the Landscape and
Irrigation Design Standards Manual. Further information can be found at the Water Conservation
New Development Standards website.
From: Maxey Ltd Ptr <maxeyltdptr@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 2:19 PM
To: Danielle Garber <DGarber@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Application 24051; 8 Aspen Site Plan
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.
Ms. Garber: Please distribute the attached letter regarding Site Application 24051, 8 Aspen Street, to theDirector of Community Development, the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the CityCommissioners. Thank you and my best,Maxey Ltd Partnership Mary F Palffy, GP
July
28,
2024
Maxey
Limited
Partnership
4391
East
Raven’s
Ridge
Drive
Columbia,
MO
65201-‐3113
RE:
8
Aspen
Site
Plan
Application
Address
TBD
,
Bozeman,
MT
59715
Application
24051
City
of
Bozeman
Department
of
Community
Development
ATTN:
Danielle
Garber,
Planner
PO
Box
1230
Bozeman,
MT
59771-‐1230
Ms.
Garber:
We
are
writing
in
regard
to
our
concerns
related
to
the
proposed
8
Aspen
Site
Plan
and
Building,
and
issues
associated
with
growth
in
the
Midtown
area
in
general.
Several
issues
come
to
mind,
which
are
concerns
for
any
development
adjoining
Maxey
Limited
Partnership
property,
or
proposed
building
in
Midtown.
Maxey
property
has
consistently
had
trespassing
problems
before,
during
and
after
the
building
process
is
completed.
Survey
crews,
contractors
or
subs
bidding
various
jobs
park
on
the
utility
easement,
or
Maxey
land,
proper.
Tradesmen
with
personal
vehicles
or
company
equipment
park
on
Maxey
property
as
well,
without
permission,
we
might
add.
Please
include
specific
requirements
to
observe
private
property
at
all
times
whenever
a
project
is
proposed
near
Maxey
holdings.
Apparently
pets
are
to
be
allowed
at
9
Aspen.
Again,
leash
laws
have
not
been
followed
by
in
large
at
the
Ruh
building,
the
Aspen
Meadows
Apartments,
and
previously
built
private
residences
and
Oak
Street
Townhomes,
in
addition
to
using
our
property
as
a
“dog
park”.
Further,
a
few
dog
owners
do
not
deal
with
the
fecal
matter
left
behind,
which
in
turn
creates
a
biohazard.
Appropriately
sized
walking
areas
for
walking
pets,
and
disposal
of
fecal
matter
should
be
carefully
placed
throughout
the
8
Aspen
building
site.
Please
include
specific
requirements
to
observe
leash
laws
and
no
trespassing
on
private
property
once
again
on
Maxey
Limited
property.
We
question
the
overall
height
of
the
proposed
building.
The
overall
height
of
8
Aspen
as
compared
to
the
footprint
of
the
lot
seems
out
of
scale.
The
building
height
certainly
seems
out
of
scale,
proportion,
to
the
immediate
area,
both
residential
and
commercial.
Reference
was
made
to
a
planned
trail
within
the
“Narrative”
portion
of
the
proposal,
eventually
crossing
Oak
to
Baxter.
Where
is
the
precise
location
of
this
proposed
trail?
Finally,
the
8
Aspen
proposal
is
comprised
of
289
one
bedroom
units.
The
number
of
vehicular
parking
spaces
correlating
to
the
unit
number
is
162
spaces,
or
56%
of
the
total
proposed
units,
if
a
one
to
one
ratio
is
used.
Is
it
not
out
of
the
realm
for
individual
unit
occupants
to
own
two
vehicles,
in
which
case
the
discrepancy
of
“need”
to
“provided”
spaces
becomes
even
greater?
We
do
understand
the
site
is
within
the
“North
Seventh
Cooridor”
thereby
parking
is
an
open
option
district,
or
“zero
parking”
non-‐requirement,
however
parking
space
need
is
real.
It
is
not
a
game
on
paper.
Do
the
Community
Development
and
City
Commission
seriously
believe
inhabitants
of
the
289
units
will
not
possess
at
least
one
vehicle?
We
believe
all
unit
tenants
will
possess
at
least
one
vehicle,
therefore
8
Aspen
will
be
127
provided
parking
spaces
shy.
And
of
course
this
does
not
take
into
consideration
more
than
one
vehicle
per
unit,
which
is
likely.
Nor
does
this
proposal
account
for
vehicular
parking
spaces
for
8
Aspen
management,
tradesmen
service
vehicles,
visitors
of
tenants,
and
so
forth.
The
City
Commission
might
inquire
as
to
where
many
of
the
Ruh
Building
tenants
and
patrons
of
the
businesses
park.
As
stated
in
a
letter
to
the
Commission
relative
to
the
Ruh
Building
proposal
we
believed
it
inevitable
that
illegal
parking
on
private
property
would
occ ur.
We
can
assure
you
it
has.
Mr.
Ruh
has
not
strictly
adhered
to
their
parking
proposal
as
they
stated,
relative
to
parking
on
their
dedicated
parking
areas,
or
rented
property.
Recapping
the
major
building
proposals
for
Midtown
that
have
come
to
fruition
in
the
past
few
years
are
as
follows:
Missoula’s
Logjam
proposed
and
received
final
approval
to
build
the
ELM,
a
1500
person
capacity
music
venue
at
506
North
Seventh
Avenue
in
the
spring
of
2018.
The
1500
seating
capacity
for
the
venue
did
not
include
ELM
employees,
musicians,
performers,
support
staff,
and
caterers
to
the
total
head
count.
Parking
was
not
required
or
provided
on
site
under
the
“zero
parking”
requirements
within
Midtown.
Without
question
these
issues
have
and
will
impact
the
area
for
as
long
as
the
building
stands.
The
mixed-‐use
Ruh
Building
located
at
605
North
Seventh
Avenue,
was
publicized
at
slightly
over
34,000
square
feet
[Bozeman
Daily
Chronicle
(BDC)
January
6,
2019].
Based
on
conversations
with
Bozeman
Fire
Marshall,
Scott
Mueller,
the
occupancy
load
for
the
Ruh
Building
was
projected
to
be
226
persons.
The
site
plan
indicated
on-‐site
parking
limited
to
26
spaces.
Trespassing
constantly
occurs
on
private
property
from
tenants,
professional
tradesmen
and
patrons
alike.
Shortly
thereafter
Aspen
Crossing
was
publicized
in
the
BDC,
measuring
approximately
74,000
square
feet
by
plan.
The
mixed-‐use
building
was
approved,
located
on
the
north
side
of
Aspen
situated
between
North
Fifth
and
Seventh
Avenues.
The
building
houses
retail
space
and
restaurants
on
the
first
floor,
offices
on
the
second
floor,
with
condominiums
planned
for
the
third
floor.
The
proposed
parking
accommodation
on
site
was
94
spaces,
with
an
additional
66
spaces
“designated”
as
on
street
parking,
according
to
the
Planning
Office.
I’m
unclear
what
the
final
parking
space
count
was,
however
a
concerted
effort
was
made
to
accommodate
parking
on
site,
in
addition
to
street
parking.
The
West
Peach
Condos
were
proposed
and
approved.
It
appeared
the
developer
had
taken
into
account
a
reasonable
amount
of
parking
by
providing
a
two
car
garage
for
each
of
the
17
unit
condominiums.
In
general
terms,
we
gather
Mr.
David
Fine,
City
(of
Bozeman)
Economic
Development
Specialist,
has
been
the
major
push
behind
the
“zero
parking”
requirements
within
Midtown.
The
BDC
reported
on
the
September
18,
2017
Bozeman
City
Commission
Meeting,
and
indicated
that
Commissioner
Pomeroy
seemed
concerned
that
if
large
developers
usurped
all
parking
spaces
in
the
future,
would
there
be
a
plan
in
place
to
counter.
Mr.
Fine
replied
that
the
district
was
seeking
public
parking.
This
was
five
years
ago.
Further,
he
thought
“the
urban
renewal
board
was
well
aware
that
if
they
are
as
successful
as
they
hope
to
be,
there
will
be
a
need
to
initiate
action
to
provide
public
parking.”
It
only
seems
logical
that
a
music
venue
of
1500+
would
require
additional
parking,
and
therefore
perhaps
be
sited
elsewhere.
This
begs
the
question,
are
current
residents
in
the
area,
expected
to
bear
the
brunt
of
parking,
and
late
night
noise
associated
with
concert
parking?
Are
residents
to
buy
permits
for
their
homes
as
they
do
in
and
around
Bozeman
High
School
and
Montana
State
University?
Again,
we
understand
approval
has
been
obtained,
however,
we
wonder
where
the
public
parking
accommodation
will
be
designated
since
private
parking
is
non-‐existent?
Ed
Meese,
Director
of
Parking,
indicated
a
feasibility
study
for
the
community
wa s
in
process.
We
have
never
seen
a
completed
Midtown
study.
(Again,
as
a
thought
I
passed
along
five
or
six
years
ago,
perhaps
parking
could
be
leased
at
the
Gallatin
County
Fairgrounds,
with
a
bus
system
employed,
shuttling
venue
goers
to
and
from.)
The
irony
of
the
“zero
parking”
required
for
Midtown,
of
course,
is
that
there
exists
a
long
established
business
in
Bozeman
that
would
like
to
add
a
very
modest
addition
to
their
building,
yet
have
to
increase
their
parking
space
requirement
per
code
in
order
to
do
so.
Their
entire
building
has
approximately
the
same
square
footage
as
one
floor
of
the
Ruh
Building.
This
seems
to
be
a
variance
issue,
in
opposition
to
the
zero
parking
for
any
Midtown
structure.
There
should
be
a
modicum
of
spaces
provided
by
the
developer
on
site
within
Midtown.
Conversely,
a
longstanding
50+
year
business
owner
should
not
be
disadvantaged
to
the
point
of
precluding
an
addition.
Logic
should
prevail.
Addressing
the
broad
scope,
articles
appearing
in
the
BDC
indicate
the
City
of
Bozeman
continues
to
struggle
with
overall
parking
issues
in
other
areas
of
town.
Questions
have
arisen
over
parking
spaces
in
the
Bridger
Downtown
Parking
Garage
based
on
a
proposal
of
HomeBase
Partners
to
lease
107
spaces
for
25
years.
Pushback
from
downtown
business
and
property
owners
were
voiced
to
the
Parking
Commission,
concerned
about
access
for
their
customer
base.
Additionally,
it
is
our
understanding
that
MAP
Brewing
Company
was
approved
with
minimal,
but
within
code
on-‐site
parking.
Therefore,
customers
began
parking
on
Manley
Road,
creating
problems
as
far
back
as
2016,
as
reported
by
the
BDC.
Citizens
in
attendance
at
a
City
Commission
meeting
felt
the
newly
created
Manley
Road
improvement
SID
had
more
to
do
with
parking
than
transportation.
We
later
learned
that
several
Bozeman
businesses
have
sued
the
City
regarding
the
SID
creation.
During
a
conversation
with
Mr.
Fine,
he
referred
to
the
parking
issue
as
“tenant
agnostic,”
an
interesting
term
indeed.
This
implies
the
City
has
abrogated
its
responsibility
to
the
existing
citizenry
and
the
now
quiet
enjoyment
of
their
homes
in
the
evening
based
on
the
residential
/
ELM
commercial
parking
interface.
The
Ruh
Building,
based
on
close
proximity,
overlaps
with
much
of
the
same
off
site
parking,
both
east
and
west
of
North
Seventh
and
within
existing
residential
areas.
And
now,
layered
is
the
proposed
8
Aspen
property.
Is
the
City
Commission
going
to
allow
this
increase
pressure
on
area
businesses
and
residents?
We
are
not
against
encouraging
development,
or
enhancing
the
North
Seventh
corridor.
We
do
believe,
however,
there
is
a
need
for
reasonable
provided
on-‐site
parking.
The
responsibility
should
not
solely
lie
on
the
shoulders
of
adjoining
property
owners,
or
residential
areas
for
commercial
parking
ventures.
Where
is
the
responsibility
of
a
developer
in
providing
the
majority
of
needed
on
site
parking
in
Midtown?
Furthermore,
although
there
may
currently
be
parking
agreements
in
place
with
other
businesses,
those
agreements
do
not
guarantee
an
infinite
time
frame
or
that
tenants
will
use
designated
areas.
What
will
be
the
approach
in
five
years,
or
ten,
when
the
lessor
business
decides
to
make
a
change,
or
another
development
desires
that
parking
slot?
And
as
referenced
with
the
MAP
Brewing
Company,
if
business
is
brisk,
and
the
designated
occupancy
load
is
exceeded,
what
then?
Additionally,
how
are
the
patrons
to
know
where
to
park?
We
are
not
advocating
a
design
for
100%
occupancy
load,
however
a
happy
medium
should
be
struck.
Referring
to
the
Ruh
Building,
26
spaces
does
not
adequately
service
one
function
of
the
building,
let
alone
all.
(The
first
floor
brewery/commercial
space
was
estimated
at
an
occupancy
load
of
125,
the
rooftop
seating
another
45,
each
floor
of
the
apartment
quarters
28,
for
a
total
of
56
between
the
second
and
third
floors.)
Mr.
Fine’s
further
suppositions
are
that
1)
not
everyone
in
Bozeman
owns
a
vehicle,
ie.
MSU
students,
and
2)
public
transportation
will
accommodate
those
who
do
not.
There
is
no
doubt
that
not
all
MSU
students
bring
vehicles
to
Bozeman.
This
point
was
conceded
with
Mr.
Fine
based
on
experience.
Based
on
experience
however,
many
of
the
students
without
vehicles
in
all
likelihood
live
in
dorms
or
close
to
campus.
Furthermore,
with
regard
to
public
transportation,
Bozeman
is
not
Chicago,
or
NYC.
Bozeman
is
not
well
served
with
a
comprehensive
public
transportation
system,
routes,
and
schedules.
Residents
still
drive
in
Bozeman,
whether
they
use
their
own
vehicles
daily
within
the
confines
of
the
city
or
not;
therefore,
parking
remains
a
determining
factor.
In
conclusion,
our
parking
concerns
over-‐ride
this
project,
as
presented.
Additionally,
one
cannot
look
at
the
8
Aspen
proposal
in
isolation,
but
in
concert
with
the
ELM,
the
Ruh
Building,
and
Aspen
Crossing.
Potential
overlap
parking
areas
are
inevitable,
pushing
“overflow”
vehicles
further
and
further
into
residential
areas
and
the
business
and
private
property
owners
who
do
not
wish
to
participate
in
parking
agreements
with
any
or
all
of
the
previously
mentioned
reasonably
newly
constructed
area
buildings.
Given
the
aforementioned
concerns
and
related
implications,
it
appears
that
Bozeman
City
planners
are
failing
to
act
responsibly
in
serving
the
interests
of
the
broader
community,
but
instead
are
intent
on
development
per
se.
Thoughtful
planning
now
will
ensure
more
successful
development
of
the
area
for
the
future.
Respectfully
submitted,
The
Maxey
Limited
Partnership
Mary
F
Palffy
General
Partner
CC:
Director
of
Community
Development
Bozeman
City
Mayor
Bozeman
Deputy
Mayor
Bozeman
City
Commissioners
Emailed
to:
dgarber@bozeman.net
Hand
delivered
to
office
of:
Danielle
Garber,
Planner
8
Aspen,
2024.07.28