HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-24 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Request for City Commission to Reclaim Review of 7th and Aspen, #24-191, #24-192From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Terry Cunningham; Douglas Fischer; Jennifer Madgic; Emma Bode; Joey Morrison
Cc:Chuck Winn; Bailey Minnich
Subject:[EXTERNAL][Possible Scam Fraud]Request for City Commission to Reclaim Review of 7th and Aspen, #24-191,#24-192
Date:Monday, September 16, 2024 2:42:42 PM
Attachments:Request to Reclaim Review of 7th and Aspen #24-191,#24-192.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.
WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be apotential threat.
The sender may propose a business relationship and submit a request for quotation orproposal. Do not disclose any sensitive information in response.
If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do notrespond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLs
may have been modified to provide additional security.
Dear Mayor Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Morrison, Commissioners Bode, Madgic, and
Fischer,
Please see the attached letter from the Bozeman Tree Coalition and our request for you toreclaim the review of the 7th and Aspen project #24-191 and #24-192 due to the complicated
nature of the application which includes requests for AHO deep incentives, additionaldepartures from code, and possible noncompliance with site plan review criteria. We discuss
this in detail in the letter and hope that you will agree with us that this warrants a publichearing process and a City Commission review.
Thank you for reading and considering our comments,
Marcia Kaveney
Daniel CartyAngie Kociolek
April Craighead
Bozeman Tree Coalition Co-founders
Public Comment for 7th and Aspen #24-191 and #24-192
September 16, 2024
The Bozeman Tree Coalition is writing to request the City Commission reclaim review of the 7th
and Aspen Master Site Plan #24-191 and Site Plan #24-192 due to the complicated nature of the
application, which includes requests for AHO deep incentives, additional departures from code,
and possible noncompliance with some of the site plan review criteria, which we discuss below.
According to the public notice, this application is evaluated against the site plan criteria of
Sec.38.230.100 of the BMC and associated standards, and approval is granted only if all criteria
are met. It is our understanding that if the Commission agrees to reclaim review authority, it will
need to be done before the public comment period ends on Tuesday, Sept. 17th, ’24.
We are also submitting these comments to the #24-191 and #24-192 comment folder for staff
review in the event it is not reclaimed by the City Commission. Although this application has
many worthwhile attributes, it does not strictly comply with all the review criteria as you will see
below and therefore should not be approved without conditions to bring it into full compliance.
The 7th and Aspen project is a well-intended, affordable housing project with more than 50% of
the units in the Master Plan being offered in the affordable price range. Unfortunately, to meet
their costs, the developer will need to maximize use of their parcel, and our existing urban forest
will be degraded as a result. Requested departures from four additional codes and noncompliance
with existing environmental codes included in the site review criteria will likely have an
additional negative effect on the existing mature trees and other vegetation, unless conditions are
added by staff to retain more existing vegetation. Finally, some site plan information in the
application is inaccurate, specifically, the “7th and Aspen Existing Survey” which shows many
fewer trees on-site than exist. Incomplete information negates City staff’s ability to make fully
informed analyses and decisions.
Site Plan Review Criteria and Concerns.
Sec. 38.230.100 of BMC. Site Plan Review Criteria:
Criterion 1. Conformance to and consistency with the city's adopted growth policy:
The growth policy is general and wide-reaching and lacks policy direction about balanced
conformance. So, although the project conforms to some growth policy goals, it does not
conform to the following goals.
A. Goal EPO-2: Work to ensure that development is responsive to natural features.
The natural features of this project are a collection of diverse species of trees and shrubs. The
applicant’s “7th and Aspen Existing Survey” document illustrates 4 large deciduous trees, 7 large
conifers, and 3 large shrubs for a total of 14 trees/large shrubs. However, as of September 13,
’24, there are 31 mature trees and shrubs including 16 large deciduous trees, 15 conifers, and
dozens or more mature shrubs especially along the east side of the lots. None of these large
shrubs and hedges are noted on the survey. According to the landscaping documents, only 1 out
of the 31 trees is currently planned to be protected. These diverse trees appear to be in good
health. Some are very mature and could be candidates for the developing Heritage Tree
Program. For example, there are 7 trees with diameters estimated at 28- 36 inches. These trees,
and their ever-increasing monetary value and ecosystem services, are simply not replaceable in
our lifetime.
Medium and tall tree species on site: Mountain Ash, Tree Lilac, Cherry, Box Elder, Crabapple,
Aspen, Juniper, Blue Spruce, Colorado Spruce, Douglas Fir, and Ash (possibly Green). Mature
shrubs and hedges include Dogwoods, Nine-barks, Cotoneasters, Caragana/Siberian Pea.
B. Goal EPO-1: Prioritize strategic acquisition of parks to provide a variety of recreational
opportunities throughout the City.
This applicant will be using the cash-in-lieu for parks and open space even though there are no
nearby parks. On-site open space that kept the existing trees would be a better asset for the city
and residents, such as a pocket park that would allow a reprieve while shopping at the nearby
commercial locations. This goal is not being met by the applicant.
Criterion 7. Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5, including:
a. compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the
adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative the architectural design,
building mass, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of
buildings on the site and visual integration.
This neighborhood is undergoing gentrification, and the residential addition is anticipated to be
beneficial. However, the existing large trees and mature shrubs, as stated earlier, are integral to
this property. For example, the spruce trees visible from N. 7th and the large Ash trees anchoring
the existing tavern are part of the neighborhood identity, existing landscaping, and add to the
historical character. These specimen trees along the west and north aspects of the parcel should
be protected from damage during construction and incorporated into the design to comply with
this criterion.
c. Design and arrangement of elements of the plan (e.g., buildings circulation, open space
and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with the existing natural topography, natural water
bodies and water courses, existing vegetation, and to contribute to the overall aesthetic
quality of the site configuration.
This criterion calls for the design to be in harmony with the existing vegetation rather than
removing it and planting new. However, the landscape plan shows only one existing tree being
protected on the #24-192 Site Plan for Phase 1 and 2, and we infer the rest are to be cut down.
By adding a condition to keep more existing trees, the buildings may be able to be moved to the
east a bit, and then the spruce trees in front of the Phase 1 building could remain in place. There
are also numerous desirable species of trees and tall shrubs along the east border than can be left
in place instead of being removed and the area replanted. Limited openings can be interspersed
in a few areas that would allow for construction vehicles to move while maintaining the integrity
of the existing hedge and trees.
d. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use,
open space and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural
vegetation.
For a third time, the review criteria call for preservation of natural vegetation. In this project, due
to size, number, and age of the existing mature trees, it would take the planting of several new
trees to make up for each mature tree in both its canopy and ecosystem services. It’s not realistic
financially or regarding use of space to try to replace both attributes with new trees, and we
therefore lose both canopy and ecosystem services.
Tacoma Tree Foundation has this to say about older trees, “The ones who have been around long
enough to grow upwards and outwards, that give us shade and store carbon now, are the ones
doing the most valuable work. Our older, established trees are doing most of the heavy lifting of
providing shade, absorbing stormwater, preventing soil erosion, and cooling neighborhoods.”
Burden of Proof as required by Sec. 38.230.100 of BMC
C. Plan approval may be denied upon a determination the application does not meet the
criteria of this section. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry
the burden of proof. A denial of approval must be in writing.
We submit that we have carried the burden of proof for the site plan criteria of concern listed
above.
Concerns regarding the additional departures requested from other codes:
In addition to the concerns cited above, we have concerns regarding the following two additional
requested departures from code.
Departure 2) “the light and air setback adjacent to the northern property line between
Phases 1 and 3 per BMC 38.520.030.C”
This departure is concerning because it includes the space between Phases 1 and 3 where a line
of 8 mature conifers currently exists and because it is adjacent to the affordable housing project.
Air and light are important for all residents in the city, and it is especially important to maintain
equity with lower income housing, which historically is lacking in these areas. We have no
guarantee what the building in Phase 3 will be or if the trees will be removed and the Phase 3
building(s) built up to the property line. Therefore, the light-and-air setback needs to be protected
on all sides of the affordable housing projects and, without a proposed design for Phase 3, this
departure should not be allowed.
Departure 4) “and a reduction in usable open space by 20% per BMC 38.320.070
Departures for housing creation. “
The concern is similar to Departure 2 because according to Tree Equity Score by National
Explorer, the project parcel lies within an area (“block”) of Bozeman that is ranked 35th out of 39
blocks with a tree equity score of 56. It’s considered a priority area and is estimated to have a
current canopy of 10% with a canopy goal cover of 50%. It’s easy to see on the public notice
photo that this parcel is surrounded by areas devoid of vegetation. Removing the requirement of
usable open space makes it easier for the developer to remove more trees in order to maximize
their return on investment but may increase this parcel’s heat-island effect when right now, this
parcel has more mature vegetation than most parcels surrounding it (as seen from the ground and
photos).
Conditions Requested to address the Site Plan Review Criteria and additional departure
requests:
As stated earlier, this project has many positive attributes and will likely be experienced as a
positive addition to the community if the above concerns are addressed with appropriate and
reasonable conditions. The following conditions should not interfere with the developer’s current
plans, although it may have an impact on the design of their future (as yet unknown) phase 3
building(s) and will likely require some minor construction changes to accommodate the
protection of vegetation. Because both the Master Plan and a site plan are being reviewed, the
following conditions may include one or both.
1. Add a protection plan for 75% of the vegetation that exists to the east of the proposed parking
lot and in the open space area to the east and south of the Phase 2 building. This allows for some
pruning and landscape restoration but will also encourage preservation of the existing vegetation.
2. Make the slight necessary design changes to accommodate and protect the largest of trees, the
northern most spruce of the two that are on the west side of the phase 1 building.
3. Require a condition of a pocket park to be added to Phase 3 along N. 7th or Aspen that will be
open to the public while shopping in the area.
4. Set a condition that Phase 3 will work their design around the protection of the 2 large healthy
deciduous trees on the north and northeast corners of the existing building, that they will keep
75% of the vegetation on the east lot line intact including the large spruce tree, and they will
keep 50% (4) of the large spruce trees on the south side of Phase 3. This last request will ensure
some degree of year-round screening between the lower-income residence and the market-rate
residence.
5. Do not grant the departure for light and air due to the inequity it creates for low-income
housing residents.
6. Do not grant departure for reducing usable open space by 20% due to the inequity it causes for
lower-income housing projects. This area is lacking in nearby usable park space, and the
anticipated 90 plus units with possible 200 plus people deserve all the usable space that our
codes normally require.
Conclusion
In conclusion we want to reiterate that we are requesting the City Commission reclaim the
review for the 7th and Aspen Master Site Plan and Site Plan for Phase 1 and 2. We think that
because this plan is using deep incentives of the AHO (currently under revision), along with
asking for additional code departures, while waiving their right to do a concept plan, it is
reasonable for the City Commission to reclaim the review of this project.
If the conditions put forward in this public comment are added to the application, then it will be
brought into better compliance with the City’s existing environmental protection codes and also
address equity in regard to the affordable housing component. The Bozeman Tree Coalition
believes that housing and trees can co-exist, and that City staff and the City Commission should
be working hard to make that happen. By following the existing environmental municipal codes
and growth policy outlined above, Bozeman can have new housing that strengthens rather than
diminishes our urban forest.
Thank you for considering our comments,
Marcia Kaveney
Daniel Carty
Angie Kociolek
April Craighead
Bozeman Tree Coalition Co-founders