HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-24 Public Comment - E. Talago - Regarding Applications 24191 and 24192 and associated policyFrom:Emily Talago
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Noah Ten Broek; Mindy Visser; Lander Cooney
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Regarding Applications 24191 and 24192 and associated policy
Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:30:34 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.
To the City Commission and Relevant Review Authorities:
Per Bozeman Municipal Code Section 38.200.010.A.1.h. The city commission retainsdevelopment review authority unto itself for any application requesting more than two
deviations from code standards. In addition to the various incentives requested via the affordable housing ordinance, the zero
parking requirements for B2-M, and 20% open space reduction departures for housingcreation, the applicant is requesting three additional departures: "minimum required building
placement per the Landscaped block frontage standards in BMC 38.510.030.C; the light andair setback adjacent to the northern property line between Phases 1 and 3 per BMC
38.520.030.C; the required screening of ground related service areas per BMC38.520.070.B.3".
While "deviation" and "departure" are defined separately by the code, they have colloquially
been used interchangeably in development proceedings (including this one). The intention ofthis section of code lies in acknowledging that substantial allowances affecting the predictable
outcomes of project review in neighborhoods (adopted neighborhood plan),entryway corridors, and districts with established visions and goals, necessitate a public
process from which to evaluate the merits of the proposed tradeoffs.
On August 6th, the city commission consented to contracting for analysis of this project'sapplication for use of Tax Increment Financing. It is unclear whether the city's previous
analysis and subsequent consent to $3,096,061 of TIF in May (36-48 year estimated payback)is still valid. Unlike the Downtown Urban Renewal District, TIF application matrix scoring
and consideration of cost benefit analysis are no longer considered by a designated board inthe Midtown and Northeast URDs.
Further, this project is proposing use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Per BMC, the purpose of development review is "to prevent demonstrable adverse impacts of
the development upon public safety, health or general welfare, or to provide for its mitigation;to protect public investments in roads, drainage facilities, sewage facilities, water facilities,
and other facilities; to conserve the value of adjoining buildings and/or property; to protect thecharacter of the city; to protect the right of use of property; advance the purposes and
standards of this chapter and the adopted growth policy; and to ensure that the applicableregulations of the city are upheld".
Also per BMC, the purpose of noticing provisions is to "provide for adequate notice ofgovernmental actions to those affected by such actions. Notice is required in order for citizens
to participate in decision making which affects their interests and provides opportunity toreceive information pertinent to an application that would not otherwise be available to the
decision maker."
Based on the application materials in the file, the following questions are still outstanding:Who are the stakeholders?
What are the costs?Who will pay them?
What are the benefits?Who will benefit from them?
The costs associated with the number of incentives, subsidies, departures/deviations, andrelaxations being proposed in pursuit of the benefit of affordability might be a worthwhile
investment. This is a question for all stakeholders to consider, but all stakeholders have notbeen engaged on the question- conspicuously absent are neighborhoods, neighborhood
businesses, and taxpayers at large.
For instance, I have concerns about protecting the investments the district has already madealong 7th and Aspen. I have concerns about the traffic mitigation that will be required to
address the level of intersection failure identified in this and other recent project TrafficImpact Studies. I also have concerns about the diversification of our economy and the
topheavyness of low wage sectors. I also have questions.
Regarding the site plan: If someone enters the parking lot but there is no available space, do they have to back out into
traffic on N.7th? If the departure from frontage standards references landscaping buffers to screen the ground
floor units from the adjacent pathways, has consideration been given to the deciduous natureof the proposed plantings, or their seasonal growth projections in context of building
shade/shadow mapping?What lessons can you share with the development community about your commendable
efforts to preserve existing mature trees on your site?What do you perceive are the current barriers to building structured parking close to or within
your project?Given that space and improvement in Westlake park is mostly allocated to three user groups-
BMX, SWMBA, and Community Gardens, (plus the Children's Memorial Garden), do youthink a reduction in on-site open space is justified?
Regarding the policies and process:
When we sequester URD increments from our city operating budgets, who covers the costto deliver city services to new projects until the district expires?
When we reduce lot sizes and vegetative permeable coverage, who pays for upsizedstormwater infrastructure or staff to keep tabs on on-site detention maintenance?
When a project lacks consideration for snow storage and plow movement, who pays to havethe snow trucked out instead?
When you income-restrict workforce housing, are you inadvertently putting downwardpressure on wage gains?
When you remove residential parking minimums in a climate and culture that presentlycouples reliable transportation to economic opportunity, who pays for new parking supply? Or
for that matter, for multimodal improvements? What is a Low Income Housing Tax Credit?
Who fills the budgetary gap when investors receive a dollar for dollar reduction in their taxliability?
Who pays for the gap when a LIHTC project is exempt from property taxes but stilluses city services?
Are we operating in the system we have or one we wish we had?How do we get the one we wish we had?
Healthy, vibrant, engaged communities don't answer the aforementioned questions in a
divisive, siloed fashion. They dig in and arrive at deeper understandings of the complexsystems they operate in. They account for cascading externalities by pressure testing ideas and
examining them through diverse lenses.
The amount of engagement with those living, working, and attempting to thrive in a systemshould, at least, be commensurate with levels of impacts and externalities involved with a
proposal. Our neighborhood has received no proactive engagement from applicants orreviewing authorities on projects of sizable mass, scale, and resource intensity.
I welcome and will help facilitate any opportunity to engage with other stakeholders, so we
might have a better understanding of the issues facing our neighborhood.
Thank you for considering my questions and comments,Emily Talago
Midtown Neighborhood Association, Steering Committee and INC Representative
cc Midtown Neighborhood Association Steering Committee