Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-24 Public Comment - E. Wood - Public Hearing Resolution 5663 Bozeman Yards TIFFrom:wood.ted.mt@gmail.com To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Hearing Resolution 5663 Bozeman Yards TIF Date:Tuesday, November 26, 2024 10:02:28 AM Attachments:Wood Comment Application 24-105 25 Nov 2024.docx 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 Commission and staff: Please see attached comment letter pertaining to the agenda item “Public Hearing Resolution 5663 Bozeman Yards TIF”. Thank you. Edward Wood To: Bozeman City Commission From: Edward Wood Re: Public comment on Application 24-105 (Block 104/Bozeman Yards/805 North Ida Ave) AND Application 24-107 Tax Increment Financing Request Date: 25 November 2024 Dear Mayor and City Commissioners: I write to you as a 13 year resident at 506 East Cottonwood Street, which is approximately 2 blocks from the proposed project. My residence (single family home infill, built in 2010) is in both the TIF district under discussion and the Northeast Historic Mixed Use zone area. I believe several issues have been overlooked or pushed aside by both the developer and the city staff in their presentation of and review of this project. I wish to bring those issues to your attention now and believe that consideration of these issues must either postpone your vote on this project, or indeed force a “no” vote at this time. 1) Permanently closing a portion of North Ida Avenue. The developer’s plan hinges on closing permanently a short section of North Ida Avenue. I can find no record where this action has been thoughtfully considered or analyzed, nor undergone proper steps outlined in city policy (Resolution 3268) or the steps described in an October 1, 2024 memorandum, including an engineering staff report, a Resolution of Intent, noticed public hearing, and ultimately Resolution of Abandonment. While the developer did submit a traffic study, I do not believe it accurately captured the present movement of traffic in the neighborhood or studied the effect of closing North Ida Avenue. My observation is that as the popularity of businesses in the neighborhood has increased, so has the concurrent parking and traffic, especially on North Wallace Avenue. North Wallace Avenue now is often functioning as a one lane road, especially in winter when snow constricts its already limited width. Drivers have discovered that North Ida Avenue, despite its marginal condition (and recent partial repaving) offers a more efficient north-south egress route which avoids the congestion at the Peach-Wallace intersection. North.Ida.has.become.a.critical. through.street.alternative.connecting.Peach―Broadway.to.Wallace?.Tamarack.and.L.Street¡ Should North Ida Avenue be closed, that will eliminate this bypass option, and funnel cars into the even less functional Front Street, East Cottonwood, and North Plum areas. The developer claims closing Ida will make the area safer. That is debatable. There is no evidence it is unsafe at present (no record of accidents), and I dog walk the area nearly every day and it is fine as is. There will still be unusual intersections (and more of them) even if the developer’s plans are enacted. In any case, the decision to proceed with this project should be postponed until the proper steps have been taken to authorize the closing “vacating” of North Ida Avenue. 2) Failure to properly consider the project with respect to the requirement of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) I can find no documentation to support the requirement under the NCOD that careful consideration has been given to this project by design review staff or design review board. While city staff have prepared a glowing report relevant to the request for TIF funding, there is no analysis of the overall appropriateness of the proposed structure in the context of the existing neighborhood. While the proposed project does, at present, contain some nice details and landscaping, overall, the structure is much too large and grossly out of scale for the site and the neighborhood. The proposed building will be 70 feet tall, and the tallest within a mile. It will tower over the historic depot and block the view of the mountains for much of the neighborhood, and distract from the landmark Misco Mill. At present the neighborhood is mostly modestly sized buildings, even the newer developments. The building as proposed is much more appropriate in areas such as downtown or the Cannery District. I believe the decision to proceed with this project should be postponed until the proposal can be properly considered as required by the NCOD. 3) The proposed project does not meet the requirements for the “shallow incentive” affordable housing ordinance. This is a question of simple math. The current proposal offers two out of 42 total units as affordable. That is 4.7 percent, not the required minimum of 5 percent. Perhaps there is a rule about this, but I believe the rounding should favor the city rather than the developer. There are also other details to consider such as the size distribution of the affordable units (the affordable units are both one-bedroom, whereas the rest of the building contains a mix of larger units). Unless these issues are addressed the project should not be granted the additional ten feet of height requested. 4) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) should not be authorized for this project. Perhaps the most succinct way to state this is: Why should the City ensure the profitability of building multi-million dollar condominiums? The project contains mostly $1.5 million to $2.8 million condominiums, with a tiny fraction of affordable units. The infrastructure proposed is mostly unneeded except for this project itself. No street is needed in the Aspen Street right- of-way, which is already an open space park and trail. A built-out Aspen Street would potentially worsen traffic movement in the neighborhood (by adding more intersections) and impair the existing businesses on both sides of the right-of-way. The main reason for converting the park into a street is to obtain additional parking places for the development, without which they cannot obtain the required number of parking places. The developers own consultants (Baker Tilly) suggest two ways to help ensure the project produces adequate returns: 1) Reduction in project costs, 2) Secure $3.66 million in TIF funding. I respectfully suggest that in the $65 million project, perhaps there is a way to reduce costs to ensure adequate returns. If multi-million-dollar condos cannot profitably be built in this location, perhaps it is the wrong location. It is possible the Bozeman market is presently saturated with luxury condos and the project will not be profitable even with the TIF funding. In the nearby Wildlands development for example, there are two multi-million dollar condos that still have not sold nearly two years after completion. There are dozens more recently completed (Willson Residences, Aspen Crossing, The Henry, the Village Downtown), with still more in the pipeline (BG Mill). Perhaps this is the wrong building in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers in the TIF district to prop up this project. Can the commission really vote in good conscience that the TIF funding should be used to eliminate a park and ensure a 10.5% profit margin rather than merely 7.3%? Lastly, and somewhat subjectively, this neighborhood is no longer “blighted”, and in fact has become highly sought after (witness the desire to build luxury condos). While still authorized, I believe the TIF program should be used sparingly for truly important infrastructure with widespread public benefits. There are still many needs in the neighborhood, but this is not one of them. In conclusion, I urge you to postpone this decision, or to vote no on the current proposal until the issues raised above have been thoroughly analyzed and resolved. In particular, the TIF decision results in a binding contract that will greatly reduce any further leverage the city has on the outcome of this project. Should the TIF be authorized at this time, I see little chance to properly address the other issues or modify any aspect of the proposal. Thank you for your service to the community and consideration of my input, Sincerely, Edward Wood