Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-24 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Comments for AHO revisions- Econ. Vitality Board meeting, 12_4_24From:Marcia Kaveney To:Bozeman Public Comment; David Fine Subject:[EXTERNAL]Comments for AHO revisions- Econ. Vitality Board meeting, 12/4/24 Date:Wednesday, December 4, 2024 9:12:33 AM Attachments:2024.12.3.AHO comments.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. Please add these comments to the AHO folder for tonight's meeting.Thank you, Marcia Kaveney To: Economic Vitality Board (EVB); Brit Fontenot, Director of Economic Development and City Sta> Liaison to the EVB; and David Fine, Urban Renewal Program Manager Subject: Dec 4, 2024, EVB meeting, Action item F.1: Review Revised Elements of the AHO Dear EVB Board members, Mr. Fontenot, and Mr. Fine, I am writing today to let you know I agree the A>ordable Housing Ordinance is not working as intended. I worry that the revised ordinance will also fall short of bringing us the results that we want. Unfortunately, I think it has resulted in the City “giving away the store” for not enough benefit to the community. Instead, the AHO is contributing to the ongoing destruction of Bozeman’s historical character and sense of place. If the following projects fit the criteria outlined in the AHO, then they are good examples of how we are missing the mark. 1. 7th and Aspen: While this project may provide 96 a>ordable units, they will be cutting down ALL but one tree on the property (~22). This includes mature and historically important trees and shrubs whose elimination not only displaces all the wildlife that use them (birds, insects, and small mammals that the BCP2020 claims to desire) but will also contribute to a>ordable housing heat islands. The most historic trees could have been spared if the design included 8 fewer units or if these 8 units were later incorporated into the Phase 3 site plan. Site Review Criteria calls for designing around important existing vegetation, but this developer was not held to those criteria. This must come from sta> during the design review process. Additionally, in 30 years these units will lose their a>ordability designation and be returned to the market rate pool. This is not a long-term a>ordable housing gain for the community. 2) Block B development: This development has NO a>ordable units and results in the loss of 23 existing Naturally Occurring A>ordable Housing (NOAH) units. The proposed land swap in exchange for additional height will give the city a small lot 2 miles from the site which may never be built on; a “gift” with an expensive job attached to it. Furthermore, a 7 story “cruise ship” design that utilizes no transitions to the adjacent structures clearly does not fit the current neighborhood. This project has no long-term a>ordable housing gain for the community. 3) The Bozeman Yards: The proposed Bozeman Yards is planning only two “attainable” units at (120% AMI) while the rest of the units will be luxury units in what was once the most a>ordable neighborhood of all. The project’s narrative claims compatibility in design with the surrounding neighborhood but it’s impossible to understand why they claim this- it looks completely out of place and will dominate the skyline above the surrounding height restricted area. Additionally, it proposes, as a selling point, to build out an unneeded street (Aspen) only to be paid back by the City for doing so, while simultaneously proposing to block one of the more actively used north/south local streets (Ida). Having lived there for decades, I can tell you this will push all the current north/south tra>ic on Ida back to Wallace and add to the dysfunction at Wallace and Peach. This project also contains no apparent long-term a>ordable housing gain for the community. I think the AHO should be “repealed and replaced” not revised, and with more participation from the public. The open house turned town hall at the Fire Station is a good example of an interactive meeting and I believe the question-and-answer period could have, and should have, continued for longer. I thought it was one of the most e>ective City meetings I have been to in a long while. I would suggest the following changes as a partial list to consider for a replacement AHO: 1. Utilize maximum floor heights rather than minimum so that buildings with more floors will fill a shorter mass. Use feet to define height rather than number of floors. Or use – “whichever is lesser” when establishing maximum heights rather than the “greater”. 2. If a>ordable housing is being eliminated, then require the same number of units or more to be included in the new structure. 3. Fulfill the City’s climate plans goals by strengthening and implementing the tree protection codes in the Site Review Criteria. Don’t give waivers to the Concept phase. Contract with an independent ecologist to review sites for existing trees as well as wetlands. 4. Require all new residential buildings that include market rate housing to include ground floor or underground parking before any parking requirements are relaxed. 5. Require projects in the NCOD to have transitional zones related to the existing buildings surrounding them rather than the zones surrounding them. I.e. No more than two stories taller than the building next to them with a 10-15 foot recess on all sides adjacent to shorter buildings. 6. Support the reinstatement of parkland requirements B3 and B2M to help prevent a>ordable housing heat islands with no Cash-in-lieu of parks allowed. 7. Require a>ordability to last for 75 years or in perpetuity. While considering incentives for the AHO, it’s imperative to not degrade what we already have such as our existing a>ordable housing (NOAH) and our mature urban forest. If a developer turns away from good planning, so be it. Another will surface with a better product. And as long as wealthy people want a piece of Bozeman, then luxury condos will be continue to be built regardless of incentives. We are all in this together and need to remember we are not beholden to the incoming developers and future residents, but rather to ourselves and need to work together to grow in a tolerable and sustainable way. Thank you for considering my comments for your AHO discussion. Marcia Kaveney