HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-24 Public Comment - K. Edgar - Application 24-107-Bozeman YardsFrom:Edgar, Katie
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Application 24-107-Bozeman Yards
Date:Thursday, December 12, 2024 3:24:56 PM
Attachments:Opposotion to Application 24-107 K.Edgar.docx
Opposotion to Application 24-107 K.Edgar.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.
Attached please find my comments in word and PDF format regarding the application 24-107,
Bozeman Yards.
Thank you,
Katie Edgar
To the City of Bozeman project review members with regard to application 24-107,
Bozeman Yards,
When flrst learning of this proposed road change in January 2024 from the architect and
developer, I immediately called city employees to voice my concern and deep opposition to
the proposed road change. I was told there is nothing I could do and I had to just wait for
the public comment period when the plans were submitted. Here we are at the public
comment period and I am told multiple departments of the city have already reviewed and
approved this road change. It feels like this issue is already decided and closed and my
period for comment has passed. Even though I tried to comment much earlier and followed
up with the city multiple times after that to see what I could do to voice my concerns on the
issue. I struggle with believing the city will change their mind on the proposed road change
now that they are so far into the process and so much time and effort has been spent on
the proposal, even if there is an overwhelming response from the community that we are
against this road change, and more so, against the lack of consideration of the community
and involvement of the residents to a change which is highly impactful to them and by all
intents and purposes, should be an item going before the commission.
I flnd it troubling the closure of Ida is not going before the commission and the city has
requested no input from the community. In a letter written by the city on January 27, 2022
to the developers of the Cloverleaf project (where Bronken’s distributing was located) they
were told, proposing an alternate right of way would need city commission approval.
Shutting down a section of North Ida and rerouting traffic to Front street, then Aspen street,
and back onto Ida is changing a right of way. I know we were told they are maintaining the
right of way on Ida and therefore it does not need to go before the commission. But if the
proposal is to plant trees and grass in the middle of the road where I cannot drive my car
down that section of road, then I do not have the right of way. It is deeply concerning that
semantics and legalese loopholes are being used to evade due process and make changes
in our city without commission approval. To me, it feels this is being kept from going to the
commission because it is known this is not what is best for the residents of the city.
The proposed road changes and improvements only beneflt the development and
negatively impact the current residents. If it were not for the developers building the two 5-
story buildings, there would be no need to make the proposed improvements. It is only an
additional selling point to draw in residents. It is completely self-serving. The project states
the changes to traffic fiow are to improve safety, yet in the traffic study, there have been
zero accidents in this area. The proposal is to move traffic from a road that has strictly
commercial uses at street level (Ida between Tamarack and Peach) to fiow all traffic to a
residential street (Aspen). I am not sure how anyone can argue that is more safe. Quite a
few semi trucks drive down Ida every day. The proposed sharp angles of the new right of
way do not seem to be navigable by large semi trucks or flre turcks. Will they just be barred
from entrance? The better solution is keeping the road going straight down Ida to maintain
the fiow of increased traffic. We do not want this change to the roads.
The act of closing down Ida and turning it into green space which attaches the developer’s
property to publicly paid city green space gives the feeling of annexing the park to the
developer. If I were to walk down the street and see the boulder attached to the front lawn
of a development, I as someone unfamiliar with the nuances of this project, would think it
was part of the development’s land, and therefore, I would not feel welcome to use the
boulder nor the park thinking it was private land. And to compound that feeling, there is
nowhere for anyone to park to come and enjoy the park, considering all the on street
parking is already spoken for to meet the parking requirements of the development and
their commercial space plus guests and additional residential vehicles. Also knowing our
lovely public park will become the pet relief area for the new residents of the development
is saddening.
The traffic study was completed without taking into account the commercial traffic which
would be generated by the proposed commercial space. The project heavily touts the
beneflts of including commercial space in the project, yet the traffic study does not take
any of that traffic into account. How it is possible they only had to account for the
residential traffic and not commercial when they themselves admit the commercial potion
of the project will be impactful to the community? The city is well aware of the substantial
traffic problems caused at Peach and Wallace by the successful commercial spaces there.
What if the commercial space for this project is as successful? It is unfathomable the
impact of the commercial space which they are creating would not be included in the
study.
Furthermore, and perhaps more egregiously, the traffic study does not take into account
the future traffic which will be generated by the already proposed projects of Cloverleaf at
Ida and Peach, and Wallace Works at Tamarack and Wallace. This traffic study is out of
date, with the data gathered in October of 2023 and Sanderson Stewart submitting the
study in December of 2023. This area is changing so quickly, using a traffic study that is
over a year old by the time the Bozeman Yards project documents were submitted on
November 22, 2024, is now inaccurate. This traffic study does not take into account the
future traffic of the other proposals. How can that be? This study is incomplete and out of
date.
The proposed 70’ tall building is insulting to the neighborhood as it will tower over the
historic Train Depot and the iconic Misco Mill which is the symbol of the Northeast
Neighborhood. Competing with and minimizing these icons is not conforming with the
neighborhood, it is degrading it. The Wildlands project respected the area and only built 3
stories. 5 stories is an insult to the history of this neighborhood and absolutely does not
“pay[s] homage to the Northeast neighborhood's rich history.”
The TIF meeting kept referencing future Trian Depot improvements and how important that
would be for the area, yet this project dwarfs and minimizes that building. Also to that
point, it is completely inappropriate that future train depot projects were used as a reason
for the TIF to be approved. Future train depot projects are not what this TIF is about, there
are no current train depot proposals, any future projects are pure speculation and do not
belong in the conversation with regards to Bozeman Yards receiving funding. I flnd it
troubling and deceiving that the TIF application, Baker Tilly analysis, site plan application
fees, etc were all calculated off of 38/39 units, while the flnal product is actually 42 units.
Will the developer pay the additional $500 for their application now that they have
increased units? The commission was misled on the profltability of this project with
margins being calculated off 39 units and now it is 42. Proflts of 3 additional units certainly
improves the margin over what was presented to the commission and then they got the TIF
on top of that, pushing their margins even higher while hiding that information from the
commission.
The proposed project is bringing 42 units and only 41 parking spots (and that’s just phase 1
of the project) and that assumes each unit only has one car, which is highly unlikely. I also
assume the one unit who will not receive a dedicated underground parking space is one of
the “affordable” units. The only way the developer can meet their parking requirement is by
the on street parking created by the TIF. After the residents use up a signiflcant portion of
the on street parking, there will be almost nothing left for parking for visitors and workers of
the commercial spaces, guests of the residents, guests of existing residents, and
community members looking to enjoy the boulder park.
It is shocking that providing two 1 bedroom units at a tiny 700-800 square feet and 120%
AMI can be considered affordable. An 800 sq ft one bedroom does not help the families of
Bozeman who need the help. This is an accommodation suitable for one person and does
virtually nothing for the affordable housing needs of the community. Once again, this
project is flnding any legal loophole they can flnd and jumping right in. The affordable
offerings are the smallest units possible and only on the ground fioor, likely one of them not
even coming with a parking space.
A requirement of affordable housing is the mix of bedrooms per unit must be as similar as
possible to the mix of bedrooms per unit of the market rate homes. The proposed fioorplan
has following mix of bedrooms.
Bedrooms Quantity % of total units
1 14 33%
2 19 45%
3 7 17%
4 2 5%
Having both affordable units being 1 bedrooms does not conform with the affordable
housing requirement for a similar mix of bedrooms per unit. 33% of the offered units are
one bedroom and 45% are two bedroom units. This split of units means of the 2 affordable
units in this proposal, one should be a one bedroom and one should be a two bedroom to
comply with the affordable housing requirements laid out in appendix L. How does the
proposed mix qualify the developer for the affordable housing incentives? The affordable
housing application lists 81 bedrooms but only 2 bedrooms are affordable. That is only
2.5% of rooms are affordable. If the intent is to go by number of bedrooms being affordable
rather than units being affordable, then 5% of 81 rooms would be 4 affordable rooms, not
the 2 one-bedrooms which are proposed. The requirement is it MUST be a similar mix. This
is not a similar mix and the developer should be held to the intent of the policy. If this
developer does not have to abide by the rules as written, where do the deviations stop?
As a side note, it leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouths of the residents to see David
Fine and the developer cozying up next to each other at the TIF meeting and even going as
far as sharing M&M’s together. It truly makes me wonder whose interests are the priority in
making the decisions. Is it what is best for Bozeman and the residents, or is it what is best
for the developer? Listening to the TIF presentation, if I did not know David worked for the
city of Bozeman, I would have sworn it was a representative of the developer speaking.
I really hope you all listen to the voices of the community regarding this project. Please take
these points into consideration for remediation before approving this project.
Thank you,
Katie Edgar