HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-24 Public Comment - E. Wood - Application 24107From:wood.ted.mt@gmail.com
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Application 24107
Date:Friday, December 13, 2024 1:53:25 PM
Attachments:Wood Comment Application 24-107 13 Dec 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.
To Whom it may concern:
Please see attached comment letter pertaining to Application 24-107, Block 104 South
Building.
Thank you.
Edward Wood
To: Bozeman City Commission, Bozeman Director of Community Development
From: Edward Wood
Re: Public comment on Application 24-107 (Block 104/Bozeman Yards/805 North Ida Ave)
Date: 13 December 2024
To whom it may concern:
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 am writing today to highlight several areas where, in my opinion, Application 24-107 fails to satisfy
the required Site Plan Criteria.
The application fails to meet the plan review criteria stated in BMC 38.230.100 A 6 a (1):
“The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions”.
While the project did submit a traffic study, I believe the study is insufficient in that it fails
completely to address the effects of closing North Ida street to through traffic. North Ida has
become a popular alternative route to North Wallace Avenue, which is often congested and
marginally functional due to parking and traffic for the nearby businesses such as Wild Crumb
bakery, Finks Delicatessen, and Treeline Roasting Room. Many vehicles passing through the
neighborhood now use North Ida to bypass the Peach St-North Wallace intersection in route to
Tamarack Street and routes north such as L Street. I believe closing North Ida will result in
additional congestion and routing of traffic onto even less adequate streets such as Front and
Plum.
The proposal should not be approved until an adequate traffic study has determined the effects of
closing North Ida Street.
The application fails to meet the plan review criteria stated in BMC 38.230.100 A 7 a:
“Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent
neighbors and other approved development relative to architecture and design, building mass,
neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of the buildings on the site and
visual integration.”
I believe the proposed building fails to satisfy any reasonable interpretation of the concept of visual
integration. The proposed building is very much taller and more massive than anything in the
immediate vicinity. The existing neighborhood is an eclectic mix of single family homes, one and
two floor businesses, an old grain elevator creatively repurposed, and some newer mixed use
condos at most four stories tall with fewer than twelve units each. The building would dwarf all its
neighbors, including the historic rail depot building. Similarly, the mass of the proposed building is
grossly out of character for the neighborhood. While the proposal does contain some nice design
elements, overall, the mass of the building extending to 70 feet tall would overwhelm all of the
nearby structures and change the neighborhood identity profoundly.
The application fails to meet the intent of the mixed use regulations in BMC 38.320.050. The
building is proposed to contain 1,700 square feet of commercial use. This represents 1.6% of the
building’s total 107,000 square feet. I believe this trivial amount of commercial space is included
specifically (and only) to acquire the additional height available to mixed use versus residential only
building in the B2M zone. I believe since the building is overwhelmingly residential its height should
be limited to 4 stories or 50 feet, whichever is less. I also believe that since the proposal includes
only 2 affordable units out of 42, it fails to numerically meet the 5% threshold in the “shallow
incentives” and therefore should be denied any additional height.
I urge you to deny approval of this application until the issues identified above can be considered
and addressed
Thank you for your service to the community and consideration of my input,
Sincerely,
Edward Wood
