HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-15, Brey, NCOD Public CommentFrom: Ron Brey [rbrey@bridgeband.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:26 PM
To: Cyndy Andrus; I-Ho Pomeroy; Jeff Krauss; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl Subject: NCOD
December 10, 2015 Mayor Krauss and Commissioners,
Thank you for considering my comments on the proposed revisions to the NCOD. They are as follows:
What was the charge to the consultants? It appears that they analyzed the effects of the district with an eye primarily toward facilitating redevelopment. Many of the emphasized paragraphs reflect this:
“A more comprehensive assessment with focus on structures outside historic
districts and Main Street will be needed for the successful redevelopment of these areas.”
“Approximately 40 properties were identified as having the potential to subdivide
or further develop if code relaxations were adopted.” “Why should I continue redeveloping in downtown when it is faster, easier and
less expensive to develop west of town and I don’t have the headache of
demolitions,” said one local developer.” (This is true of every city I know of by the way) ““I’d prefer to develop within the NCOD, but it is much, much easier to do so outside the district especially when I don’t have to wait for city
approvals regarding whether structures can be demolished. It’s all about time.
Waiting hurts our bottom dollar thus making it more expensive to eventual renters and owners,” said a regional development company.” (Does the regional
development company have any interest in living conditions within the
neighborhood – if not, why is this statement given emphasis?) Do you really think that infill, redevelopment and remodeling could occur much more rapidly in the NCOD than it has?
Other observations: The consultant apparently thinks Deviations were to act like Variances.
Deviations were supposed to be granted. They were to provide flexibility in
exchange for excellent or at least compatible design. Deviations only fail when they are granted in exchange for nothing. Yes, deal with N. 7th separately.
Yes to ground floor ADUs but don’t stop there. LISTEN to the expressed public opinion of those living in the district and discontinue the second floor ADUs which ruin privacy and block views and sunlight. The consultant was willing to
reduce parkland which no one requested but not the 2nd floor ADU which was
consistently addressed. Why? Yes to expedited review of code compliant projects. Get your code right and let
the staff approve such projects.
The building permit requirement before demolition keeps the Commission from being forced into situations like the one on Koch ST. where almost anything is preferable to a hole in the ground. We were lucky on that one.
I like the best practices cited but the City has never been willing to show its
teeth in the manner suggested nor would the City be willing to fund the administrative burden of multiple , each with its own guidelines.
Good luck with lot coverage requirements. I can argue both sides of that issue.
Don’t look to this study to address affordable housing. No one knows better than
you that it is much more complicated than infill or reduced parkland requirements. Remember how our small lot subdivision scheme demonstrated that
the market will determine prices.
In sum, there are some good ideas in here, some bad ones, and many depending on what is developed to replace the existing regs. I live in the district and would urge you not to proceed with a program that removes anything until its
replacement is adopted so there are no leaps of faith. I think merely cinching
up enforcement of current regs would address many residents’ concerns with the district.
As a district resident, I should also say that you can feel free to leave things
“as-is” and I’ll happily work with the regs we have as I do my home improvement projects. Best regards,
Ron Brey
1106 S. 3rd Bozeman