HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-24 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - Public Comment on the GuthrieFrom:Alison Sweeney
To:Agenda
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment on the Guthrie
Date:Thursday, March 28, 2024 8:56:32 AM
Attachments:Good evening commissioners 3-26-24.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.
Hello City Clerk and Staff.
Could you please file my attached oral comments delivered to the commission on March 26thin the folder for the Guthrie public comment? I'd like them to be part of the written record.
Thank you very much,
Alison B. Sweeney
Bernadette's Handmade JewelryBozeman MT
406-404-5740alison-bernadettes.com
Good evening Deputy Mayor and commissioners.
Alison Sweeney
503 S. 14th Ave
I’m here tonight to ask you to reclaim review authority over the proposed
development known as the Guthrie. A power granted to you in section
38.200.010 B.2. and further strengthened in the recent passage of
ordinance 2124 stating:
A. The city commission has the authority to review and require revisions to
all development proposals subject to this chapter, and delegates that authority in certain circumstances…
It goes on to state that:
The purpose of this review is to prevent demonstrable adverse impacts of the development upon public safety, health or general welfare, or to provide for its mitigation; to
Among other things:
protect the character of the city.
Hopefully you’ve had a chance to review my written public comment
submitted in regards to the historic preservation concerns around this
development, and the health and safety concerns presented by others in
that same public comment folder.
Tonight I would also like to emphasize that this is the first development
proposing to use the deep incentives granted as part of ordinance 2105
passed in the fall of 2022.
This development will set a precedent going forward, and I believe the
Guthrie will construct undignified housing at exploitive prices.
Every member of the Community Development Board reviewing this
ordinance expressed concern that the deep incentives went too far.
They summarized their concerns in their written recommendation to the
City Commission. Most concerns centered on parking, and a lack of
community engagement. Not one speaker, nor any written comment was
garnered during the public hearing.
Concerns of the CDB included:
1. Uncertainty that the new proposal would create additional cost restricted housing. 2. Spillover effects from parking reductions and impact on other non-price limited areas.
3. Adequate tools to manage parking demand if on-site provision of parking is
substantially reduced. 4. Uncertainty whether the impact on community character from the exemption from design standards in article 38.5 would cause negative perception of affordable housing as it would have a distinct and lesser appearance and that not equally
applying the adopted standards would be detrimental to the community
5. Insufficiently demonstrated community engagement in the ordinance (no speakers or written testimony for public hearing); and in the process of ordinance review leading up to the ordinance. 6. Whether the ordinance would on balance be positive for the community.
7. How to measure whether there is success from the incentives.
8. Whether the draft text went “too far” in the suggested incentives and potential impacts on the community.
On August 1st 2022 Commissioner Madgic said, “I’m not gonna support the
motion either… it’s just a step too far, even though my number 1 goal as a
commissioner is affordable housing, I think the potential for negative
consequences here outweigh the benefits.”
Page 20 of the growth policy says: “The needs of new and existing
development coexist and they should remain in balance; neither should
overwhelm the other.
Taking all of this into consideration, please reclaim your review authority
over this project so the public finally has a chance to weigh in.