HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-24 Public Comment - S. Boyd - Public Comment on Application # 23354 aka the GuthrieFrom:Scott and Frances Boyd
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Fw: ]Public Comment on Application # 23354 aka the Guthrie
Date:Sunday, March 31, 2024 10:14:28 PM
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.
Dear Mayor and Bozeman City Commissioners,
I am writing to strongly oppose the development the Guthrie, at 321 N 5th Avenue, as currently
proposed. There are several deficiencies with this proposal, both conceptual and practical.
First, from a conceptual perspective, this development will not address long-term affordable housing
shortfalls in Bozeman. What it will do is permanently transfer explicit and implicit costs resultant
from the deep incentives’ no parking requirements and increased height allowance, from the
developer to the residential neighborhood. Those costs produce decreased safety, reduced parking,
and increased traffic and congestion. In thirty years when the deed restrictions expire from this
project and the developer realizes a windfall from an increased property value because they can
now rent at higher market rates, we in the residential neighborhood are left holding the proverbial
bag while the broader community will see a decrease in the number of affordable housing units.
This is unfair. If the city is going to give permanent exceptions to the development code, then
Bozeman should realize the desired goals permanently as well.
Secondly, the deep incentives while well-intentioned, were not fully thought out and all potential
use cases were not envisioned. This is the nature of governmental regulation, where smart business
folks will figure out a way to stay within the law while maximizing their profits. When the city
commission approved these incentives against the Community Development Board’s
recommendation eighteen months ago, did they foresee that the very first usage would be for a
project such as this? Did they envision that the developer would offer 30-day leases in order to
avoid the short-term rental restrictions? Did they picture that these affordable units would be used
by work crews from out-of-state subcontractors working for Homebase’s general contractors,
according to a Homebase presentation to the neighborhood? How does that align with the desired
outcome of offering affordable housing to Bozeman residents? Imagine the limited sight lines,
decreased safety, and increased congestion as the neighborhood is inundated with large
construction pickups and construction trailers from these out-of-state subcontractors. As proposed
the city is offering incentives to build a glorified extended-stay hotel, not affordable housing. This
five-story project is out of character for the neighborhood and will alter its character and stability.
We as a city should not be offering subsidies focused on housing a transient workforce population at
the expense of the local residents who need access to affordable housing. Furthermore, the
proposed rents far exceed those that would meet the definition of affordable. The project narrative
states that Homebase seeks to provide “obtainable” housing rather than affordable. Indeed, in a
presentation to the neighborhood and in recognition of the high rents, they now couch this project
as offering “attainable” rather than affordable housing (their explicit distinction, not mine).
Additionally, this particular neighborhood is already burdened with the zero parking requirements
along the N 7th Avenue Midtown Urban Renewal District. As this specific area continues to build out
and redevelop, the parking demand on the neighborhood will only grow. As an example, when the
Elm has a concert with 1,100 people in attendance, concertgoers inundate the neighborhood with
increased traffic and congestion and decreased safety for local residents. Imagine the congestion in
the residential neighborhood as additional developments continue to be built throughout this
district, none of which will require parking. Picture the additional demand from The Guthrie on top
of the existing and anticipated congestion and you’ve created a recipe for disaster. Of the 111 total
units, 46 are double queen units and will support up to four adult occupants per unit. The balance of
65 will support at least two adult occupants. By my calculations that could result in a capacity of 314
adults in the Guthrie. That is potentially 314 cars plus who knows how many trailers and doesn’t
even account for visitors and the neighborhood’s capacity for safe travel and parking will be far
exceeded. Incidentally, four of the thirty onsite parking spots are earmarked for snow storage, so
the year-round onsite capacity is less than thirty. If approved, this project will negatively impact the
safety, livability, and quality of life in our immediate area forever. With the proximity of Whittier
Elementary School being only a block away, there are serious risks to our children, many of whom
walk to school during the school year and walk to the playground in the summer.
I’ve heard mention that the city strives to increase density and incentivize the use of mass transit by
generally reducing requirements for parking. While the concept of an idealistic lifestyle without a
car may be feasible for a certain affluent segment of a large urban city like Seattle or Austin, for the
vast majority of people in Bozeman this just isn’t realistic. Many people live here for access to the
mountains and our beautiful geography. No matter the proximity to busses and walkable areas,
people will still have cars to access the features that induce people to live here. There is no mass
transit to the Madison River or the Bangtails, and simply put, people will continue to have cars for
the foreseeable future. They’ll need cars to get to their jobs or to go to the grocery store.
Eliminating parking restrictions for such a project as the Guthrie is misguided. Aspiring to emulate a
large urban city with more resources does not serve the citizens of Bozeman well. Increased
congestion and traffic create a serious safety issue.
Finally, there are clear, obvious, and significant conflicts created when the city allows the developer
to justify their reasoning for demolishing a National Register of Historic Places-eligible building within
a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District by offering their own projections with no hard bids or
oversight of those projections. There are many discrepancies within the Guthrie’s “renovation vs
new build comparison” that demand greater scrutiny:
· Why are there such discrepancies in the rental rates between the two proposals? The
comparison rates are $300/month cheaper for the renovation proposal's studio units and
$500/month less for the one-bedroom units versus the rates used for the demo/new build
proposal. Additionally, the rental rates for the two and three-bedroom units for the
renovation model are $500-800/month and $1,100/month less than current market rates
respectively.
· Why is there no internet income for the renovation proposal when there is so for the
new build, while both contain expenses for telecom in their models? A pro rata application
of that revenue to the renovation model would result in an increase of nearly $63,000.
· Why is there parking income for the new build model but not the renovation model,
resulting in an understatement of nearly $17,000 in income? Correcting for all of the above
understatements increases revenue by approximately $350,000 for the renovation model.
· From an expense perspective, why are utilities expenses 1.8x larger for the renovation
project with a 2.1x smaller footprint?
· How are insurance, repairs and maintenance, and window cleaning expenses the same
between the two proposals even though the demo version has more than double the
number of units and square footage of the renovated version?
· Why are landscaping expenses for the renovation model double those of the new build?
· Why do water, sewer, and trash expenses run 1.5x more per unit for the renovation
versus the demo? Why do janitorial expenses run 2.2x higher per unit for the renovation
versus the demo even though the demo has 2.6x the number of units?
I believe it is a simple exercise when offering pro forma projections to put a proverbial thumb on the
scale in order to present a binary choice tilted toward your preferred outcome. These circumstances
demand greater scrutiny, investigation, and oversight by the commission. Moreover, the
commission is not obligated to approve only the project with the highest profit for the developer,
particularly when the alternative requires demolition of an otherwise historic building in good
condition and with sufficient integrity to convey its historic character. In addition, all of the
deficiencies and obstacles of this particular building mentioned by the developer
could have easily been uncovered through due diligence, prior to purchasing the
building, and could have resulted in negotiating the investment at a price that makes
better economic sense to them. Unfortunately, the absence of sufficient profit for
Homebase's investors does not mean that the commission should allow the project asproposed to be forced on us. Do not forget that this is only the first attempted use of
deep incentives and is precedent-setting for future projects throughout the city. One
bad project implementation might very well eliminate the deep incentives from the
city's toolbelt forever.
And I have two last observations as it relates to Exhibit 03 CONR Clarification Correspondence and
Exhibit Clarifications. First, the treatment of laundry rooms and a bike fix-it station as meeting the
open space standards seems a stretch of those standards. I cannot imagine that a noisy laundry
room will really enrich the residential experience or foster a sense of community, no matter how
thoughtfully designed or curated it may be. This incremental scope creep and relaxation of
standards undermines the intent of the standards. Secondly, regarding the fire apparatus access
diagram, which purports that Homebase “meet(s) the 150' hose pull code provision per IFC 503.1.1
from the street,” I’ll note that the measurement of the hose pull begins with the fire truck adjacent
to the curb. Recall that cars will be parked on Villard where the fire truck is pictured, and thus the
measurement should begin approximately 15-20’ further north than illustrated. Additionally, the
diagram shows the fire hose making a clean 90-degree turn around the corner of the building.
Based on my experience and observation of full fire hoses I do not think that as a practical matter,
they can make a neat 90-degree turn and therefore some allowance for the increased radius must
be included. Combined, these observations lead me to believe that in fact, this project will not meet
IFC 503.1.1.
In conclusion, perhaps these deep incentives would make a project work in a different location,
without such a steep cost for any adjoining neighborhood. It seems a property that didn’t border a
residential neighborhood could be a good candidate site. But we should not be conducting an
experiment with a residential neighborhood requiring such steep, permanent costs. When the
commission approved these incentives just eighteen months ago against the Community
Development Board’s recommendation, I read with bemusement in the Chronicle article that
members of the commission stated, “it’s worth trying” and that “any benefit from the incentives will
be ‘relatively modest’.” If we’re shooting for modest gains let’s be sure that we’re imposing modest
costs on the neighbors that will be impacted. According to another article in the Chronicle last fall
there were 11 projects with 1,774 units in the pipeline with 592 of them being affordable, due to the
city’s many efforts for building affordable housing. None of these projects make use of the deep
incentives. How does all of the success that’s been achieved without deep incentives weigh against
this project which the neighborhood does not support due to the increased congestion, traffic, and
most importantly, decreased safety for the children attending Whittier Elementary and all
pedestrians in general?
I urge the commission to reclaim final review authority of the project and deny approval as
proposed.
Sincerely,
Scott Boyd
Bozeman