HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-24 Public Comment - E. Cleveland - Fwd_ Guthrie_ Project 23354From:Emily Cleveland
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Fwd: Guthrie: Project 23354
Date:Monday, April 1, 2024 11:10:04 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 Sarah Rosenberg,
I am writing with concern about the proposed Guthrie development. I live with my family at
216 N 5th Avenue and this development will have a huge impact on our quality of life. Iunderstand the need for affordable housing in Bozeman. My husband and I struggled for years
to buy a house, working in the non-profit/conservation and construction/carpenter sectors. Ialso understand the need to increase the density of the urban areas of Bozeman, rather than
continued sprawl into the valley.
That being said, the proposed development, which is intended to supply "high quality"housing options while "embodying the character of Bozeman" does not appear to do either.
The rooms, some of which include just a murphy bed, seem to be geared to short termoccupants, people in transition, not looking to stay in place or become part of the community
of the neighborhood. With rental costs ranging between $1400 and $1700 per unit, I
also question if that's actually affordable for most people. I question if this truly creates
high quality living. It certainly doesn't align with the character of Bozeman that I know. The
absence of multi-family units won't contribute to Whittier's enrollment boost, and
increased traffic may compromise safety and mobility while congesting the Midtownarea.
A primary concern is the lack of housed parking with the development, and the impact thatwill have on the surrounding area. Bozeman is not a bike friendly city, and driving, especiallyin the winter, is a necessity. Imagining that the residents will just park bikes and not cars isunrealistic. Given the occupancy of the building, there could be 100-200 additional vehicles
trying to park in the neighborhood. A preliminary review of the traffic study conductedfor the development fails to mention Whittier Elementary and The Elm. This discovery
is problematic as both of these facilities heavily utilize our neighborhoods' available
parking capacity. It is unacceptable for the development to get a "deep incentive" to avoidhaving to plan for the parking of its residents. It is not fair for the neighborhood, or for thefuture residents.
Additionally, it feels absurd that public resources are going to provide "deep incentives" to aknown developer, with a less than stellar reputation in town, looking to make money off ofaffordable housing.
I respectfully request the following considerations be incorporated into the proposal:
House its parkingRescind the “deep incentives”
Implement and fund concurrent safety improvements for Whittier ElementaryCreate dignified, high-quality multifamily living spaces that foster longevity,
sustainability, and community
Thank you for considering my comment.
Sincerely,Emily Cleveland