Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-24 Public Comment - B. Gallik - Fw_ The GuthrieFrom:Brian Gallik To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Fw: The Guthrie Date:Monday, April 8, 2024 11:52:49 AM 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. See below. -- Brian K. GallikGallik, & Bremer, P.C. Attorneys at Law777 East Main, STE 203 PO Box 70Bozeman, Montana 59771-0070 Phone: (406) 404-1728Fax: (406) 404-1730 brian@galliklawfirm.com The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for theuse of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately anddelete the original and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender. From: Brian Gallik <brian@galliklawfirm.com> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 11:50 AM To: agenda@bozeman.net <agenda@bozeman.net> Subject: The Guthrie Good Morning Commissioners My name is Brian Gallik. I live at 316 North Third Avenue. First, thank you for our service. I write in support of the multiple requests made to date that the City Commission reclaim jurisdiction over the Guthrie project and set the matter for a public hearing. To this end, Iincorporate by reference the written public comments and public testimony that has been offered in support of this request to date in support of that request and why the Application aspresented is either properly denied or subject to substantial additional analysis with appropriate revised conditions in mitigation.. As a resident of the North Side for the past 10 years,, where much of Bozeman's historicworkforce housing has been and is located, I have witnessed the incremental destruction of our neighborhood, which is accelerating by developers who see modestly priced housing on City lots that can, under the existing codes, be purchased (without much regard – if any-- forinterest rates or other typical market forces) and then torn down, only to be replaced by million dollar plus condos, that are then scooped up by part-time residents. Corner lots areparticularly valuable it seems. All of this under the guise of more housing will mean lower home prices, etc. Call it what it is --BS. Coupled with this lot-by-lot invasion, many on the north side now live in the shadows(literally for some residents) of the high-rises built by Home Base, which are marketed to and sold as "luxury condos". In case you missed it, there is a large banner hanging from the sideof one of the buildings under construction in the northern parking lot of the Medical Arts building, advertising these units in that fashion. These monstrosities, which were approved by the Planning Department and the CityCommission, tower over modest single-family homes, that are far more affordable than the structures built after they are destroyed and, as stated, cast shade on many homes, the numberof which varies throughout the year, depending on the season. Several of these remain under construction, with more promised to come (where the old hospital sat). The impacts onneighborhood streets, in terms of traffic and parking is not clear and to my knowledge, have not been the subject of any review or analysis. However, common sense dictates that these 5-6 story condos, will have a substantial adverseimpact on the quality of the human environment and present public health and safety issues for those who live in or near the buildings, both individually and cumulatively. As stated, I amunaware of any study by anyone that analyzes the cumulative impacts of these developments on the residents of the area, particularly as it relates to future growth on the north side andapplications for more development. Now we have another Home Base project, proposed at the location of the former rehab center on North 5th. This project, as I understand it, proposes to demolish an existing building,under consideration for possible inclusion as a historic structure, to be replaced by another 5- story building with several types of residential units, some of which are claimed to be"affordable" (however that is defined) for a period of 30 years. The developer makes no bones about not providing parking that is sufficient for the density it proposes. Further, I amunaware of any traffic analysis that takes into account what I understand to be an existing number of failing intersections in the neighborhood. I recently had a client who proposed azone map amendment that would allow for increased density, including affordable units off of Haggarty Lane on the east side of Bozeman. That application was REJECTED by theCommission because the intersection at Haggarty and Main was failing and advised that until the intersection was improved, applications would not be be looked on with favor. As it concerns parking, we are already experiencing the creep of parking issues associatedwith the increased density associated with projects approved by this Commission, without adequate parking. I understand some claim that is the libertarian way. Regardless, I note forthe record that this Commission recently rejected a modest commercial project (2, 2-story buildings), next to the affluent Sundance Springs subdivision, on properly long-zoned andplanned as commercial (like Kagy corner),in part because of neighborhood concerns about parking that might flow into the neighborhood during business hours (not 24 hours a day, 7days a week as proposed by the Guthrie). Other issues that led to rejection included configuration of the 2-story buildings in relationship to a small portion of the Sundanceneighborhood and the location of a walking trail. The issues of parking, traffic and impacts on the existing neighborhood, associated with the Guthrie, present far more significant and serious impacts to the human environment than whatwas proposed at Sundance Springs. To this end, the Mayor is quoted in the news as seeking to "balance the need for more housing with 'incremental, thoughtful and appropriate density inour existing neighborhoods'". Chronicle. March 19, 2024. Is that what happened at Sundance? Or is it the cynical view I hear on the streets that the residents of Sundance aremore affluent than those on the north side, with greater political connections? Regardless, there cannot be different standards. Moreover, reclaiming jurisdiction cannot be, as the Mayor is also quoted as saying, that "I think (it's) part of making people feel like they're heard." Chronicle, March 21, 2024,paragraph 9. To this end, if the Commission does not reclaim jurisdiction, thus forcing the concerned citizens to file an appeal, the Code's requirement of a nearly $3,000 fee to file that appeal isunlawful and denies the residents their fundamental right to petition government for redress of their grievances, Article II, Section 6 (Mont. Const.) and unlawfully impairs their rights underthe Montana Constitution (Article II, Section 8) and Title 2 of the MCA to participate in the operations of the government agencies before a final decision. By way of comparison, thecost of filing a civil complaint in Montana district court is $120.00. The City's fee for appealing is unlawful Further, as I understand the efforts by many concerned about the administrative process of thisApplication (and others before it) about the administrative review of the project, there is a general lack of transparency (aside from the confusion that flows from trying to understand theUDC and other ordinances impacting this Application) . This too is a violation of the right to know under Article II Section 9. These failures also constitute a violation of procedural andsubstantive due process of law. Finally, as stated earlier, the cumulative impacts of all projects previously applied for and approved by the City, in the context of the present application, is properly the subject offurther review and analysis. The concerned citizens of the community have raised serious issues about public health, safety and welfare, traffic, parking, light, air, resuse of existingbuildings among other issues raised by them. I urge you to reclaim jurisdiction and do far more than "mak[e] people feel like they're heard." There are serious flaws with this Application, the confusing administrative process, the lackof transparency and what appears to be inconsistent application of the UDC to applications before you, including parking and impacts to existing neighborhoods. Please reclaim jurisdiction and if you do consider these comments as part of the review onacceptance of jurisdiction and allow for further public comment when the administration review process has been completed and the results of that process are fully shared with thecommunity with adequate time to review and provide further comment. Brian Gallik -- Brian K. Gallik Gallik, & Bremer, P.C.Attorneys at Law 777 East Main, STE 203PO Box 70 Bozeman, Montana 59771-0070Phone: (406) 404-1728 Fax: (406) 404-1730brian@galliklawfirm.com The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of thismessage is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questionsconcerning this message, please contact the sender.