Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-24 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - On the GuthrieFrom:Alison Sweeney To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]On the Guthrie Date:Sunday, April 7, 2024 6:21:31 PM Attachments:NCOD still applies .docx Deep Incentives.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 Clerks, I'd like these two attached documents to please be filed in the public comment folder on theGuthrie. Thanks so much. Alison B. Sweeney Bernadette's Handmade JewelryBozeman MT 406-404-5740alison-bernadettes.com When the State overturned the City of Bozeman’s inclusionary zoning ordinance by passing HB 259 the Commission directed staff to write a replacement to chapter 38.380. Clarion was hired to consult on “incentives” that could be given in exchange for affordable housing production. According to the staff report no one expected the 50% affordable units required to take advantage of the deep incentives to come from a private developer. The following is from page 18 of the staff report presented to the Community Development Board on August 1, 2022: Deep Affordability Incentives Clarion recommended larger code-based incentives for developments that produced affordability well-beyond what the market would produce with code-based incentives alone. These projects, like GMD’s Arrowleaf and Perennial Park low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC - “Li-Tech”) development and the Bridger View development near Story Mill Park, produced affordability in 50% or more of their units by harnessing federal monetary subsidy, social impact investing, and private philanthropy. In exchange for this depth of affordability, Staff and Clarion recommend the following Deep Incentives: So these incentives were never intended to be used by a free market developer alone. The intention was to pare with subsidy or philanthropy, no doubt expecting the delivered product to offer more than dorm-style living. Also notice the consultants suggested rental units affordable up to 60% AMI! Our city changed this to 80% AMI upon final adoption for what reason? Maybe this explains why the units we’re seeing proposed are not truly affordable to working Bozeman residents. The Guthrie does not embody the product envisioned by the adoption of ordinance 2105. In order for a project to use the affordable housing deep incentives it must meet the requirements of the NCOD. The Guthrie as submitted does not. Ordinance 2105, section 7, Item A, number 2: 2. Application, review and public notice procedures for proposals located within the conservation district are set forth in division 38.230, Plan Review, and division 38.220, Applications and Noticing, of this chapter. If demolition or movement of structures or sites subject to the conservation district requirements is proposed, the procedures in section 38.340.080 apply. Section 38.340.080 – Review of demolition or movement of historic structures or sites. A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site must be subject to the provisions of this article. This process applies to: 1. Historic properties and sites, as defined in article 7 of this chapter. B. An application to move or demolish a structure subject to this article must follow the applicable review procedures. Article 7 defines a historic structure as “Any building or structure that is: 4. eligible, as determined by the City of Bozeman, to be listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places either individually or as a contributing building to an existing or potential historic district. Bozeman’s map of historic places contains a property record for 321 N 5th describing the current convalescent center as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=228180&dbid=0&repo=bozeman Therefore a project applying to use the deep incentives, but requesting to tear down a historic property, must be awarded a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition within the NCOD. The ordinance 2105 does not remove this requirement. The applicant has failed to meet the criteria for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for demolition within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District(NCOD) according to Bozeman Municipal Code. • 38.220.090 A.1.j If demolition of a historic structure, as defined in article 7 of this chapter, is proposed a structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a (1)habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, (2)versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. (3)Analysis must include cost estimates from more than one general contractor for the work. The cost comparison is between the cost to rehabilitate the structure to a condition which meets the building code standard for occupancy and (2)demolition and construction of a new structure of the same type and scale to building code standards. 1. A COA for demolition within the NCOD requires a cost estimate for the existing structure to be brought up to habitable condition according to code. Was the bid to bring the structure up to habitable condition, or did it include excessively nice finishes and systems not required by code to make the bid for renovation more expensive? Arco Murray projected hard costs of close to $9 million. There were no other bids. This bears closer scrutiny. 2. No bid was provided by Homebase Partners for the cost of construction of a new structure of the same type and scale. Homebase Partners only provided a pro forma for the new 5 story 111 unit building, which will necessarily require steel construction, not a new building of the same type and scale. The current structure is described as follows on the historic inventory form: The building is wood framed with a concrete foundation. It has a U-shaped plan, which is open on the west side. The gable-front wall is clad in brick, with decorative mid-century fiberglass panels filling space between window openings. To the north and south are two-story residence wings that extend east-west, forming the two arms of the “U” shaped plan. The residence wings have a parapeted flat roof and are clad in EIFS 3. Homebase Partners has not provided competing bids. Only one estimate for renovation is listed in the documents for public review. Arco Murray projected hard costs of close to $9 million. Were any local companies asked for bids? When asked by our own Historic Preservation Officer to provide the required documentation described above, Homebase partners said they provided “budgets, pro formas, and financial analyses which provide clear evidence of why pursuing a renovation of the existing building is not feasible. In the renovation analysis you can see that based on the construction and operational costs the project would not even be able to cover debt service. Neither we, nor any bank, would undertake a project with these projections.” The question asked, and the requirement for issuing a COA for demolition within the NCOD, is not, can the developer make a profit! It is; does the cost of bringing the structure to a habitable condition exceed the cost of demolition and redevelopment of a new structure of the same type and scale to minimum standards. Homebase Partners has not satisfied the requirements to issue a demolition permit.