Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-24 Public Comment - S. Boyd - Additional comments for Project 23354 The GuthrieFrom:Scott and Frances Boyd To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Additional comments for Project 23354 The Guthrie Date:Monday, April 8, 2024 3:55:59 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 Bozeman City Commissioners, I would like to add my verbal commentary given before the commission on April 2, 2024 as part of the written record. Solving affordable housing is a hard, long-term problem. Since the year 2000 it has been mentioned in more than 1200 articles and opinions in the Bozeman Chronicle. Bozeman’s 2020 Amended Community Housing Action Plan guided the development of the new Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO), adopted in August of 2022. One of the 19 strategies from the plan was Permanent Deed Restricted Housing. The 30-year restrictions adopted in the AHO are, by definition, not permanent. As currently coded, the benefits from the deep incentives will convey to the developer of the project in 30 years, allowing them to realize a financial windfall. More importantly, at that time the city will lose the affordable units from our housing inventory, putting us right back to where we were 30 years prior. If we are giving permanent benefits by eliminating parkingrequirements and allowing for taller buildings to be built than otherwise allowed by code, we should realize those benefits permanently. As the code is currently written, those living around any project that makes use of the deep incentives will shoulder the costs forever. The city will benefit for only 30 years. This isclearly unfair and a misuse of our resources. Additionally, the code does not consider the double-dipping of parking relief mechanisms. There are several neighborhoods along 7th Avenue that adjoin the Midtown Redevelopment District and its 2017 elimination of parking requirements. Projects that plan to utilize the deep incentives’ elimination of parking requirements should not be permitted in neighborhoods that abut another zone that already has relief from parking requirements. Proximity to schools and other vulnerable facilities should be a consideration of the code aswell. The code also does not consider the minimum terms of leases, allowing for the currently proposed 30-day terms with the Guthrie. The city got out over its skis when it passed the AHO against the recommendation of the Community Development Board. Because the previous code was eliminated by the legislature, the city adopted a well-intentioned but poorly considered code. We must recognize that the impacts that we’re asking neighborhoods to pay are long-lasting and deserve more careful consideration and built-in flexibility to course-correct along the way. I will submit to you that the costs we will realize through a decrease in safety and quality of life and an increase in congestion and frustration will far outweigh the temporary benefit in housing stock we will see from the current code. I urge the commission to reclaim review authority for the Guthrie project, deny its approval as proposed, and to immediately suspend the deep incentives within the AHO. Reengage the community and come up with smarter incentives that will permanently address our housing affordability problems. If the cost tothe city to take these steps is a lawsuit from Homebase, as I’m sure it will be, then I also urge you to consider that cost to be the tuition we pay for rushing through ill-prepared and underdeveloped changes to the code. I would also like to offer the below commentary on the site plan as filed. There are many errors and conflicts within the plans, drawings, and other submissions associated with the project. To begin: There are conflicts between Document 03 CONR Clarification Correspondence and Exhibit Clarifications and Drawing 033-A1.01 Site Plan with regards to snow storage. Drawing 033-A1.01 Site Plan and Drawing 003-A0.10-Project Information labels an area as the BIKE ROOM but Drawing 004-A0.12-Open Space Calculations-Interior Amenities refers to the same area as GAME ROOM. Drawing 003-A0.10-Project Information shows the Lobby/Lounge as having 1266 square feet and the LOUNGE/LAUNDRY having 317 square feet but Drawing 004-A0.12-Open Space Calculations-Interior Amenities shows 1671 and 300 square feet respectively, with the latter labeled as TV LOUNGE. There are references to Lounge/Laundry areas in Drawing 003-A0.10-Project Information while Drawing 004-A0.12 – Open Space Calculations-Interior Amenities references three TV lounges and two laundry rooms. In some drawings there are bicycle storage and in others there are foosball and pool tables. Drawing 003-A0.10-Project Information states that there are 97 interior and exterior bike spaces provided while Drawing 034-A2.01-Level 01 Floor Plan indicates 29 interior bike spaces are provided, with only 11 being required. Drawing 024-L 000-Site Plan indicates that only 3 outdoor bike spaces are required but 12 are being provided. In Drawing 003-A0.10-Project Information the square footage of units conflicts with Drawing 006-A0.14-Affordable Unit Locations square footage. There is no illustration of the privacy fence listed in Drawing 024-L 000 Site Plan (keynote 13) within Drawing 042-A4.80-Exterior Design Details, where the other fences and gates are illustrated. The inconsistencies, errors, and conflicts make it impossible to parse the documentation and provide meaningful, accurate public comment as a result. With that said, per the table on Drawing 004-A0.12-Open Space Calculations-Interior Amenities, the developer is calculating 100 square feet for each of the exterior private patios, for a total of 1500 square feet towards its 11,100 square foot open space requirement. However, Drawing 034-A2.01-Level 01 Floor Plan shows the width of each patio as 13’6” wide and Drawing 026-L200-Hardscape Plan shows the fence length as being 6’ 8 3/4” for the north patios, 6’ 8 ½” for the east patios, and an undeterminable length for the west patios but possibly 6’ 8 ½”. This yields approximately 90 square feet per patio. Note too that Sec. 38.520.060.B.3 states: “Private balconies and decks. Such spaces must be at least 36 square feet, with no dimension less than six feet, to provide a space usable for human activity.” Presumably, the same minimum dimensional standard that applies to private balconies and decks applies to patios as the only distinction is whether or not they are on the ground level. Sec. 38.520.060.B.1.b. states that ground- level private outdoor space must be enclosed by a fence or hedge. The west patios do not appear to be fully enclosed on the portion running east/west and it appears as if that section of fencing is only 5’ 0 ¼” in length in Drawing 034-A2.01-Level 01 Floor Plan. If the office is for resident usage, its dimensions being 11’ x 14’ do not meet Sec. 38.520.060.B.2.c. which requires that shared open space must feature no dimension less than 15 feet. If it is not for resident usage, then it should not count towards open space requirements altogether. The same comments hold for the conference room. Further, neither the office nor the conference room meet the definition of an indoor recreational area per Sec. 38.520.060.B.4.b. The same deficiency of Sec. 38.520.060.B.2.c. applies to the partitioned spaces labeled GAME SPACE in Drawing 033-A1.01 Site Plan as each area is less than 15 feet wide. The entrance section into the TV LOUNGE on the first floor should not count towards open space as it is less than 15 feet wide. The portion of the LOBBY/LOUNGE on Drawing 004- A0.12-Open Space Calculations-Interior Amenities that is immediately south of the elevator bank and separated from the rest of the LOBBY/LOUNGE by stairs likewise does not meet the 15-foot standard. Also note that the only means of accessible entry to that space would require exiting the building, traversing its length, and then entering through the south entrance. Sec. 38.520.060 requires that snow removal storage areas may not be placed in such a manner as to damage landscaping. Document 03 CONR Clarification Correspondence and Exhibit Clarifications illustrates that parking spots 6 and 7 along with the peninsula bump-out are slated for snow storage. Because the peninsula contains a Helena maple and the adjacent walkway contains Blue Oat grass, storage of snow in this location will damage landscaping. According to Drawing 008-A0.15-Accessible Unit Summary, Unit 112 on the first floor is the only accessible unit on that floor. The sole direct access to the common areas for that unit will be that area that is immediately south of the elevator bank as the rest is separated from the LOBBY/LOUNGE by stairs. Accessing the rest of the common areas in addition to the laundry room will require exiting the building at the south exit, traversing the length of the building, and entering either the east or west entrance. The developer also seeks open space credit in Drawing 004-A0.12-Open Space Calculations-Interior Amenities for those sections of the 2000 SF, 2612 SF, and 570 SF COMMON OUTDOOR spaces that are within the setback area. Sec. 38.520.060.B.2.b. states that “Required setback areas does not count as shared open space unless the design of the space meets the standards herein.” Additionally, Sec. 38.520.060.B.2.e. requires “Shared open space must be separated from ground level windows, streets, service areas and parking lots via landscaping, fencing, and/or other acceptable treatments that enhance safety and privacy for both the shared open space and dwelling units.” These areas do not enhance safety and privacy as proposed. The picnic table in the 570 square foot section of the shared open space is not separated from the parking lot via any of the means required. Finally, each of these areas in the setback violate Sec. 38.520.060.B.2.c. as they are all less than 15 feet in one dimension. In particular, the adjacent porch area is segregated by fencing as is the area north of the privacy fence in the 2000 square foot common outdoor space, and the portion of the spaces in the setback area are a separate space constrained by the 15 feet minimum dimension. Drawing 033-A1.01 Site Plan does not definitively illustrate that the project meets IFC 503.1.1 requirement for a 150’ hose pull. Additionally, the comments regarding this section and the dialogue with Fire are unclear. The initial comment from Fire states “The proposed parking lot is considered a dead-end and must comply with City design specifications and standards, and with any city-adopted International Fire Code. No dead-ends longer than 150 feet are permitted without an approved turn-around. The applicant must provide an engineering approved turn-around for emergency vehicles.”v The follow-up reply states “Fire will allow signage as an alternative. It needs to be big, bold, and permanent so when fire shows up they know not to make that corner. Based on square footage of building, we wouldn’t bring in aerial devices into the interior, and due to the overhead powerlines. We wouldn’t make the corner anyway. We need 26ft wide clearance if we are going to deploy it in there anyway, so we are better off hitting corners of Villard and other 3 corners of building.” The existing building currently has access on all four sides of the building. Why is an exception made to require a turn-around when the new design eliminates access from the west side? Does the comment about not bringing in aerial devices into the interior take into account that the overhead powerlines are being relocated further west? Are we making safety compromises for a new 5-story building with an occupancy load of 439 residents per Drawing 014-A0.40-Life Safety Plans? This is an extraordinary allowance. In addition, the proposed signage in Drawing 023-C1.7- Signage and Striping Plan does not appear to be “big (and) bold” so that fire knows not to “make that corner.” The Affordable Housing Plan as filed considers that all affordable units are 1-bedroom units. This is inaccurate as most units in the Guthrie are studios. Rental prices should be based on the AMI for a one-person household per Sec. 38.380.020.D.2. In conclusion, the Affordable Housing Ordinance was clearly written with sales of homes in mind and is woefully lacking with regards to requirements for rentals. Note that the administration language in Sec. 38.380.070 states that rules, instructions, and standards are not mandated but rather optional, using the term “may” instead of “shall” or “must”. The tables within the incentives address sales almost exclusively. How will the city enforce that tenants occupy the affordable housing as their primary residence? What sort of dignified housing are we offering if we allow for four unrelated people to occupy a 300-500 square foot dwelling for over $1600 per month? A metric that references costs per square foot must be added to the code. How will the city enforce the 72 consecutive-hour parking limitation per Sec. 36.04.260.E for an incremental 200- 400 vehicles in the neighborhood? If there are zero parking requirements how then do fourteen required bicycle spaces meet the needs of a five-story, 111-unit project that can house 439 residents? All of these shortcomings indicate a code that was hastily implemented without due consideration for the knock-on effects and ways in which developers could use it and the incentives to their advantage in producing incremental profit without truly benefiting the community as a whole, and in particular those needing assistance in obtaining housing. The application must be denied outright because it is so incongruous and self- conflicting that it is impossible for the public to know which element of the plan is the correct one to comment upon. Most importantly it fails to meet code on several points, particularly open space requirements. In addition to denying the application for the Guthrie, I urge the commission to revoke the deep incentives as expeditiously as possible in order to prevent the proposal of additional conflicted developments, and work with the community to create a more thoughtful, balanced ordinance that realizes the benefits permanently. Sincerely, Scott Boyd