Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-24 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - Attn_ Commissioners, public comment on the GuthrieFrom:Alison Sweeney To:Bozeman Public Comment; Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Emma Bode; Douglas Fischer; Joey Morrison Subject:[EXTERNAL]Attn: Commissioners, public comment on the Guthrie Date:Wednesday, July 3, 2024 8:29:01 AM Attachments:Guthrie Development Recommendations.pdf 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 Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners, I'm attaching a document I hope you will make time to read before next Tuesday's hearing andreview of the proposed Guthrie development. I hope you will deny the proposed development on the grounds that the application doesn't meet current code. The Commission discussed a priority to strengthen historic preservation and implement alandmark program and the heritage tree program at the January 26th special meeting. A Landmark Program allows a municipality to create local historic districts and protect areas that are not eligible for the national register of historic places. A Landmark Program wouldallow us as a city to protect the Historic African American Neighborhood on the north side as well as the mid century modern neighborhoods associated with Bozeman's post-war expansionperiod. The City has hired Community Planning Collaborative out of Jacksonville Florida as consultants to help implement this Landmark Program. They are a terrific firm with a greattrack record of DEI in Historic Preservation. Check them out: https://www.planningcollab.com You can do more to strengthen Historic Preservation in Bozeman by enforcingexisting code, than any allocation of money can buy. Please deny the Guthrie and consider rescinding the AHO as it is not providing trulyaffordable housing as others have demonstrated. Homebase Partners is offering larger units in other projects that did not receive incentives, for the same price. This "people-storage" facilityis not a place you live! If you want to see a project that creates a truly communal living experience with micro units at affordable prices check out the Hogan in Missoula. The Hoganproject used no city incentives. Fully one third of the building is communal space. In our quest for units, we do not need to settle for terrible developments. Bozeman deservesbetter, our renters deserve better! Thank you, Alison B. Sweeney Bernadette's Handmade JewelryBozeman MT 406-404-5740alison-bernadettes.com Guthrie Development Recommendations The proposed development at the corner of N. 5th Ave and West Villard street does not qualify for approval under multiple provisions of Bozeman’s Unified Development Code (UDC) and should be denied by the Bozeman City Commission at their project review meeting. The existing structure on the site, formerly known as the Bridger Rehab and Care Center, is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). This location within the NCOD means the development plans for the site are subject to 38.340.80 of the current UDC. The affordable housing ordinance 2105 adopted in the fall of 2022 explicitly states this. 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. This section of the UDC describes the review process for demolition or movement of a historic structure. 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. Is the Bridger Rehab and Care Center an historic structure? According to article 7 it is. Article 7 defines a historic structure as follows: Historic structure. 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. On April 1 of 2024 the site was visited by Metcalf Archeological Consultants Inc. to evaluate the status of the existing structure. The recent Metcalf survey reports the following: “While not located within an existing historic district, the building retains sufficient integrity to convey association with the Postwar Expansion Phase of Bozeman’s development and should be considered eligible/contributing to a potential district associated with the development of central Bozeman.” To summarize; the existing structure at N. 5th and W. Villard is defined as an historic structure by our existing code, and therefore is subject to the review criteria of 38.340.080. The affordable housing ordinance does not remove this requirement. So what are the applicable review procedures for demolition of an historic structure? The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). This is described in section 38.220 of the UDC. This section of code is also referenced by the affordable housing ordinance, and any project attempting to use incentives granted by ordinance 2105 must comply. 38.220.090. Certificates of appropriateness; additional application requirements, review procedures and review criteria. A. Submittal requirements for certificates of appropriateness. All development proposals requiring certificates of appropriateness (e.g., located in a neighborhood conservation district or historic property/structure) must submit the following information in addition to any sketch plan, site plan or special development submittal requirements for the proposal: 1. Neighborhood conservation overlay district and historic property/structures. Certain information must be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project is dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination. At a minimum, the following items must be included in the submission: 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 habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. 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 demolition and construction of a new structure of the same type and scale to building code standards. Homebase must be given credit for submitting a bid for the demolition and redevelopment of a new structure of the same type and scale, something they did not do in their first application. The bids were produced by Arco Murray. However they have not satisfied the requirements to obtain a COA because they must submit bids from more than one general contractor, which they have not done. Therefore the review authority must deny the applicant a COA for demolition of an historic structure located within the NCOD. This is not the only criteria for denying a COA for demolition within the NCOD. The subsequent development must be approved in order to grant a COA for demolition. Sec. 38.340.090. - Demolition or movement of a historic structure or site. A. Certificate of appropriateness (COA) for demolition and subsequent development. Approval of the proposed subsequent development is required for all historic structures proposed for demolition and for the proposed movement of any structure or site. The proposed Guthrie development does not meet approval under section 38.230.100 of the UDC. A project requesting to use the incentives awarded in ordinance 2105 must also abide by the provisions of 38.230 of the UDC. The site plan does not satisfy the review criteria as follows: 38.230.100.A.7. Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5, including: a. Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to architectural design, building mass, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration; This neighborhood is characterized by intact Mid-Century Modern architecture including one and two story homes with peaked roofs, and the historic single story Sapphire Motel. The existing structure at N. 5th Ave and W. Villard has an observable and complimentary symmetry with the Mid-century Modern church directly across N. 5th Ave. In the Metcalf survey over 80% of the structures in the Violett Addition had sufficient integrity to qualify for a Mid-Century Modern Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. The structure on the subject site is recognized as contributing to that potential Historic District. Former Bridger Rehab and Care Center; the subject site Mid-Century Modern Church directly east of the subject site Historic Sapphire Motel directly west of the subject site single-family home with a peaked roof, directly north across Villard Street from the subject site. This is a typical home on both N. 6th and 5th Avenues. 2.5 story apartment building directly south of subject site. Note the garden story basement apartments and small building footprint typical of the existing neighborhood. Proposed development; the Guthrie Homebase Partners proposes that their development achieves the following: “The Guthrie is situated on a site characterized by a mix of neighboring property uses, making it well-placed as a transitional element between the nearby single- family residential homes and the commercial developments along 7th Avenue. Adjacent to the west is the The Sapphire Motel, and to the south, is an apartment building. Directly to the east is the Christian Reformed Church, while properties to the north consist of single-family houses. The Guthrie serves as a link between these diverse functions, helping to mitigate the shifts in scale.” A 64,000 sq ft, 5 story building is not a transition. The Guthrie will not be a link between these diverse functions in the neighborhood; it will overwhelm them all. This development exhibits neither a “compatibility with”, or “sensitivity to”, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods as required in section 38.230.100.A.7.a. of the UDC. A 5 story box of a building offers no “visual integration” into this neighborhood. This development, that will double the current density of the existing neighborhood in a single building, is also not in line with the growth policy provision that aims for the following: “Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time.” – page 29 Furthermore the proposed development does not satisfy the City’s Design Guidelines for new development within the NCOD. Chapter 3 offers Guidelines for Residential Character Areas. It fails to meet these guidelines in the following areas. Chapter 3.A.1. Provide a front yard similar in character to it’s neighbors when possible. –page 57 Chapter 3.B. “…new construction should not be so dramatically greater in scale than the established context that the visual continuity of the neighborhood would be compromised.” –page 58 Chapter 3.B.2. On larger structures, step down a building’s height toward the street, neighboring structures, and the rear of the lot. –page 58 Chapter 3.B.4. The front wall of a new structure should not exceed two stories in height. –page 58 Chapter 3.B.5. A façade should appear similar in dimension to those seen traditionally in the neighborhood. –page 58 Chapter 3.C. Roof Form. In most neighborhoods, a similarity of roof form also contributes to a sense of visual continuity. In order to maintain this sense of continuity, a new building should have basic roof form that is similar to those seen traditionally. –page 59 Chapter 3.E.4. A new multi-household building should be within the range of heights seen traditionally in the neighborhood. –page 60 • A new multi-household structure should not overwhelm existing single household structures in terms of height. • Maintaining a consistency of building height will contribute to the visual continuity of the streetscape. • The back side of a building may be taller than the front, and still appear to be in scale, if zoning regulations permit and the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways. The subject property is currently zoned R-5, residential high density mixed use, not because anyone thought a 4 story building would be appropriate at this location, but because of the nature of the Bridger Rehab and Care Center as a residential but also commercial use. This zoning designation of R-5 fit the use of the existing structure. The affordable housing ordinance awards extra height to a development that is delivering affordable units, but it does not negate the design guidelines of the NCOD, or the provisions in the existing UDC that regulate the requirements for obtaining a COA for demolition. A denial of a COA for demolition does not mean that the owner is prevented from developing their property. It simply triggers a two-year stay of demolition in which time the city and the owner can work on alternative proposals that fit the requirements of code. 38.340.090.D. Review process 3. If an application for demolition or moving is denied due to failure to meet section 38.340.090.C issuance of a demolition or moving permit must be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the denial in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section. a. Early termination of two-year stay. An owner of property subject to a stay under this section may seek early termination of the stay if the owner demonstrates s/he has actively and in good faith sought alternatives to demolition. These alternatives may include but are not limited to: listing the property for sale as a historic property; actively seeking input from neighborhood groups and interested parties; exploring alternative funding sources for stabilization and/or reconstruction; and offering the property for relocation. By denying an application for demolition, the review authority simply says, the proposed development is inappropriate, and the owner/developer has other opportunities to submit designs that better suit the location while making use of the incentives awarded in the affordable housing ordinance. Maintaining the peaked roof façade facing N. 5th Ave while stepping back upper stories, could allow for context appropriate development that reduces the negative impacts on the existing neighborhood, preserves the integrity of the existing site and structure retaining the possibility for a future Mid-Century Modern Historic District, and providing a more gradual increase in density called for by the growth policy.