Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-24 Public Comment - K. Bucklin Sanchez - Public Comment = Homebase Partners Development Application #23354 (The Guthrie)From:karen bucklin sanchez To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment = Homebase Partners Development Application #23354 (The Guthrie) Date:Sunday, July 7, 2024 4:07:28 PM Attachments:Neighborhood Response to Staff Report.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. July 9, 2024 To: Mayor Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Morrison and Bozeman City Commissioners From: Karen Sanchez Re: Application #23354 Honorable Mayor and Bozeman City Commissioners, I am writing regarding Homebase Partners development Application #23354 (The Guthrie), on the corner of North 5th Avenue and Villard Street. Thank you for unanimously voting, on April 16, to reclaim the commission’s role as reviewauthority over this application. We are grateful that you all recognize the importance andlegacy of your decision. In light of the precedent-setting nature of this application, it is imperative that the Commission carefully deliberate. Thank you for being willing to do this work. The application does not appear to meet the AMI requirements to qualify for the deepincentives outlined in the affordable housing plan in the Bozeman Municipal Code Section Sec. 38.380.020.D.2. It states that studio apartments should base affordability calculations on the AMI for a one-person household, and one bedroom units may use the AMI for a two-personhousehold. The Guthrie application intentionally mischaracterizes studio apartments as onebedroom apartments. Check out the Homebase website for 111 West Lamme apartment layouts; it is clear the basis for the Guthrie deep incentives uses a two-person AMI calculation to estimate "affordable rent" for studio apartments. This is a disingenuous use of the deepincentives. The City should not go along with this mischaracterization. It is inappropriate. Compounding this, the June 27 City of Bozeman Staff Report for The Guthrie at 5th and Villard Site Plan & CCOA, Application 23354 includes inaccurate statements and errors. Please take alook at the attached Neighborhood Response to the Staff Memorandum Application 23354City Commission Staff Report which points out concerns about the City's application review. As pointed out in the August 2022 article Bozeman commissioners greenlight new affordable housing policy, the city commission approved the affordable housing ordinance (AHO) shallow and deep incentives based on a “see if it works” rationale. This is not good public policy. This is a litmus test. Homebase Partners is apparently pursuing purchase of the church across the street from the Guthrie site. If you approve the Guthrie application as-is, our city Director of Community Development might be compelled to approve subsequent, identicallystructured / misleading applications. Imagine doubling down on this deep incentive development – 40 feet away from the Guthrie - on the SE corner of 5th and Villard. I urge you to: · Deny development application #23354 on the basis that it does not meet the minimum AHO requirements. · Immediately rescind section 38.380 of the Bozeman Municipal Code and schedule a work session to add clarity, address externalities and establish a means for corrective action in the event of unintended consequences. · Adopt a resolution requiring the establishment of managed residential parking districts for established neighborhoods that are in proximity to and can be reasonably expected to be impacted by any zoning, overlay district or development proposal utilizing relaxed parking minimums. Mayor Cunningham and Commissioners: This is a critical moment. It is essential that we, the City of Bozeman, get this right. Please deny this application on the basis of it not meeting theAHO requirements. Please reconsider the AHO deep and shallow incentives as a matter ofgood public policy. We can do this. You are in the driver’s seat. We CAN require developers to construct truly affordable long-term housing in exchange for appropriate subsidies. The purpose ofsubsidizing honestly affordable housing is to strengthen Bozeman. We have an opportunity!We are counting on you. Sincerely, -- Karen Bucklin Sanchez -- Karen Bucklin Sanchez Response to the Staff Memorandum Application 23354 City Commission Staff Report This document provides responses to the Staff Memorandum Application 23354 City Commission Staff Report (“Staff Memorandum”). Overall, the Staff Memorandum contains numerous inaccurate statements as well as subjective statements which raise multiple unanswered questions for public awareness. Excerpts from the Staff Memorandum are provided below followed by bullet points that either highlight the statement(s)’ inaccuracy and/or subjectivity with unanswered questions for public awareness. “Public awareness and access seem to be the only tools to remind the great mass of public servants that their job is to serve the needs of the public and no other; they are paid by tax dollars to benefit the public above all else.” -Delegate Foster, Montana Constitutional Convention 1972 *** Water Demand and Cash In Lieu of Water Rights: •The Guthrie is anticipated to increase water demand by 721% compared to the historical average of the existing facility. •Regarding cash in lieu of water rights, the developer is paying $73,999. Given the cost of $6,000 per acre-foot, is it feasible to purchase additional water rights with this amount? Staff Report and District Goals: •The staff report repeatedly mentions that The Guthrie site is adjacent to B2M while discussing the goals and objectives of the Midtown Urban Renewal District, which the proposed development is not a part of. •It would have been more appropriate for the staff report to address the goals and objectives of the NCOD, the actual overlay district containing the site of The Guthrie. (p.17) Goal R-2.4. “Social Equity: Provide solutions that are inclusive with consideration to populations that are most fragile and vulnerable to sudden impacts.” •Is the 80% AMI threshold most representative of this demographic? “The smaller apartment sizes may be more suitable for individuals who are unable to afford market rate rental units.” •Then why is the affordability metric set at a 2 person household AMI? •If financial inclusivity was the goal of the AHO then why did the city work together with the developer to substantiate a loophole by creating sliding partitions turning studios into makeshift one-bedroom units, thereby driving up the allowable rent? Goal N-1.1. “This larger scale apartment building will provide diversity in the housing types available in this neighborhood.” •In this area, there exists a diversity of housing types including: 100 units at Darlington Manor, 50 Units at Bridger Heights, 60 units at Legion Villa, 136 units at Larkspur Commons. Not to mention, there are thousands of additional units that have already either broken ground (ex: N3rd development 212 apartments) or entered the development pipeline. Goal N-1.3: “Revise the zoning map to lessen areas exclusively zoned for single-type housing.” •This application does not revise the zoning map. “As noted above, this project proposes a larger scale apartment building, which is allowed in the R-5 zone and provides an alternative housing type to those currently present in this area.” •This is not an accurate statement considering the amount of different housing types we have in the area. •Due to the reconfiguration by HBP and city staff colluding to change the definition of a “studio” into a “true” one-bedroom we are simply adding another “multi-family” plex to an area redolent with apartment options. Goal N-1.11: “Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time.” •How is what is being proposed in The Guthrie’s gradual or predictable? “The North Seventh/Midtown Urban Renewal District was created in 2006 under ordinance number 1862 to remedy conditions of blight found in the area through redevelopment.” •This ordinance was factually adopted in 2013 not 2006. “The Midtown district was zoned B-2M and the subject property was zoned R-5. Since the creation of this urban renewal district, there has been a significant amount of redevelopment along North 7th and within the B-2M zone district including commercial and mixed-use buildings that range from 2-4 stories tall with more active uses on the ground floor and residential uses above. Construction will continue to vary as development occurs and where early phases of multi-story buildings takes place, eventually projects of mid-rise or five story buildings will emerge (pg. 13, Midtown Plan).” •The property in question for the proposed development, The Guthrie, is NOT in the midtown urban renewal district. “The zoning of the site from R-3 to R-5 provided a public process and opportunity for awareness of expected intensification of development on the site.” •In 2016, when the City Commission voted to rezone the site from R-3 to R-5 it was not unanimous. •Commissioner Pomeroy maintained an opposing vote, citing lack of community engagement and requested at least an additional month for more community engagement and outreach. •While other Commissioners voiced similar concerns, the extensive presentation given by Planner Tom Rodgers and Community Development Director Wendy Thomas addressed the safeguards within the code that ensured protection of existing, adjacent neighborhoods. •This is why the other Commissioners voted “yes” contingent on assurances from staff that our code would protect adjacent neighborhoods from negative impacts. •Importantly, none of the neighbors to The Guthrie site got a zone change notice in the mail circa this decision in 2016. Goal N-1.12: “Encourage major employers to provide employee housing within walking/biking distance of place of employment.” •Who are the major employers? •How does the cost of living in The Guthrie reflect local wage realities at service establishments etc? Goal N-2.2: “Revise the zoning map to support higher intensity residential districts near schools, services, and transportation.” •This application does not revise the zoning map. Goal N-3.7: “Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially through mechanisms such as density bonuses.” •What is a density bonus? Bozeman does not have an official density bonus ordinance. •This growth policy goal was intended for emerging green-field development with private land covenants. Goal N-3.3: “Encourage distribution of affordable housing units throughout the City with priority given to locations near commercial, recreational, and transit assets.” •Most of the upcoming affordable housing units proposed in the city are within a 5-block radius of The Guthrie. Goal N-4.1: “Continue to recognize and honor the unique history, neighborhoods, and neighborhood character, and buildings that contribute to Bozeman’s sense of place through programs and policy led by both City and community efforts.” •Regardless of the proximity to the URD the proposed development is not in the URD. •Additionally, if the adjacent neighborhood is supposed to incur more development due to its proximity to the URD, then we could reasonably expect transitional developments tapering the expected height from the 7th corridor as it merges into a neighborhood. •It may be worth noting that the abutting Sapphire Motel was recently (2023) awarded a historic preservation award. The Sapphire Motel property been a landmark in Bozeman since 1940’s. •Given the recent investment in the Sapphire’s rehabilitation, it is unlikely to materialize in a structure exceeding the 5-story proposed by The Guthrie. •The staff report suggests that The Guthrie site is in a “transition zone.” There is nothing “transitional” about the Guthrie as it exceeds height and density across the entire Midtown corridor and proposes no zone edge transition into the neighborhood. Goal DCD-1.5: “Identify underutilized sites, vacant, and undeveloped sites for possible development or redevelopment, including evaluating possible development incentives. The project uses affordable housing incentives to increase density on an underused infill site with a functionally obsolete building adjacent to the B-2M zone district.” •“Functionally obsolete" is a subjective term. The building was functional until the residents from the rehabilitation center were displaced due to state-level financial limitations. •Since then, Home Base Partners has neglected the building, allowing it to deteriorate. Without an affirmative maintenance provision, Home Base Partners has intentionally let the building fall into disrepair—a practice commonly known as "demolition by neglect"—in an attempt to seal an irrefutable fate for a historic property. DCD-2.2: “Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility street corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses. The subject property is one block from North 7th which is a main corridor that supports higher density development.” •Just because Canada and Mexico are next to the USA, doesn't make them any less their own distinct places with distinct policies and culture. Similarly, the NCOD and the URD are operating under distinctly different rules and serve different purposes. Boundaries are important informers of policies and predictability. DCD-2.9: “Evaluate increasing the number of stories allowed in centers of employment and activity while also directing height transitions down to adjacent neighborhoods.” •There is confusion regarding what constitutes a "center of employment." •Due to the high proposed rents, we have not determined the economic demographic of The Guthrie's future residents. •As a result, we cannot accurately ascertain whether the tenants will be working within the vicinity of their residence or elsewhere. •Additionally, The Guthrie does not direct its height down towards adjacent neighborhoods. DCD-3.1: “Expand multimodal accessibility between districts and throughout the City as a means of promoting personal and environmental health, as well as reducing automobile dependency”. •The Guthrie does not enhance multimodal access; instead, it necessitates it due to the lack of onsite parking and insufficient bike parking. •By failing to provide adequate bike parking, the project does not support multimodal accessibility. •Will the developer allocate 51% of parking for affordable units, ensuring that the combined cost with rent does not exceed the 80% AMI threshold? Additionally, how will the developer equitably allocate the limited (24) bike storage spaces among income-restricted and market- rate units, considering the AHO’s emphasis on equal access to shared amenities and services (38.380.040.2c)? M-1.12: “Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere. Per the affordable housing ordinance, parking is reduced through incentives for affordable housing projects.” •Parking has not been reduced; it has been eliminated entirely. •The developer is providing a mix of paid and unbundled onsite parking along with on-street parking. •The site of the proposed Guthrie is not in an “affordable housing area”, it is a mixed residential area. Staff Analysis of Residential Mixed-Use Land Use p19. “It utilizes affordable housing incentives to add approximately 11.5 feet in height to the building and proposes a building mass that is bigger than many of the surrounding structures, providing variation among the buildings in the area that contributes to a complete and interesting streetscape. It is expected that Midtown will continue to develop with high density residential uses and urban development. It is an infill project that is well-integrated into existing infrastructure, including multimodal transportation options because it is supported by nearby Streamline bus service and is within walking distance of many commercial services and social amenities, including a school, church, and the fairgrounds. The project has access to nearby open spaces, such as Westlake Park, Beall Park, and Centennial Park.” •The Guthrie does not create a “variation” amongst the buildings in the area. It stands in juxtaposition to all other buildings in the area. •“Variation” would assume that it is complimentary to its neighboring structures. •Furthermore, it is not “well-integrated into existing infrastructure” as identified by the need for new water and sewer lines, and failing intersections studied in the TIS. “The apartment use is allowed in the R-5 zone district. The proposed project supports the R-5 residential mixed-use high- density district because it is a high-density residential development located in a walkable area adjacent to a variety of services and jobs within in the Midtown Urban Renewal District. The project is consistent with a long line of City Commission decisions regarding the development of the area and the growth policy. The Midtown Urban Renewal District was created in 2006 under ordinance number 1862 as the North Seventh Urban Renewal District to remedy the conditions of blight found in the area through redevelopment. In 2015, it was expanded under ordinance number 1925 for purposes of furthering its efforts to revitalize the commercial area and surrounding neighborhoods and named the Midtown Urban Renewal District.” •The proposed Guthrie would detract from the revitalization efforts in the Urban Renewal District (URD) as it contrasts sharply with the historic adaptive reuse exemplified by developments such as The Sapphire and the RSVP. •Additionally, projects like the Verizon store and the Monarch adhered to specific design criteria that respected the character of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). Adjacent neighborhoods have also been held to the standards set forth in the NCOD code. “Shortly thereafter, the B-2M zone district and R-5 zone district were created by Ordinance 1942 to provide higher density buildings built near the street, encourage ground floor commercial uses, and reduce parking minimums.” •The proposed Guthrie does not offer any commercial uses beyond the type 3 style short-term rentals it plans to implement. “The Bozeman Midtown Urban Renewal District Plan was adopted in 2017 with a deliberate emphasis on focused redevelopment through methods such as increased building density, the construction of urban and dense housing projects, improved multimodal transportation, and promoted a pedestrian oriented environment. As noted above, the growth policy supports infill and redevelopment consistent with adopted standards. Since the creation of this urban renewal district, there has been a significant amount of redevelopment along North 7th and within the B-2M zone district including commercial and mixed-use buildings that range from 2-4 stories tall with more active uses on the ground floor and residential uses above. This is also consistent with the adopted future land use designations and growth policy goals and objectives. “Construction will continue to vary as development occurs and where early phases of multi-story buildings is currently taking place, eventually projects of mid-rise or five story buildings will emerge” (pg. 13, Midtown Plan).” •It warrants repeating that the proposed development site is not in the Midtown Renewal District. “In the B-2M zone district, buildings designed for non-residential or mixed use can build up to five stories or 60 feet, whichever is less, provided the top floor of the building has a step back of 30 feet. For buildings designed for solely residential use, the allowed height is four stories or 50 feet, whichever is less. The R-5 district allows for a building height of 50-60 feet depending on roof pitch. The adjacency of this property to commercial services and various employers accommodates more dense residential dwelling units in a geographically compact, mixed-use area that is in accordance with the R-5 zone district and Urban Renewal Plan. It also contributes to the mixture of housing types available in this area because it provides larger scale multi-family housing in addition to the already existing smaller scale apartment buildings and single detached dwellings.” •Yes, The Guthrie would be the densest apartment complex in all of Montana, setting a new precedence. (p.22) “3. 3.f (2) – Exemption from Section 38.510.030.E to J block frontage standards, provided that vehicle parking is prohibited between the front or side or a principal building and street: Parking is provided on a parking lot along North 5th. When a building faces two streets, the parking lot can front onto one street when the primary frontage is identified which is this case is Villard.” •The primary frontage of the original structure of the site of The Guthrie faces N 5th. •It is unclear the process by which this designation is changed? •There is no provision in the code allowing a parking lot to front the non-primary street. Who made this designation? (p.25) “Staff finds that the project meets the criteria to grant CIL for parkland as the subject property is located within half a mile from Westlake Park, Beall Park, and Centennial Park and that those parks have the levels of service and facilities to adequately serve the property.” •It's worth noting that the closest park, Westlake Park, contains community gardens with a waitlist. •Additionally, it features the BMX and Southwest Montana Mountain Bikers Association tracks, which are fantastic for kids. •However, the vast majority of The Guthrie's units cannot accommodate children. •Furthermore, The Guthrie lacks adequate bike storage to fully enjoy these amenities. •When the city is anticipating increased density, it seems impractical to impose cash-in-lieu caps for any infrastructure or services. (p.26) “Internal roadway design 38.520.050.D NA Comments: Vehicular access to the property is via North 5th Avenue.” •This is an impractical design and access should be off of Villard. “Relationship to adjacent properties 38.520.030” “Intent one is to promote functional and visual compatibility between developments” •The Guthrie does not conform to this section of the code. “Comments: Open space is provided through common outdoor space, interior amenities, and private patios. There are three common outdoor areas, one located on the corner of West Villard Street and 5th, one along the west side of the property, and one on the southeast side of the building. It equates to 6,618 square feet. All shared open space is centrally located and averages 15 feet in width. These areas include landscaping, seating, lighting, grill space, and other pedestrian amenities.Private patio spaces are located on the ground level, each 100 square feet and equate to 1,550 square feet. All patios have a dimension no less than six feet. All multi- household development with ground level private spaces require some sort of separation between the private/public space. The patios on the north and east side are enclosed by hedges that are at least 32inches tall. The patios on the west side are enclosed using a decorative fence that is at least 32 inches tall.Interior amenities on level one include a game room, TV lounge, and lounge/ lobby area. All areas provide seating and other features to be used by residents. Levels three and five include a lounge area that is central to the residents. Interior amenities equate to 3,469 square feet. Level two and four include laundry amenities, which do not count towards open space.” • Per Drawing 004-A0.12-Open Space Calculations-Interior Amenities, the developer is calculating 100 square feet for each 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. (p.27) “The west elevation where there isn’t a window or door incorporates landscaping along the ground level and then material paneling on the upper levels to mitigate for blank walls.” This proposal does not meet code requirements because the landscaping will be blocked from view from the west by the Sapphire Motel. Additionally, it does not address the four stories of white fiber cement visible from 7th Street. This detracts from the North 7th Gateway Provisions in the code and does not align with the North 7th Design and Connectivity plan. While the AHO provides for exemptions from building details (38.530.050) and materials (38.530.060); it does NOT exempt blank wall treatments (38.530.070). (p.31) B. “Street Patterns: Site a new building such that it is arranged on its site in a way similar to the historic buildings in the area. The building is setback 15’ from the property line like adjacent and nearby properties in the R-5 district.” •The primary frontage to the historical building is N. 5th. D. “Landscape Design: Preserve and maintain trees and significant vegetation. All vegetation and trees will be removed but replaced with landscaping along the building and site perimeter. It appears that the landscaping that exists does not have any additional significance to the site. Replacement vegetation meets standards outlined in the UDC.” •This determination should be made by the city-certified arborist or an appraiser certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. •Mature vegetation is not only valuable for ecosystem services but also serves as species corridors. •Additionally, mature vegetation contributes to a sense of place and well-being, thermodynamically moderating environmental gradients and thereby mitigating the adverse effects of climate change. •Historically, many of the mature spruces in Midtown were planted as seedlings given to school children on Arbor Day. E. “Building Form: A similarity of building forms should be used as those seen traditionally. Simple rectangular solids are appropriate as are flat roofs in commercial and transitions areas. The building is rectangular with a flat roof which is appropriate considering its location on the edge of the Midtown Urban Renewal District which is a commercial area.” •The building is rectangular with a flat roof which is inappropriate considering its location on the edge of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which highlight pitched roofs of both hip and gable construction. G. “Materials: Use building materials similar to those in the area. The building uses materials to complement with the neighboring properties including wood that is depicted in the residential neighborhood and fiber cement which is commonly used along North 7th.” •The proposed Guthrie will not be using real wood unlike many buildings in the area. •Additionally, none of the buildings in our corridor are fiber cement but rather stucco. H. “Architectural Character: New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures. The building reflects that of new construction as it uses contemporary materials and an architectural style that doesn’t convey a false sense of historic period.” The Karp and Violette subdivisions feature and honor the integrity of master craftsmanship over the building materials of their era. The proposed materials for The Guthrie significantly depart from the historical character and aesthetic of the neighborhood in both feel and appearance. I.“Parking & Buffers: Minimize the visual impact of surface parking. Much of the parking lot is set behind the building and where it does front onto 5th Avenue has a landscape buffer, which minimizes the visual impact of the surface parking.” •The Parking lot is definitely visible from N. 5th Ave especially from the southwardly view because landscaping cannot occupy the trash tip pad. •Additionally, in winter when the leaves are gone from deciduous landscapes, the parking lot will be in full view. (p.32) “While the existing structure reflects more of the existing residential neighborhood Postwar phase of Bozeman’s development, the rezoning of the property to R-5 in 2016 was to support the Midtown Urban Renewal District which was created with a deliberate emphasis on focused redevelopment through methods such as increased building density, the construction of urban and dense housing projects, improved multimodal transportation, and promoted pedestrian environment. The design of this building reflects a higher intensity use that is compatible with the character of North 7th Corridor and the Midtown Urban Renewal District.” •The original building was thoughtfully designed to blend into the neighborhood by burying some of its height, creating a garden level that matches both Darlington Manor and many other structures in the area. •Additionally, when the site functioned as a rehab building, it housed 50 people. •It is abundantly clear that both the design and function of the rehab center were sympathetically matched to the surrounding neighborhood, creating a strong distinction from 7th Avenue. Notes: •We are dismayed that the N 7th Design and Connectivity Plan, a neighborhood plan that the Urban Renewal District was created to support, is never referenced in the staff report. •Meanwhile, the URD (which The Guthrie site is not a part of) is repeatedly cited to support the approval of The Guthrie in deviating from code and character of this neighborhood.