HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-24 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - Former Director Bentley and the GuthrieFrom:Anna Bentley
To:"Andy Holloran"
Cc:Sarah Rosenberg; Erin George; Audrey Chorak
Subject:Guthrie (23354): Clarification requests
Date:Tuesday, April 9, 2024 5:48:21 PM
Andy,
Based on staff analysis to date and public comment received (note public comment period closed
4/8), staff is asking for additional information on the topics identified below. Additional
clarification/information will allow us to complete our assessment and review of the CCOA/site plan
application.
These comments/asks will also be entered into PDox, which will allow your team to respond/upload.
Staff will then complete review of the application.
Supplemental information for the historic inventory form. Already in progress, thank you.
Update project narrative to ensure it reflects revisions made to the application (e.g., average
unit size). Also please review all plan sheets to ensure they are consistent with each other
and the updated narrative (e.g., floor plans, open space, bicycle numbers).
Traffic calming. Details forthcoming, I’ll forward text (and it will also go in PDox) as soon as
it’s in hand.
Cost quantification of renovation vs new build.
Sec.38.340.090 addresses demolition or movement of a historic structure or site. Sub-item
C.2 states that the review authority must consider costs of repair/rehab and how that
compares to costs of demolition/redevelopment with a building of same type/scale.
Two requests around the cost comparison information already provided in the application
package:
1. A separate bit of code talks about the need for the cost analysis to include estimates
from more than one general contractor. (Sec.38.220.090.A.1.j) Please clarify or add
information around using more than one source for your analysis.
2. Several specific questions arose in public comment about inputs to the
comparisons. Please review and update your comparison/narrative if/as
appropriate. Here’s an example of questions, pg 2-3,
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=289265&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&cr=1
As an aside, Sec.38.340.090.C. follows the review criteria (which includes cost comparison)
with the statement, “Notwithstanding the above, for projects proposing the removal of a
historic structure, which do not qualify for sketch plan review pursuant to section
38.230.070, the review authority may determine the proposed subsequent site development
is more appropriate for the site based on the criteria in section 38.230.100.” Therefore, as
part of review consistent with 38.230.100 (Plan review criteria), it is possible and code allows
that demolition and subsequent development may be deemed appropriate, regardless of
criteria indications.
If you have any questions, please let us know.
Thank you
Anna Bentley, AICP
Director | Community Development | City of Bozeman
P: 406.582.2940 | C: 406.595.5070 | E: abentley@bozeman.net
CUSTOMER SERVICE HOURS (Front Counter @ 20 East Olive, 59715):
Open: M, W, F: 9 AM – 4 PM; & T, TH: 9 AM – 1 PM
https://www.bozeman.net/departments/community-development
Our agenda@bozeman.net email address is going away!
- For public comments, our new address will be comments@bozeman.net
- For records requests or the status of a submitted request, our new address will be
information@bozeman.net
- For RFP/RFQ submissions, questions, or status requests of a procurement, our new address will be
procurement@bozeman.net
From:Alison Sweeney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Former Director Bentley and the Guthrie
Date:Monday, July 8, 2024 7:19:49 AM
Attachments:Bentley-Holleran email.pdf
32 Comment 25 and 32 Response Letter.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.
Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners,
Some Midtown residents submitted a records request asking for the communications betweenstaff and Homebase Partners pertaining to the development review of the proposed Guthrie.
What they were given was incomplete to say the least, but there were some communications
that are concerning; namely an email from Former Director Bentley to Andy Holloran ofHomebase Partners on Tuesday April 9th. I'm attaching a pdf of it here.
Director Bentley is asking for "additional clarification/information" in response to public
comment from the initial public notice period that ended April 8th 2024. The 4th underlinedask is the one I'm writing about. The director is asking the applicant to submit estimates from
more than one general contractor to determine that the existing structure has no viableeconomic life left and therefore meets the criteria for demolition.
This should have been done months earlier (and still hasn't been sufficiently completed) at the
request of the lead planner on the project, who also serves as Bozeman's Historic PreservationOfficer (HPO). See comments 25 and 32 of the Guthrie application in the community
development viewer. Also attached here. Note the January date.
What we see in Sarah Rosenbergs review comments is an employee diligently and politelyexecuting the responsibilities of their many roles in asking the applicant to meet the demands
of Bozeman Municipal Code, and to reconsider an adaptive reuse approach to a historicresource.
What we see in the final paragraph of former director Bentleys response is an "aside"reassuring the developer that there are ways for her to approve his application"regardless of criteria indications".
Two major problems I see with this:
You have a director of a department undermining the authority of her own planner (ourCity's HPO) effectively removing the planner's ability to enforce code. This suggests a
deeply concerning toxicity in the work environment for members of our city staff. Theyare not only unsupported by their superiors, they are undermined by them.
You see a director going out of their way to assure a developer that even if theirdevelopment doesn't satisfy plan review criteria, she's willing to approve it anyway.
This is the type of behavior that has led countless Bozeman residents to believe that ourcity caters to developers. It effectively confirms it.
Thank you for the unanimous vote to reclaim review authority over this project. It gives youthe chance to turn this ship, to say from the top down, "it's time for a culture change." Our
codes exist for many reasons and no one developer or development is above them. Additionally, it sends the message that we value our staff who enforce them.
Thank you,
Alison B. Sweeney
Bernadette's Handmade JewelryBozeman MT
406-404-5740alison-bernadettes.com
HBP 20 North Tracy Avenue
Bozeman,Montana 59715
HomeBasePartners.com
HOMEBASE;'ARTNERS 406,404.1788
1/31/2024
Sarah Rosenburg, AICP
Associate Planner I Historic Preservation Officer
City of Bozeman LGBTQ+ Liaison
RE: The Guthrie—Project#23354
SP/DEM/CCOA Comments#25 and#32
Dear Sarah,
In response to your review comments#25 and #32 on The Guthrie SP/DEM/CCOA application
we'd like to offer the following summary and financial analysis. I've included the comments
below for reference along with our responses.
Comment#25
The existing structure is contributing historic structure in a very intact Postwar phase of
Bozeman's development that could be eligible to become a Historic District. Based on the
historic inventory survey of the B-2M zone district, North 5th and 6th between Peach and Beall
could be designated a Historic District. This structure is a prominent architectural feature of the
Postwar era in the Violet and Karp subdivisions. Reconsider doing an adaptive reuse
development for this, especially since the renovation study shows that there could be a number
of units accommodated. Another consideration would be to do this as a PDZ and use Affordable
Housing and Historic Structures as outlined in 38.430.050. Relaxations and waivers can be
requested.
As you maybe aware when we purchased this building we fully intended on doing an adaptive
reuse development project. We spent close to a year working with our design team as well as
City of Bozeman Community Development, Building and Fire Departments in an attempt to
make a renovation work. Unfortunately, at every turn we ran into roadblocks related to
significant upgrades to the structure, MEP and life safety systems required to comply with
current code.
During our evaluation/design process we engaged Arco Murray as a General Contractor to
provide cost information and suggest creative solutions to make the project economically
viable. After a thorough attempt to make the numbers work we eventually had to pivot and
pursue a different solution. We maintained our commitment to providing a lower cost housing
option for the community and are now able to offer 111 units in the new build project opposed
to only 42 in the renovation project.
HBP 20 North Tracy Avenue
Bozeman,Montana 59715
HomeBasePartners.com
HOMEBASE PARTNERS 406.404,1788
Comment#32
38.340.090.C. Provide how the structure has no viable economic life remaining. We need to see
that bringing the structure to a habitable condition exceeds the cost of demolition and
redevelopment to minimum standards. This should be some sort of document that shows
numbers and dollar amount.
We have included budgets, proformas, 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.
In addition, the renovated option does not solve the challenge of providing functional housing,
including areas with less than 7' ceilings, awkward bathroom conditions and grade changes
within the building due to the phasing and age of each portion as it was constructed over the
years.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Andy Holloran