Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout31 Early Termination of Two Year Stay H O M E B A S E PA R T N E R S The Guthrie 321 N 5th Ave SP#24493 Early Termination of Two-Year Stay 38.340.090.D.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.” This application #24493 is a new application proposal that if approved by the City should satisfy section 38.340.090.D.3 due to the ‘or’ language within the code. However, HomeBase was asked by City staff to also provide sufficient evidence that the requirements of this section were being met, see below. 38.340.090.D.3.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.” The Guthrie application and team has completed the following alternatives to demolition to satisfy 38.340.090.D.3.a: 1. The developer purchased the site initially with the intention to adaptively reuse the existing building for living units. Professional engineers and architects were hired in 2022 to study renovating the existing building. HomeBase worked closely with city representatives to discuss constraints and how to bring the existing building up to meet the current code. The renovation study was completed through the Design Development phase (these drawings are included in application materials “16 Renovation Study”). Ultimately it was determined that the existing structure did not meet the necessary criteria for conversion into future living units: ceilings lower than 7’, transite piping and asbestos, environmental and mechanical systems, just to name a few to meet modern standards and functionality. Consequently, the project direction shifted to explore alternative options that would align more effectively with the city’s envisioned development goals in Bozeman’s 2020 Community Plan and criteria in UDC section 38.230.100. 2. Per 38.340.090.C.2, the existing structure was analyzed and determined there was no viable economic life remaining. This means the cost of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by applicable codes exceeds the cost of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards with a building of the same type and scale. See document “27 The Guthrie Renovation vs New Build Comparison” which illustrates the costs of renovation, substantiated by (2) general contractors, exceed the costs of demo and build of a new 2 story building. 3. There was a meeting at City Hall on July 25th, 2024 with City officials including Chuck Winn and Takami Clark, HomeBase Partner’s representatives, and Neighborhood representative Emily Talago. The neighborhood’s concerns centered around adaptive reuse, for sale versus for lease, traffic around Whittier school, intensity of the proposed project and finally mass and scale H O M E B A S E PA R T N E R S as a 5-story building. The City officials started this meeting by saying the City is willing to contribute to and work with neighbors on parking and traffic issues around Whittier school. The group also discussed the adaptive reuse study that HomeBase completed in 2022, merits of renters being just as invested in our community as owners, and HomeBase’s willingness to explore a smaller building on the site to address intensity and mass & scale concerns. 4. There was a follow up meeting on August 13th, 2024 with Chuck Winn from the City, Andy Holloran from HomeBase Partners, and Noah ten Broek from the Midtown Neighborhood. This meeting was a productive follow up to the previous meeting on July 25th in which concrete alternatives were proposed and discussed by all parties: a. Reduce mass and scale of building from 5 stories to 4 stories: i. This application reduces the building’s mass & scale to 4 stories. The 4 story building is a gradual and predictable increase in density as the immediate neighbors are 3 stories. The new overall building height is now approximately 47’ to the top of the roof, which is lower than the 50’ maximum under the UDC R-5 Zoning Code. b. Reduce the overall number of units to around 90. i. This application represents a 20% reduction in the total number of units to respond to this neighborhood concern. c. Incorporate concrete and brick on exterior of building i. This application incorporates additional concrete and brick to the exterior design to integrate and honor the unique neighborhood character and sense of place. d. Upgrade the kitchen within units i. This application upgrades the unit kitchens to include a full-sized refrigerator / freezer and convection oven. 5. During this two-year stay, unfortunately no insurance carrier will cover this building knowing it will ultimately be demolished. The current carrier recently dropped the policy, and HomeBase has not been able to secure a new policy after reaching out to multiple carriers. 6. HomeBase did explore alternative funding sources for reconstruction. HomeBase spoke to Family Promise about partnering for workforce housing opportunities. Ultimately Family Promise was not able to secure funds and it was not financially viable to partner. In summary, this new application #24493 satisfies UDC 38.340.090.D.3 for an early termination of two- year stay as HomeBase has actively and in good faith sought alternatives to demolition: comprehensive study of the site as an adaptive reuse project, general contractor bids determining the structure has no viable economic life remaining, engagement with neighborhood representatives to seek input which was incorporated into this application, inability to secure insurance coverage for this building, and attempts to secure alternative funding sources for the project. Although health and safety impacts on the neighborhood are not specifically required under this code provision, it is important to note that this building presents significant safety risks. After determining that adaptive reuse was unfeasible, we undertook an environmental abatement project to prepare the building for demolition and future development. This abatement involved extensive work, including removal of ceilings, floor tiles, wall sections, and some broken windows, leaving the structure in a visibly unsafe condition. While we continue to secure the building, it has already attracted individuals seeking shelter, underscoring the urgency of moving forward with demolition, and we anticipate further break-ins from individuals seeking shelter.