HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-24 Public Comment - C. Copenhagen - The GuthrieFrom:Cathy Copenhagen
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]The Guthrie
Date:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 10:53:39 AM
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.
I’m writing about application 24493 the Guthrie.
It’s difficult to write you about this when you all fielded so many comments and voted against
the development last summer. But if the developer brings it back, then we must all face itagain. And by we, I include you. Reclaim authority on this. Do not leave it to an internal
decision.
First: I don’t remember the last time commissioners voted against a downtown development. Ithink you made history.
After that historical vote, city code (Section 38.340.090.D) restricts the issuance of a
demolition permit for a period of two years to allow the applicant and city to explorealternatives. I’m unconvinced that this effort has been made. Certainly, neighborhood
representatives have not been involved.
Application 24493 still isn’t appropriate. The project needs to be denied again. It’s a high riseinside the NCOD, and it puts too much traffic on a quiet neighborhood street. Ninety-one units
is going to overload the surrounding area, making it unsafe for elementary school traffic. At47’ high, it simply does not fit the neighborhood.
The deep incentives of the AHO made the developer greedy for a larger scale building.
Lindsay Von Seggern, a HomeBase employee, stated at a public hearing last spring: “Withoutthe deep incentives, there is no Guthrie.” This fact alone is evidence that there are issues with
the deep incentives. City staff is working to revise them . To allow this application (or any) touse deep incentives before that work is complete is simply not right.
Do not use this neighborhood, or any neighborhood zoned outside B3 or B2M, as an
experiment. Residents have our lives in our properties. This “see how it goes” mentality is notonly unfair, but also insulting. It means you value the developer and his profits more than you
value residents of the city’s core, people who pay property taxes, send their kids to publicschools, pay for city services and invest in the upkeep of the neighborhood.
Obviously, change is inevitable and no one can predict the future. But development can belimited. A city’s elected officials set boundaries on developers. I thought that was how this
was supposed to work.
Let the NCOD, already on the books, do its job. Enforce it. No high rises outside of B3 and
B2M zoning. Keep the high rises along N. 7th Avenue where the traffic congestion is
expected.
Because I can hear the developer asking: What would satisfy these people? I offer a fewthoughts: Repurpose the existing building. With the right investment and creative thinking,
this can be done. If it can’t be penciled out, commissioners and city staff should restrict thenew structure to fit the same footprint, including height. This would make for fewer units, and
less profit, yet that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a useful addition to the housing market. Thedeveloper can create a housing project that fits the neighborhood. His team can challenge
themselves to draw a building no higher than the average height in the surrounding structures—the houses, the four plex next door and the motel behind the site. Note I am not including
the church spire across the street.
HomeBase can do this. And commissioners can use available tools to set limits. In this way,boundaries can be used to find a solution that satisfies all.
-
Thank You,
Cathy Copenhagen