Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-27-24 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - City Commission please reclaim review authority over the second Guthrie applicationFrom:Alison Sweeney To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]City Commission please reclaim review authority over the second Guthrie application Date:Thursday, December 19, 2024 5:57:12 PM Attachments:Screen Shot 2024-12-19 at 2.54.16 PM.png 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, I have already submitted my comments outlining why you should reclaim review of thissecond application. Allyson Brekke, former Historic Preservation Officer, Community Development Director, and currently serving on the Historic Preservation Advisory Board,made very compelling arguments as well in the HPAB meeting on December 18th, 2024. Watch from timestamp 2:08. https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/2405?view_id=1&redirect=true I'm now offering comments on the project 24493 itself, and would appreciate this being postedto the public comment folder for the project. Thank you, Alison Sweeney, offering personal observations in my capacity as a resident only. To whom it may concern; Please consider the following comments during your review of application 24493, the Guthrie version 2. I still believe the original building has useful life left. Many building permits were issued by the city for work on the structure over the last 20 years. (https://bozn-egov.aspgov.com/Click2GovBP/selectpermit.html?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4AQ0-8D64-XYA0- 1SXT-8VDF-3W3K-ULWQ-5AE4) The 2020 Historic Property Record (document 19 in the project file: https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=295025&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN) describes the property as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but on page 7 also states that the building is in good condition! I don’t know what the developer has done to it in the meantime, but they purchased it in good condition. Some of the most beloved spaces in our community come from creative adaptive reuse of historic structures. Maybe Homebase Partners (HBP) doesn’t have the institutional knowledge to make adaptive reuse work, but that doesn’t mean some other firm wouldn’t be able to. They haven’t really made a good faith effort to try. I believe Allyson Brekke’s suggestion that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) should be consulted before the stay-of-demolition is lifted on this historic property. Bozeman doesn’t owe developers a profit on any project of their choice. The job of the department of Community Development is to regulate development based on the standards outlined in the Unified Development Code. This parcel has a residential zoning designation and is within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). So the R-5 zoning, and the Conservation Overlay are the review criteria, regardless of who the reviewing authority is. The use of the incentives in the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO), do not negate the requirement for developments within the NCOD to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). This is described on page 12, section 7 of ordinance 2105. https://library.municode.com/mt/bozeman/ordinances/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=1181518 Section 2, Item J, of ordinance 2105 also states: “The city commission or its designated representatives may require the applicant to design the proposed development to reasonably minimize potentially significant adverse impacts identified through the review.” It goes on to state that: “it is recognized that in some instances the unmitigated impacts of a proposed development may be UNACCEPTABLE and will preclude approval of the development as submitted. Recognizing that the standards of this chapter are MINIMUM requirements, and the public health, safety, and general welfare may be best served by exceeding those minimums, the city commission or community development director may require as a condition of approval, mitigation exceeding the minimums of this chapter.” So the creators of the original ordinance recognized that not all applications to use the AHO incentives would always be appropriate everywhere. I now ask you to consider the following deficiencies or discrepancies in their application for a COA (document #32 in the project folder). https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=295038&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN To begin, you must understand what a COA is. Page 16 of the NCOD design guidelines describes it thus. “A Certificate of Appropriateness, as its name implies, is a certification that the design of a project is appropriate within the neighborhood or area in which it is located.” https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8932/638585601132630000 HBP’s assertion that because they are proposing demolition and new construction, the provisions of 38.340.050B do not apply is incorrect. Page 10 of the NCOD Design guidelines says: “The demolition and movement of structures within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District are considered an alteration and therefore are also subject to review by City Staff.” Demolition is considered an alteration. Therefore the architectural appearance of the new structure must be evaluated for appropriateness and compatibility with neighboring properties. For your reference here is that text 38.340.050B: B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness andcompatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structuresor properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, must focus upon thefollowing: 1. Height; 2. Proportions of doors and windows; 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; 4. Roof shape; 5. Scale; 6. Directional expression, with regard to the dominant horizontal or vertical expressionof surrounding structures; 7. Architectural details; 8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; and 9. Materials and color schemes (any requirements or conditions imposed regardingcolor schemes must be limited to the prevention of nuisances upon abutting propertiesand prevention of degradation of features on the property in question. Color schemesmay be considered as primary design elements if a deviation from the underlyingzoning is requested). The items in red are the areas I think the proposed development does not meet design standards for this section. Most roofs in the area have some slope, and in fact the current structure and the Church across the street have a visually appealing symmetry facing each other. If the proposed new construction could incorporate some slope in the roofline as perceived from the ground it would allow the new structure to blend more appropriately with the existing neighborhood. The scale of the building is totally inappropriate! We have to stop letting developers describe their projects as transitions when they dwarf everything else around. The developer’s narrative says the Sapphire Motel to the west will eventually be redeveloped into a 4-5 story building, but this is totally inaccurate as far as we can tell. The hotel is in its 3rd generation of family ownership and they take great pride in its historic nature and maintain it wonderfully. We have no reason to believe the next generation will do anything differently. In fact the historic property record for this property suggests it is also eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties. https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=228269&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN The height of the proposed building could be mitigated by building the first floor below grade as the existing structure does. Offering “garden level” apartments or living space is seen in nearly every structure in the neighborhood in all directions! This brings me to the developers claim on page 2 of their COA application that the proposed building maintains the existing topography of the site. I actually think sinking the first floor below grade, like the existing historic building, would be more consistent with the existing topography, and much more appropriate for the neighborhood. Page 3 of their application says the NCOD regulations regarding alleys don’t apply because there aren’t any existing alleys, but there IS currently additional automotive access to the property from the rear off W. Villard. If the development were able to maintain this access pattern it would solve Commissioner Madgic’s objection to the impractical parking lot configuration that will result in a person entering the parking lot, proceeding all the way to the back, finding there are no available parking spots, and having to back out onto N. 5th. That could potentially be a health and safety issue. In regards to building form, item F on page 3 of their COA application they describe the existing building as a rectangular solid. From W. Villard the north wing of the existing building is a rectangular solid, but from N. 5th (the street which most other surrounding buildings face) the roof is a low-sloped roof with a peak. Again the developer is trying to associate this project with the Midtown Urban Renewal District, when it is not actually in the district! Even if the Church across the street were to be 3 stories tall at the apex, the roof sloping towards the ground reduces the mass and perceived scale from the sidewalk or street. If the Guthrie project could manage a similar tactic in its design it might be more appropriate to the location. The multi-family structure to the south has the first floor sunk below grade to offer garden level apartments and reduce height. If the Guthrie development were to sink the first floor below grade, and step back the top story it would reduce perceived scale a lot. A structure like that may be appropriate in the neighborhood. Homebase Partner’s suggestion that they can’t step back the top story because it would introduce a non-traditional roof shape is ludicrous! Structures like the Guthrie, proposing to be built within the NCOD, are EXACTLY why Guideline 2 was written: “On larger structures, step down a building’s height toward the street, neighboring structures and the rear of the lot”. Page 58. They need a better excuse to be exempt from this provision. Guideline 4 from the Building Mass and Scale section of the NCOD guidelines (found on page 58 in chapter 3 Guidelines for Residential Character Areas) clearly states that “the front wall of a new structure should not exceed two stories in height.” It gives two reasons for this: “The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than those of typical historic structures in the block.
A new multi-household structure should not overwhelm existing single household structures, in terms of height.” This is unambiguous. The applicant has the audacity to suggest that a 4 story, 50ft tall, 91-unit, dormitory-style apartment building is a “gradual and predictable increase in density” in this residential neighborhood of a majority 1 story homes. It will absolutely overwhelm the existing neighborhood. A building half the size wouldn’t even classify as a gradual and predictable increase in density for this neighborhood. Finally, I would like to reiterate that the proposed development does not meet the provisions described in our Municipal Code 38.340.090.D.3.a. regarding early termination of a two-year stay. When an application is denied because of failure to obtain a COA, as the initial application was, a two-year stay of demolition is put in place 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.” Homebase Partners has not demonstrated that they have “actively and in good faith sought alternatives to demolition”. None of the following options outlined in our code have been explored; “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.” They say their proforma for renovation is financially not feasible, but where is the evidence that they have submitted any grant applications for historic preservation adaptive reuse, or tax rebates offered at the state or Federal level? They have not attempted to list the property for sale. They have lied about their meetings with individuals, mischaracterizing those interactions in their application (document 31) https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=295037&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN HBP’s statement that the building represents a safety risk is ludicrous. If it has deteriorated to a dangerous state, that was allowed to happen under their ownership, and that should not be used to maneuver the community into an undesirable outcome. Homebase Partners has possibly made a poor investment in a property that comes with responsibilities they did not fully understand. They have never developed in a residential zone within the NCOD. The rules are different in commercial zones such as B-3 or B-2M where they have previously operated. This is not grounds for leniency in enforcing regulations that countless homeowners have had to navigate and comply with over decades to maintain the character of their respective neighborhoods. Homebase Partners must be held accountable to the same standards. Please deny Homebase Partners application number 24493 on the grounds that it does not meet the criteria for a COA for demolition and redevelopment within the NCOD for this version 2 of the Guthrie. This application is insufficient to lift the current 2-year stay-of-demolition.