HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-25 Public Comment - E. Talago - Public Comment on Application #24493 (The Guthrie)From:Emily Talago
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment on Application #24493 (The Guthrie)
Date:Tuesday, December 31, 2024 11:49:51 PM
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.
As a disclosure, I chair the Bozeman InterNeighborhood Council (INC), and serve on it
representing the Midtown Neighborhood Association. The public comment in this letteris attributable only to myself in my individual capacity as a Bozeman citizen.
Correct Review Authority:
The guidelines for Historic Preservation and the NCOD state that "Generally, if the buildinghas been determined to be historically significant, final authority for the demolition or
movement shall rest with the City Commission" (p.10). On April 16, 2024, the CityCommission voted to reclaim their review authority role over development application
#23354. The differentiation of Application #24493 as a "new" application is at best, unclear.The "new" application is a mere modification of the prior, with regular references to the prior
application throughout. If we apply the same logic behind this "new" application as a means oflifting the demolition stay, to that of consideration as a site plan COA, then we would have to
completely disregard any and all of the prior application as though it didn't happen. Thedemolition stay is tied to the COA for demolition of the existing structure at 321 N. 5th Ave.
The site plan application has changed, but the COA is for the same existing historic structure.It stands to reason that the City Commission, in reclaiming their authority over the application,
should move to maintain it. If this must be done formally, I ask that you please request the citymanager to add it as an agenda item to either the January 7th or 14th meeting.
Applicable Standards:
The parcel base zoning is R-5 residential (not B-3 or B2-M). It is located inside of theNeighborhood Conservation Overlay District (not the Urban Renewal District). It's also worth
noting that the RSVP (N 7th and Peach) and Sapphire Motel (N 7th and Villard and directlyWest of the existing Convalescent Home) have benefited from support from state tax credits
and/or URD/TIF. The Sapphire was given a Bozeman Historic Preservation Award for theirneon sign restoration. The city has been supporting efforts along N 7th in the NCOD to
preserve the historic integrity and value of our vintage-vibed neighborhood.The AHO (38.380) provides no incentives codified to supersede 38.340. Almost all of the
incentives proposed are referenced in Article 5 of chapter 38. However, Article 5 explicitlystates "For sites within the city's established neighborhood conservation overlay district, the
provisions of division 38.340 supersede the provisions of this article" (38.500.020.A.1).The design guidelines also define the term "should" in Appendix B: If the term “should”
appears in a design guideline, compliance is required.
TIS/Signal WarrantOne of the warrants for traffic signalization on 7th is school children crossing, yet the original
TIS from Nov 2023 never once mentions the school, and as such no school student crossingdata was ever studied, impairs the signal warrant study's validity. Additionally, that the city
has no jurisdiction over improvements to N 7th, meanwhile passing policy visions statementsthey have no authority to realize is a constraint on intensification of use in redevelopment that
must be addressed prior to approving projects.
The requested deviation from 38.100.090 for access spacing/turn movements presents aliability for both the resident at the NE corner of N 5th and Beall and for anyone using the
East-West alley North of Beall and should not be granted. Though not directly related to theTIS, it is worth noting here that the proposed movements for solid waste removal from a tip
pad on N 5th are impractical. I reside at N 5th and Short street. The only reason trash pickup can be conducted from
Whittier school at its current location is because of the T-intersection. The driver (mostskillfully) has to back up onto Short Street, approach the dumpster, pick it up, back up again
into Short street (to allow traffic to move freely on 5th), dump it into the truck, drive forward,and place the dumpster back down. There is no ability for this type of maneuver at the access
as proposed. No, it's not great to look out my front window and see a dumpster or hear it oncea week when they pick it up-- but special consideration is and should be given to the school
because of its clear trade-off of massive community benefit: educating our children. That samelevel of community benefit is absent from this application.
NCOD and Historic Structures Intent and Purpose has not been met:
There is a very clear, detailed purpose and intent codified for the NCOD and its supersedinglayer of review criteria set forth in 38.340.010 BMC.
Further, there is a clear purpose and intent for issuance of a demolition stay:"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 thedemolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse."
(38.340.120.D.3)In the past, issuance of demolition stays triggered by Certificate of Appropriate denials have
been upheld to allow for historic preservation and neighborhood stakeholders to workwith applicants to seek alternatives. While ultimately, a historic structure may be lost, the
point of the stay is to allow time for due diligence in seeking out possible alternatives. Forexample, look at the extent to which the city, the state, the neighborhood, and the applicant
worked to try and save the historic brewery wall. This is the process and due diligence that the neighborhood was looking forward to, and--
given the months of work that went into seeking support for a public hearing on the firstapplication-- why the neighborhood feels shocked and insulted to be bullied into reviewing a
"new" application being deemed adequate and publicly noticed during the holidays, less than 6months after the issuance of the stay.
Given the recent addition of the Mid-Century constructed Westgate Village Shopping Center(at 11th and College) to the Nation Register of Historic Places, and recently received
testimony from the Spady family regarding the Convalescent Center's ties to Bozeman'shistory, we respectfully request that the historic record survey be reevaluated for criteria B and
C. The Spady family has stated they have lots of photos and documentation to support bettersurvey efforts for the Mid Century Modern Movement era development in our neighborhood.
Several building permits were pulled for 321 N.5th Ave (New Central Air Conditioning, NewElevator, Water Heater, Fire Safety Hood Replacement, etc.). The building was well-
maintained and operated in good condition as an assisted living facility, subject to rigorous lifesafety inspections, until it ceased operation (c.2022). The permit issued for abatement of
asbestos, to Schroeder Contracting, Inc, #MTP23-0186-00 was only for removal of MiscBlack Mastic and Surfacing Popcorn Ceiling. This is in contrast to the application's claims of
the building being unsafe or requiring demolition. It further contradicts the narrative that theenvironmental abatement led to the need to prepare the building for demolition by "leaving the
structure in a visibly unsafe condition" (Document 31: Early Termination of Two Year Stay). Finally, I wish to address the misleading statements made in application Document 31
regarding the July 25 meeting with myself, the application team, and city staff. I appreciate thecorrecting statement made by City Manager Chuck Winn during the December 10th, 2024
City Commission meeting during FYI. I could not have been more clear that I would not beable to represent the neighborhood on an alternative application without conducting additional
engagement. During that meeting, I expressed my concern that there had not been adequatedue diligence given to consider the adaptive reuse option. For example, when prompted,
Andrew Gault, of HBP stated that indeed the fire sprinkler system was in working order.Most importantly, I offered to serve as an information conduit by facilitating surveys to the
Neighborhood Association membership to help guide a path forward. I also inquired whetherthe neighborhood could help by retaining design professionals with experience in adaptive
reuse and historic preservation. I was responded to by Mr. Holloran: "You can do whateveryou want."
I'm copying the email correspondence below between myself and the City Manager leading upto the meeting that assured me this wasn't a box check to satisfy the code provision to lift the
demolition stay. This was the crystal clear premise I have all been operating under in servingas a liaison between the city and my community. It is extremely disappointing and
embarrassing to see an applicant attempt to so egregiously manipulate the contents of ameeting, attended in good faith by city employees and volunteer citizens, to help an apparently
undeserving applicant.
This public comment also includes by reference the following:All prior and current "Guthrie" application materials, staff comments and reports, internal
correspondence, external correspondence, public meeting agendas, recordings and minutes,including any written or oral public comments delivered to the city commission, any of its
citizen advisory boards, or the InterNeighborhood Council, and any other public recordpertaining to both the first (# 23354) and second (#24493) Guthrie Applications.
I ask that you deny this application based on the numerous deficiencies listed here and in other
public comments, and thank you for the opportunity to submit this one.Sincerely,
Emily Talago 416 W Short Street
From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
To: Chuck Winn <CWinn@bozeman.net>
Thank you for the response and I appreciate you looking into those other answers.
3:00 will work, let me know the location.
Stay cool.
-Emily
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 22, 2024, at 3:01 PM, Chuck Winn <CWinn@bozeman.net> wrote:
Hi Emily,
Your questions about the site plan denial and COA/DEMO denial will take longer to answer,
but I’ll see about getting you answers to those.
As for Thursday’s meeting, its only objective is to see if there is any path forward for
Homebase and the neighborhood that makes sense to both sides. No binding decisions will
be made and it is not a part of any city process or checkbox. The only intention is to get
some interested people in a room and talk. I, too, am committed to doing things that build
trust and it won’t happen overnight – I get that.
Does 3:00 work for you?
Chuck
From: Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com>Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:30 PMTo: Chuck Winn <CWinn@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: [EXTERNAL]Qs ahead of Thursday meeting
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.
Hi Chuck,
I received some questions this weekend about current status and the process movingforward.
My current understanding of the options available to the applicant regarding:
Site Plan Denial
-Appeal commission decision through district court within 30 days (MCA 76-2-10)
-Submit a new site plan application with alterations to mitigate the review authority findings
of fact for denial*
COA/DEMO Denial
-Appeal commission decision through district court within 30 days (MCA 76-2-10)
-Early termination of the triggered 2 year stay as provided by BMC 38.340.090 D.3.a. **
-Expiration of the 2 year stay as provided by BMC 38.340.090 D.3.b. **
*Do you have an eta on legal's timeline for completing the Findings of Fact for denial of the
Guthrie Demo/COA/Site plan application? I recognize there were findings that the
application did not meet both objective (code) and subjective (growth policy) criteria, and
those findings will guide any applicant's resubmission.
**Because the commissioners made findings (compatibility, sensitivity, architectural detail,
mass/scale, Guidelines for NCOD) that the project does not comply with the Standards for
Certificate of Appropriateness BMC 38.340.050, it's my understanding that the application
subsequently failed to meet the criteria in 38.340.090 C.3. and thus triggered the 2 year
stay per BMC 38.340.090 D.3.
I appreciate the provision in the code that allows lifting the two year stay because I don't
think anyone wants to see the site languish into demolition by neglect. For many decades
the convalescent home was a productive and contributing member of our city. Breathing
new life and love into it can add the vibrancy it needs to contribute to the community once
again.
Regarding Thursday's meeting, I have encountered some resistance and skepticism about
it being a "box check" of engagement. I need to be able to assure neighbors that no
decisions are being made and that this meeting is in no way a satisfaction of BMC
38.340.090 D.3.a. People are feeling stressed. On top of a 7 month process particular to
the proposed Guthrie, the quality of life impacts from several proximate large scale
construction projects are ongoing and taking their toll. Our neighbors to the west are
experiencing the shock of the administrative-only approval of the massive 8th and
Mendenhall project. As previously mentioned, the pace is dizzying. I'm sensitive to
and want to honor these feelings so am taking Terry's "no sudden moves" pledge to heart.
It will take time to rebuild the trust, but I'm committed to helping if I can.
Thursday afternoon is still looking good to meet, but I need city
certification/clarification/correction on the current status listed above. Please call if you have
any questions.
I look forward to your response and thank you for reaching out.
-Emily
City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution
(Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana
Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be
available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention
policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual
privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.
Virus-free.www.avg.com