HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-30-24 Public Comment - C. Holling - BHAPB Public Comment on Project 24493From:Chelsea Holling
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Sarah Rosenberg
Subject:[EXTERNAL]BHAPB Public Comment on Project 24493
Date:Sunday, December 29, 2024 12:51:44 PM
Attachments:Project24493_HPAB_PublicCommentLetter.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.
To Whom it May Concern,
As Board Chair for the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board, I would like to submit a
letter as our Public Comment for Project 24493.
Sincerely,
Chelsea N. Holling
December 29, 2024
GUTHRIE DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Dear City Commission,
This letter is the City of Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board’s (HPAB’s)
comments related to the proposed Guthrie Development at the site of the Bridger Rehab and
Care Center, 321 N. 5th Ave., the corner of N. 5th Ave. and Villard.
On December 18, 2024, HPAB was presented with Public Comments for project 24493,
The Guthrie 5th and Villard that had been submitted on September 5, 2024 as a new project.
These Public Comments concerned HPAB, and resulted in the Board voting, unanimously, to
submit this letter. The previous letter HPAB sent in July 2024 follow, for additional reference.
HPAB would like to acknowledge and thank the applicant that the following changes
were made. However, these changes still do not acknowledge the surrounding neighborhood’s
character and this Project’s narrative appears to be based on the narrative of the previous Project
(23354).
- The proposed building has reduced in size by one story.
- The deficiencies of the first application (Project 23354) as noted by the City
Commission have been addressed.
We would like to bring to the Commission’s attention that there appears to be a lack of
further analysis that has occurred since the original deny of demolition. As there does not appear
to be the necessary analysis, we believe the stay of demolition should not be waived.
HPAB would like to encourage the Commission, as the previous approval authority,
consider the redesign to ensure fairness in the final decision for this project.
Thank you for your thoughtful review of this development proposal.
Respectfully,
Chelsea Holling, Board Chair
Linda Semones, Vice Chair
Allyson Brekke
Elizabeth Darrow
Ashley Harville
Mike Wiseman
In reference to HPAB’s July 2024 letter to the Commission in regards to this project, the
following is for reference.
On September 12, 2023, HPAB was presented with an agenda item for Review and
Recommendation Regarding Specific Elements of the Repeal and Replacement of the Unified
Development Code to the Community Development Board and the City Commission.1 At this
meeting, the Board voted unanimously against the proposal in the draft UDC to move the
boundary of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) to the east, to N. 5th Ave.
The intent of the vote was to allow time for the City’s Historic Preservation Office to adequately
evaluate the 2020 Metcalf survey recommendations.2 This historical survey indicated that there
was a possible historic district in the B-2M zoned district and the R3,R4 neighborhood to the
east and south of Whittier School. This area would be negatively affected by moving the
boundary because it would remove the NCOD code protections for the area. As an example
from the survey, in the Violett Addition, 81% of the remaining properties have enough historic
integrity to qualify for a mid-century historic district on the National Register of Historic Places.
The building that exists on the Guthrie subject property was surveyed, and although it does not
meet the criteria to be individually listed, it was recommended that the neighborhood around this
building should be further surveyed, as it is an intact post-war neighborhood with culturally
significant resources. Because of these conditions, HPAB recommends that the City of Bozeman
and project developer representing HomeBase Partners change their site plan.
Since the Bridger Rehab and Care Center building remains within the NCOD, the plans
for the site are subject to Sec. 38.230.100 of the current UDC code. Given the Metcalf
recommendations, this section of code is especially relevant. Specifically, the site plan does not
conform to Plan review criteria A7: Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5,
including:
a. Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the
site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to
architectural design, building mass, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical
character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration…
The developer claims to have designed the building with the neighborhood in mind. In the
narrative, the developer mentions the addition of a porch to match the area’s architecture. A
five-story tall box of a building is not similar in design to any building in the residential
1See meeting here:
https://granicus_production_attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/bozeman/5cd47f5a488e1d8286e0b3791483
1fff0.html.
2 The Metcalf recommendations can be found at http ://legistarweb-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1558110/Metcalf_Recommendations_Project_1__
_2.pdf
neighborhood nor to the one-story Whittier School. It is not similar in design to the historic
Sapphire Motel, which lies directly to the west of the Guthrie. Nor is it similar in design to the
historic RSVP Motel (the old Rainbow Motel), which lies directly to the west of Whittier
School. It is most similar in design to the large hotels and luxury condo complexes being built
at this time in the B3 zone. In order to be more sympathetic of the surrounding midcentury
design styles, the first-floor awning feature could be extended and continue around the street
fronts. The paneling on the upper story windows could be more horizontal in direction instead
of the proposed vertical design. Many other enhancing changes could be made.
Photo: The Guthrie, screen shot of the drawing in the plan submittal
As examples of the developer’s non-conformance to the adjacent neighborhoods relative to
architectural design, building mass, historical character and neighborhood identity, the following
homes are all on the block to the north of the Guthrie:
401 N 5th Ave: note small footprint, peaked roof, small front porch, wood siding
402 N. 5th Ave.: Note small porch, small footprint, peaked roof with a hip
407 N 5th Ave.: Note peaked roof, small front porch, small footprint, one-story design
The Sapphire Motel: Note the traditional motel format for parking in front of the rooms, one-
story structure.
The RSVP (Rainbow) Motel; note the low two-story structure and traditional drive-up format of
the parking lot
Bozeman has a unique area that is highlighted by so many midcentury modern designed
buildings. Midcentury modern architectural styles were designed, and built, at a time in post-
World War II history when the middle class was growing, and families were spending more time
with each other and in nature. These designs were specifically geared towards regular people.
This design style was not only seen in houses, but also in schools, public libraries, and medical
facilities that served this economic population. These design styles can be seen with clean lines,
minimal decoration, and a connection with nature (primarily seen in the large fenestrations and
open living spaces). While these buildings might seem ordinary, and as prime locations for new
development, they are quickly vanishing from various landscapes. These buildings act as living
reminders that help us understand an evolution of time when people were coming here for a new
life.
HPAB recommends against the demolition of the Bridger Rehab and Care Center because of its
cultural and historic value within a possible neighborhood historic district. Further, HPAB
believes the structure could be saved, updated, and repurposed (with a collaboration with City
Planning Staff) rather than demolished to both preserve more of the City of Bozeman’s history
and prevent unnecessary waste. According to Dr. Kathryn Rodgers Merlino (professor at the
University of Washington who specializes in adaptive reuse,and HPAB’s guest speaker during
Historical Preservation Month 2022) building construction and demolition account for 43% of
the municipal waste stream annually in this country. Reusing an existing building rather than
demolishing it can prevent 10-80 years of negative climate impacts. Demolishing buildings that
can be repurposed and renovated is contrary and detrimental to our sustainability goals in the
City of Bozeman.
If, and only if, renovation and repurposing is not possible, and the developer insists on seeking a
demolition permit, HPAB submits the following established city code.
The Affordable Housing Ordinance, that the developer is using as a guide, does not relax the
NCOD requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and a demolition permit.
Ordinance 2105 (Affordable Housing Ordinance) Section 7, Item A, number 2
Application, review and public notice procedures for proposals located within the
conservation district are set forth in division 38.230, Plan Review, and division 38.220,
Applications and Noticing, of this chapter. If demolition or movement of structures or
sites subject to the conservation district requirements is proposed, the procedures in
section 38.340.080 apply.
Bozeman’s map of historic places contains a property record for 321 N 5th, The Bridger Rehab
and Care Center.3 It lists the property as contributing to a possible historic district, and as such is
3 https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=228180&dbid=0&repo=bozeman
covered by article 7. Article 7 defines a historic structure as “Any building or structure that is
eligible, as determined by the City of Bozeman, to be listed on the National or State Register of
Historic Places either individually or as a contributing building to an existing or potential historic
district.”
The standards to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness are listed in UDC section 38.340.050
Sections B and C:
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or
properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, must focus upon the following:
Height, proportions of doors and windows, relationship of building masses and spaces, roof
shape, scale, directional expression with regard to the dominant horizontal or vertical
expression of surrounding structures, architectural details, …
C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions to
existing structures is encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy
significant historical, cultural or architectural structures or their components and when such
design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and surrounding structures.
The other residential properties in the neighborhood do not exceed two stories in height. Their
design is mid-century with mostly peaked roofs, often with small front porches, and in general,
a small footprint design as seen in the pictures included in this letter. The historical businesses
in the area are 2 small-scale motor inns, one being two stories in height. The standards of this
section of our UDC code are not met by the plans for the Guthrie and therefore a COA with a
demolition permit should not be issued.
It is clearly stated in the code that “Approval of the proposed subsequent development is
required for all historic structures proposed for demolition and for the proposed movement
of any structure or site.”
Finally, there is one other UDC provision that could apply to this development. This City
Commission review process was brought about by the desire of the City Commission to work
with the public and to be transparent throughout the review process. The Commission expressed
an interest in considering public comment as well as the expert advice of staff to be sure that this
development serves the best interests of the Affordable Housing Ordinance and of the City. A
demolition permit does not have to be immediately issued. There are options available in the
code:
D Review Process section 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.
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 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.
The two-year stay does not begin to run if denial of a COA to demolish a historic structure
or site is based on the failure of the applicant to make a complete and adequate submittal or
to propose a subsequent treatment which complies with the standards of this chapter.
One of the planning criteria listed in section 38.340.090.C is whether the building is a historic
structure. This and the fact that the building is located in a future historic district should be
weighed into the demolition decision.
This provision of a delay of two years provides the City, the developer, City Staff and the
community a chance to work together on a plan that will best benefit the community as a whole.
In conclusion, the members of the Historical Preservation Board urge the City Commissioners to
consider:
The Bridger Rehabilitation and Care Center is a contributing historical structure located
within the NCOD.
The building, whether rehabilitated and repurposed or left as-is, could be part of a
possible future historic district.
The demolition of salvageable buildings is not sustainable for this community.
The proposed Guthrie does not contribute to the character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The UDC provides channels for the City Commission to deny a demolition permit and
work with the entire community to create a building that enhances and maintains the
intentions of our code about the built environment.
Thank you for your thoughtful review of this development proposal.
Respectfully,
Chelsea Holling, Board Chair
Linda Semones, Vice Chair
Allyson Brekke
Elizabeth Darrow
Ashley Harville
Andrew Webster
Mike Wiseman