HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-25 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - Guthrie Appeal # 25033From:Alison Sweeney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Guthrie Appeal # 25033
Date:Sunday, March 30, 2025 10:23:32 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.
Hello Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners,
After considerable expense and exhaustive effort on the part of theneighborhood within which this proposed development is located in order tobring an appeal, it is now your duty to once again decide if the Guthrie version2 is appropriate for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
I will leave it to the official documents of the appeal to demonstrate clear erroron the part of City staff in administratively approving this application. Theappellants have undeniably excelled in that work, and made air tightarguments.
But I did just want to remind ALL of you of some findings made during thehearing of the original Guthrie application. Does a one-story shorter version ofthe same building address these original findings?
I will begin with Commissioner Fischer's findings:
On July 9th, 2024, you spoke to the need to respect a regulatory framework
established by your predecessors. The NCOD is a regulatory framework establisheddecades ago, with guidelines adopted more recently in 38.110.010.
You said you believed that the Midtown Urban Renewal District (MURD) and the AHO
are in conflict with the NCOD. I do not believe this is necessarily the case, especiallyfor this site. The former convalescent home is not in the MURD actually. Yes, we’re told
that increased commercial requires more doors, but the possibilities for adaptive reuseof this structure could add many doors!
As to the AHO, I continue to believe that it is unfortunate the Commission did not repeal
the original AHO while reworking it. That failure on your part allowed this project toreapply under the problematic original version, meaning these units will again NOT be
affordable to the people we need working here.
You mentioned several growth policy references. Does the Guthrie version 2 change
your interpretation of those?
R-2.4 Social Equity: Provide solutions that are inclusive with consideration topopulations that are most fragile and vulnerable to sudden impacts. You suggested
actually that the neighborhood within which this project is proposed is vulnerable tosudden impacts and I think that is exactly correct. People who bought homes in a quiet
neighborhood, near an elementary school are questioning whether or not to stay. Will itstill be safe to let their kids bike or walk to school. Many are now contemplating the
same flight that residents near the other towers of north central and the Black Olive didin fact decide to make. Are we prepared to again displace people through the mistaken
approaches of past urban renewal decisions?
N-1.11 Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areasover time. Does 4 stories and 91 units represent a gradual or predictable increase in
density for a neighborhood of single-family homes, duplexes, backyard cottages and theoccasional 4-plex?
N-4.1. Continue to recognize and honor the unique history, neighborhoods,
neighborhood character, and buildings that contribute to Bozeman’s sense of placethrough programs and policy led by both City and community efforts? Does the one-
story shorter building satisfy this? Does demolition now somehow satisfy this? Adaptivereuse is possible with this building, and continues to be the most sustainable and
historically sensitive way forward for this structure, site, and our city generally.
Does the 4 story, 91-unit building proposed now meet the Standards for Certificatesof Appropriateness in 38.340.050 B, C, and D, that you spoke to originally?
B.
Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structuresor properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, must focus upon the
following:
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 expression ofsurrounding 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 regarding colorschemes must be limited to the prevention of nuisances upon abutting properties and
prevention of degradation of features on the property in question. Color schemes maybe considered as primary design elements if a deviation from the underlying zoning is
requested).
C.
Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions toexisting structures is encouraged when such new construction or additions do not
destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures or their componentsand when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and
surrounding structures.
D.
When applying the standards of subsections A through C of this section, the reviewauthority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation
overlay district. Application of the design guidelines may vary by property as explained inthe introduction to the design guidelines. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period,
or innovative design for new structures or additions to existing structures, the reviewauthority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation
overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing orsurrounding structures.
Deputy Mayor Morrison’s Findings:
I appreciate that you skipped over the growth policy references in your original
findings, acknowledging that they are subjective. Many of us agree, and do find themapplied very subjectively.
You spoke compellingly about block frontage standards and good design being a
heavy influence on the feel of a neighborhood. You pointed out that the application triedto justify its appearance and architectural design by comparing it to other commercial
buildings in the area. The zoning on the site and the neighborhood the project is within isstill residential. The façade of the proposed building has not changed. Does a one-story
shorter building address your concerns that this project didn’t contribute to theneighborhood?
You acknowledged that the developer of this project has not been held to the same
standard as smaller residential projects proposed by homeowners in the area. Theappellants have spelled out many ways in which this Guthrie version 2 does not meet the
standards of the NCOD. Do you still acknowledge the double standard?
You expressed significant concerns over the traffic impact study. Does version 2allay your concerns? Please reference the appellants updated analysis from Greenlight
Engineering.
Finally, Commissioner Madgic:
You made negative findings when analyzing the original Guthrie against several ofthe same growth policy references that Commissioner Fischer cited. Do you find that
a one story shorter version of the proposed building changes those findings?
We all remember your commonsense concerns over the parking lotconfiguration necessitating a driver backing out, around a corner, and onto a street in
reverse, if they found all spaces occupied. Many of us didn’t know at the time that codeactually includes provision to deny this site plan issue. 38.540.020.D Backing
requirements, “parking area design which requires backing into the public street isprohibited.” Has the new application addressed this concern sufficiently to warrant
approval?
You expressed concern that a building of such density didn’t have parklandonsite. Does the new application with 91 units rather than 111 allay that concern?
Thank you for referencing both HPAB’s letter advising you to deny a COA for
demolition and the INC’s letter to deny the project. Is the new proposal significantlyaltered to address the concerns of these advisory boards?
The more I research City staff’s interpretation of chapter 38 where it applies tothe NCOD, the more I am convinced that we are in fact experiencing HUGEadministrative drift from the original intent of the code and also the letter ofthe law spelled out in that code. This is a factor, I believe, of institutionalculture. Culture in any organization or administration is set from the topdown. As our elected officials I believe it is the Commission’s duty toimplement a cultural shift when necessary, in order to better alignadministrative practices with desired outcomes of the residents. Bozemanwants the NCOD to be maintained, respected, applied and enforced as it wasoriginally intended to be. I think you would do well to encourage a shift in theway staff interprets the enforceability of the standards of the ConservationOverlay. The community wants to see the original intent carried out:
“The intent and purpose of the conservation district designation is to stimulatethe restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements
contributing to the character and fabric of established residentialneighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas.”
I truly believe we can meet the challenges of growth while upholding theintent and purpose of the NCOD.
I would just finish by saying that several of you spoke eloquently about theresponsibility of a commissioner to make decisions in the interest of generalwelfare.
Does this new application address the general welfare of a neighborhood or
the city as a whole?
Does this new application represent a good faith effort on the part of thedeveloper AND City staff to explore adaptive reuse of the structure includinghistoric preservation grants and tax incentives as required in our code?
Has this developer made a good faith effort to engage with the neighborhood
in which this project is located? It’s part of the public record, from the mouthof the City Manager Chuck Winn himself that in fact the developer acted inbad faith in this regard.
Does setting aside the regulatory framework of the NCOD for certain projects
and not others rebuild community trust?
Thank you for considering this public comment in your quasi-judicial deliberations
on Tuesday.
Alison B. SweeneyBernadette's Handmade Jewelry
Bozeman MT
406-404-5740alison-bernadettes.com