HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-25 Public Comment - T. Tripp - Appeal of Project 25003 - The Guthrie_24493 AppealFrom:ttrippbzn@gmail.com
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Appeal of Project 25003 - The Guthrie/24493 Appeal
Date:Sunday, March 30, 2025 5:17:34 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,
My name is Tim Tripp, and I live at 402 North 5th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715. Thank you for
considering this public comment as you consider the appeal listed above.
To start, I understand that the City Staff has a lot on their plate. And they are in the unenviable
position of trying to reach decisions regarding projects that follow a very complex code that, to
be fair, is not always black and white. But the City Staff does work for the public. And, if I were
to be completely honest, it feels like the City Staff, from Day 1, has wanted to approve the
Guthrie. I don’t like feeling like that. But I will try and explain why.
The original project, prior to being reclaimed by the City Commission, was approved by the
City Staff. And then, it was not the City Staff who brought forward problems with the initial
project which included definitions of one-bedroom vs. studio, or scale of project amongst
other things. It was the public. The City Commission, in ultimately denying the original
project, identified community provided feedback of the one bedroom vs. studio and the
related effect to AMI compliance in their denial. I found myself asking – geez, it was just so
very clear that the original application had some major issues. Why didn’t the City Staff
address these in their reviews? I acknowledge that it’s a laborious process to really dig into a
developer’s application. But, boy, these just seemed so blatantly obvious. Public comment is
important. But I did find myself asking “why does the public need to bring this up? Shouldn’t
we be able to be totally confident that the City will have the community’s best interest in
mind?”
The second thing that worries me is the City’s response to the appeal. Again, I understand if
the City Staff feels that they have been treated unfairly by the public. I agree that, during the
City Commission meetings that I attended, inappropriate comments were made. I do not
condone those comments, but I do understand that people get emotional. And, unfortunately,
public servants are going to feel unappreciated as a result of strong feelings of developers,
community members, etc. You can see that in town hall meetings, elections, etc. That said,
it’s critical that the City Staff and our public servants remain unbiased. While this is my
opinion, it is evident that the public is upset, and the City Staff is upset. As a result, I worry
that emotions on both sides outweigh making the decision that’s best for both parties. The
City’s response to the appeal, while incredibly thorough, is rife with emotion. That’s
worrisome to me. If I’m wrong about this, I apologize. But I would ask you if there has been
any indication that the City Staff is so upset with the Public that it may skew their assessment
of this appeal?
Whether parking and traffic are addressed with the Guthrie project or at some time in the
future, I do hope that the City Commission takes some time to assess the effect of some of the
projects that have already occurred. I have no idea if the City was involved in these projects
and that doesn’t matter. One example would be The Elm located on North 7th avenue. I am
not against the Elm. But I do feel that there have been some consequences that should be
considered. It was always known that the Elm would not provide parking. But the developer of
the Elm confidently stated that they would provide bike parking and that they assumed most
concert goers would walk or bike to the venue. Have any of you walked down Villard or North
5th or North 6th during an Elm concert? All the parking is taken up on the streets. That will
become even more of an issue if the Guthrie is approved with very little parking requirements.
Another example is at the high rises downtown on West Beall between N Willson and N
Grand. On multiple occasions during the winter, West Beall was impassable, not only due to
full parking on both sides of the street. But, because both UPS and Fedex trucks now just park
in the middle of the road and deliver their packages. It’s not working. I would call that a traffic
safety issue. My worry with The Guthrie, especially with an elementary school down the road,
is that just “following the code” or the City’s interpretation of what is really a pretty bad traffic
assessment will lead to something bad happening. Why not deal with that now? The NCOD
and the code allows interpretation. It just feels like the interpretation is to take pretty bad
traffic assessments and trying to interpret your way around making the right decisions.
Finally, the NCOD does feel pretty clear to me. And, yes, I understand that there are ways to
interpret around demolition criteria, building height, neighborhood appropriateness, etc. But
if you read the NCOD, it’s clear that the intent is to pay attention to this stuff. And it feels that
the Guthrie could be interpreted as not matching the character of the existing neighborhood.
It’s too big. As the NCOD Guidelines state – “A new building should not be so dramatically
greater in scale than the established context that the visual continuity of the neighborhood
would be compromised.” If one of the arguments is “well, the current residents could have
taller houses and then the Guthrie wouldn’t seem so tall”, that’s just not an argument that
acknowledges the neighborhood as it has existed for decades. I don’t understand why there
wasn’t more of an effort to design a new building that mirrors the height and scope of the
existing building. Even if that meant the developer getting even more incentives. And, with an
elementary school nearby and what I hope all would acknowledge, the fact that all residents
will have vehicles, why not have 30 or 40 units? Why can’t everyone get creative on this and
acknowledge that something will be built but maybe it’s time to follow the NCOD as it was
meant to be and not by figuring out some way how to interpret yourself out of the NCOD
Guidelines? We’ve heard the following – 1. Saving the existing building doesn’t “pencil” out
for the developer, so they applied to demolish and build a 5-story building that barely pencils
out. 2. The 5-story building is denied, and a new application is filed for a 4-story building that I
guess pencils out even thought the 5-story building was tight? Why not take one more step
and figure out how to “pencil out” something that matches the current footprint?
Sorry but I’ve got one more emotional comment. While I know this project will hinge on
“compliance” with code and zoning, can you please try and understand how some of us
probably feel? The last 10 years has seen incredible growth downtown, particularly on the
North Side of town. It started with luxury hotels and high rises in what I would guess are the
more valuable properties than we all have in mid-town? It sure doesn’t feel that those high
rises are filled with community members who are sending their kids to Whittier and
Hawthorne. I’m sure some of them are. But there are also a lot of people wheeling their carry
on luggage and I think there are a lot of short term rentals? So, since none of those
developments helped with the affordable housing issue (why didn’t the developer try to
include some affordable housing in the fancy downtown apartment buildings?), let’s do our
first affordable housing on North 5th and Villard? And make it a high rise in a neighborhood
that has none? In a neighborhood that’s had a long-time reputation of being affordable and
just not as pretty to look at as the southside or as cool as the Northeast side of Bozeman. But
a neighborhood that we’ve all invested in, raised our kids in and forged deep relationships.
And that we love. There’s no denying that change is happening and nothing stays the same
forever. I’m just asking for a solution that feels more in line with the community and the
neighborhood. Smaller in scope, pays attention to the fact that a school is nearby and we
should protect our kids that walk to school every day with improved parking and traffic than
currently exists, etc.
Please either overturn the Director’s decision, make alternative findings as to why and deny
application 24493 or amend the conditional approval with modifications and conditions of a
new approval by recommending something more in character with what all who live here
would say is a neighborhood worth saving.
Sincerely,
Tim Tripp