Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-25 Public Comment - B. Parker - Opposition to the Guthrie Project – Support for Appeal of COA ApprovalFrom:Becky Parker To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Opposition to the Guthrie Project – Support for Appeal of COA Approval Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 5:31:09 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. Public Comment to the Bozeman City CommissionBecky Parker, 04/01/2025 Mayor, Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. I am writing in support of theappeal, application #25033, and request that the appeal be approved and the Guthrie be denied. These guidelines are not discretionary—they are adopted code. The NCOD is binding andmust be applied fully and correctly to any development within its boundaries. Let me be clear: this is not a rejection of growth, affordable housing, or development in ourcity. Rather, this is a request that development within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) be consistent with the mandatory code we collectively agreed to enforce. TheGuthrie project, as currently proposed, clearly and substantially violates the NCOD Design Guidelines—guidelines that are adopted into Bozeman’s Unified Development Code and mustbe upheld. Staff have wrongly asserted that the NCOD Guidelines are “not compulsory.” That is legallyand factually incorrect. Section 38.110.010(B) of the Bozeman Municipal Code explicitly adopts the Design Guidelines by reference, making them enforceable law. Moreover, Section38.100.050(A) clearly states that where regulations conflict, the more restrictive standardmust govern. This means that NCOD guidelines override base zoning like R-5 when theyconflict—and they do in this case. Further, staff’s interpretation of the term “should” is flawed and diminution of the DesignGuidelines because of its intentional flexibility is in error. In Appendix B, “should” is defined as: “If the term ‘should’ appears in a design guideline, compliance is required.” Discretion isonly allowed when a project proves it still meets the related policy goal associated with the guideline. The meeting of the related policies do not apply to the Guthrie project, which failsto meet multiple policies related to building mass, scale, and context. Approving this project sets a dangerous precedent by selectively ignoring city code. The claim that the project is “adjacent to” the relevant neighborhood that should be used as a basis for determining compatibility and appropriateness is also misleading. The project site iswithin the NCOD. Its legal subdivision—Karp Addition—is shared with surrounding residential properties. It was platted in 1946, and development followed in the postwar period.In fact, Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, commissioned by the city in 2019 and 2020, explicitly recommended that Karp and Violett Additions be studied as potential historicdistricts due to their architectural integrity and cohesive neighborhood character. These areas, Metcalf noted, reflect the Nationalization and Postwar Expansion phases of Bozeman’sdevelopment—eras not well represented in our existing National Register listings. Instead of using this expert guidance to evaluate the Guthrie project, staff have leaned on theboundaries of the Midtown Neighborhood Association—an organization created for civic communication, not legal land-use definition. Neighborhood character, as shaped bysubdivision history, architectural surveys, and context, should be the basis of determining appropriateness—not arbitrary boundaries. Moreover, the Guthrie, as proposed, is deeply incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Volume analysis presented by appellants shows that it is up to 10 times largerby volume than surrounding buildings—20 times larger than some single-family homes nearby. Its size, mass, and scale are drawn from commercial zones—not residential characterareas protected by the NCOD. It overwhelms rather than complements, and disregards NCOD Guidelines, such as Design Guideline B: Building Mass and Scale, which states: “A newbuilding should not be so dramatically greater in scale than the established context that the visual continuity of the neighborhood would be compromised.” And compromise it would. This isn't just a code dispute. It's a question of whether Bozeman honors the principles offairness, transparency, and community protection. The NCOD has been in place since 1991. It has shaped the look, feel, and livability of our historic neighborhoods for over three decades. Itwas created to prevent precisely this kind of development mismatch. If the city wants to change that vision, it must do so through a public legislative process—not by quietlyinvalidating the code in the permit review phase. Allowing this project to proceed without requiring compliance with the NCOD not onlyerodes neighborhood character—it erodes public trust. It sends the message that our planning code is optional, that developers can ignore established guidelines if they’re inconvenient, andthat community voices don’t matter. That is not how Bozeman should grow. Bozeman can build affordable housing and honor its code. The neighborhood has welcomedhousing at this site. Many residents even preferred adaptive reuse of the existing structure—an environmentally responsible and contextually appropriate option that would have deliverednearly the same number of bedrooms. The community did not reject housing; it rejected a proposal that flagrantly disregards the rules we all must follow. I urge this Commission to uphold the appeal and require that any future development on this site comply fully with the NCOD Design Guidelines. This is about more than a single building—it’s about preserving Bozeman’s identity, honoring our code, and protecting the integrity of our process. Thank you.