HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-21 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - The IvesFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Agenda
Cc:Ross Knapper; Chris Saunders
Subject:The Ives #21165
Date:Friday, October 1, 2021 2:41:18 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.
Dear Review Committees:
Thank you for the opportunity for public input. It has come to my attention that the firstbuilding of "The Ives" is under final review.
First of all, let me state that I do not oppose all development. I am in favor of smart and also
sensitive development. For those reasons and the following, I think that "The Ives" should bedenied as proposed and sent back to the developer's team for revision.
In particular I oppose the following:
1.)There is not an adequate transition between the 6 story building and the one and two storyhouses adjacent to it on two sides. This can and should be addressed with either park or openspace (see #6) or a stepped down design to soften the harsh transition.
2) 6 story apartment buildings are not addressing "missing middle" housing as suggested bythe DRB and defined in N-1 of the Boz. Comm. Plan (BCP) which defines the "missing
middle" as " house- scale buildings with multiple units -compatible in scale and form withdetached single-family homes"- not 6 story apartment buildings.
3) This project does not support goal N-4 in the BCP because it does nothing to add to or
encourage one's sense of place. Downtown and midtown Bozeman are starting to look likeanywhere USA with tall and massive blocky bland buildings.
4.)The Ives is in direct opposition to the Bozeman Strategic Plan to create a safe, welcoming,
and inclusive community. Incongruent massive structures next to small historical structures donot promote a sense of safety.
5) I strongly oppose the request for a variance of any kind for a massive development of this
kind. A variance like the one they've requested trades safety in exchange for the developersconvenience. Any variance allowed should only be in exchange for an undeniable benefit to
the surrounding community.(as per Commissioner Coburn at Bridger Meadows review)
6) Never give up any park land or open space in exchange for cash unless the most dire ofcircumstances. The space is necessary for mental health and keeping Bozeman liveable.
Pocket parks are what make big cities liveable.The only park nearby is Beall and it should notbe expected to shoulder all the incoming developments resulting increase in use. Insteadrequire the parkland and open space be utilized as the buffer zone between the proposedstructure and the smaller homes adjacent.
7) The DRB states that mature deciduous trees are adequate to buffer the homes from the largebuilding. Deciduous trees lose their leaves for half the year! And they're not big enough to
block multistory buildings! An additional two Linden trees will not do the trick. The buildingmust be tapered!
8) It's a misnomer for the DRB to consider this downtown location 'revitalized" because of theincoming tall structures. It's earlier small scale was no less vital and vibrant. Straightaway and
other shops along Mendenhall were always busy. I did business at the Medical Arts buildingfor decades. Updating buildings is one thing but do not assume that new 6 story buildings that
,as the DRB admits, "tower over" the adjacent one and two story buildings, are any morevibrant than what existed before. That's a personal judgement and one that does not jive with
the current residents.
Finally, I urge you to only allow sensitive and smart new construction that works in harmonywith the neighboring structures and people. Let's not drive away current residents in exchange
for the incoming residents.
Thank you for your time.Marcia Kaveney
1496 Boylan RdBozeman, MT 59715
406-223-1983(formerly of the NE neighborhood in Bozeman)