Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-21 Public Comment - C. & C. Cleaveland - Six RangeFrom:D & C Cleveland To:Agenda Subject:sorry sent wrong letter about Six Range Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 3:08:55 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. I’m hoping this letter can be given to the Commissioners. This is the correct letter. Charlotte Cleveland 308 Slough Creek Dr, Bozeman MT, a CT Condo owner. Dear City Commissioners, I know that you will not review the Six Range infill project. But I think you need to know how hard it is to address our concerns because there is are NO Infill guidelines or regulations for our part of town. If there were guidelines or regulations, we could more adequately address our concerns. “There are no infill guidelines that apply in that part of the City. The only design guidelines the City has is downtown and the surrounding residential neighborhood around downtown.” This quote is from Brian Krueger from an email 10/11/21. Other cities have adopted a 51% rule for infill compatibility and maintaining the established character of the area. If more than 51 percent of the neighborhood properties or developments have clapboard siding then the new infill project has to have clapboard siding. How simple is that? And how perfect. Of course, certain relaxations need to be made to increase density, but the overall look of the project really fits the character of the area because it is compatible. Why the Six Range Infill Project Should Be Modified Infill is a great tool for urban and suburban areas, and especially for promoting efficient use of Bozeman’s undeveloped areas and lots. If done correctly, it can add vibrancy to already existing neighborhoods. If done badly, it will have a negative impact on its sur- roundings and the greater community. This opinion is shared by many institutes that have studied infill and made recommen- dations for successful infill in western states, e.g: Idaho smart growth, Urban Land Institute, Quality Infill for Boise: “Without careful attention infill can be mismatched with existing neighbor- hood structures and can introduce new housing forms that are incompati- ble with those in the neighborhood.” “Make infill compatible—be respectful of existing neighbors and neighbor- hood character.” “Infill must also address how the new buildings fit into the pattern of the existing built environment including: harmonizing with existing streetscape . . .transitions both in height and visible building mass to its surroundings. and where parking is located . . “ King County WA Housing Partnership study: Ten Essentials for Suc- cessful Urban Infill Housing: “In smaller infill projects the builder cannot shape the look and feel of an entirely new neighborhood. Rather than defining the character of a new neighborhood . . . the builder inherits the character of the existing neigh- borhood . . .” CURRENT BOZEMAN PLANNING/ZONING GUIDELINES There are no City of Bozeman regulations or guidelines specific to infill. However, un- der project design division 38.500.010 , this article implements the Bozeman growth pol- icy. “Overall, this article D. “Ensures that new development within existing neigh- borhoods are compatible with and enhance the character of Bozeman’ neighbor- hoods” We believe that the current plan for Six Range is not compatible with our neighborhood. We will suggest modifications below that we think should be incorporated to make this project more compatible with the existing West Babcock neighborhood that includes CT Condos where we live. First however, we will briefly describe the existing neighborhood and why the Six Range project as submitted is not compatible. ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD LAYOUT AND ROAD PATTERN AND WHY SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE: The neighborhood pattern of development is orderly, neat and traditional. The current neighborhood of Valley West, CT Condominiums, Aspen Place Condominiums and Icon Apts. consists of single family homes, condo associations with duplexes, apartment complexes, condo associations with triplexes and townhouses. This is a well estab- lished neighborhood, with most dwellings, duplexes, condos and apartment complexes being built starting in the early 2000’s. The existing environment of streets and frontages arrange all structures in tidy block format. The streetscapes are orderly and echo each other. Structures are parallel or perpendicular to the streets, even in the inner streets of Aspen Place, Valley West and CT Condos. In contrast, Six Range’s siting of its buildings is not compatible with the orderly neighborhood pattern of building placement in relationship to the roads. Six Range has three buildings on angles, not parallel or perpendicular to the city streets or private roads of CT Condo. This seems to be an arbitrary decision merely for some kind of design effect. Placing the buildings in a more orderly fashion might open up more space to allow the 4 story buildings to be 2 or 3 story. ESTABLISHED HOUSING HEIGHTS AND WHY SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE: The established height of structures in the existing neighborhood varies little. It consists of one- and two-story buildings and a small number of 3-story structures. CT condos (155 units) and Aspen Place condos are mostly one-story with a few two- story. Icon Apartments (18 buildings) the most recently built complex has several 3-story build- ings. The remaining thirteen are 2 stories. Valley West has one-or two-story dwellings with only one 3-story single family resi- dence. The apartment complexes on Cottonwood, which are further away, are three stories. In Ferguson Farms,two blocks from Six Range, the tallest buildings are 2 stories with an exception for the towers, reminiscent of grain elevators. The closest 4-story multi-family building is miles away on Oak and 27th Ave. There are taller commercial buildings on Huffine within a commercial zone. In contrast, Six Range has 4-story building(s) that simply do not fit in our neighborhood. While they may not violate numerical standards under new regulations, the mechanical application of such standards is not the only consideration here. They are not compati- ble with our locale. The proposed buildings are not compatible with our locale. They are monumental in size and mass. (Icon for example, has increased density on its lot yet has no 4 story buildings. Valley West has increased density by adding ADU.) Removing the “open colonnade” detail on one of the 4 story building(s) would making it a three -story building. The open colonnade is a design feature that does not appear anywhere in our neighborhood. It is more reminiscent of a college or commercial de- velopment. ESTABLISHED HOUSING DESIGN AND EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS AND WHY SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE: CT and Aspen Place condos share a very conservative building style, having been built by the same developer. Aspen Place units are all painted the same color with clapboard siding. There is very little difference between each one-story style or between the two- story style. No buildings use flat roofs. The fenestration is very orderly and balanced. CT condos are clapboard sided but painted in a range of subdued colors. There is some variety in the design of the condos as the sizes vary, but in general it has been described as “cookie cutter” design. No buildings use flat roofs. The fenestration is very orderly and balanced. Icon Apartments are all painted with the same subdued color palette. The design is also very conservative. All two-story units are clapboard sided and painted the same colors which they share with the 3 story units. The 3-story units do use a flat roof, while the 2- story have peaked roofs.The fenestration is very orderly and balanced as are the bal- conies. Valley West, with hundreds of living units, shows the most diversity in design and mate- rials. However, their 33 page architectural and landscape guidelines show that they demand a certain kind of design consistency within the development. In 2007, Valley West won an award from the Sonoran Institute “Building from the best of Northern Rockies.” Valley West was described as a project “based on traditional neighborhood design principles.” For example, front porches are required to add friendliness and a welcoming touch. Valley West has a few condos that incorporate metal siding and other small contempo- rary design details in their design, but generally the buildings are compatible with the building designs of CT Condos, Aspen Place and Icon Apartments. The vast majority use clapboard siding and peaked roofs. Most of the exterior building materials that Six Range has chosen are foreign to the neighborhood While the architect chose quality materials, they are of a kind that do not appear in our neighborhood. We have no buildings clad in fake brick veneer. We have no buildings clad in wood or unpainted wood. We have no buildings that use black as an exterior color. The use of fake black brick is not enough to make your eye believe the buildings are not huge and monolithic Simply breaking up the huge and massive build- ings into smaller, shorter buildings would be a start. Unlike Six Range, the existing neighborhood does not have any bare concrete elements such as the concrete screen walls. Bare concrete is cold and industrial. The overall design of the Six Range buildings is contemporary and industrial “chic” and incompatible with our neighborhood. The design does not have the charm or warmth of Valley West or the rest of the neighborhood. These buildings would be right at home in the Cannery District, on a college campus or on the block at Oak and 27th street, but not here. The triplexes might fit in. The James Hardie vertical siding does seem to mesh with our buildings in color and application. FOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING SIX RANGE’S COMPATIBILiTY: 1. Lower the height of the tallest Six Range buildings by at least a story They are too tall, and out of scale with our neighborhood. The transition from the exist- ing one-story units on Palisades and Slough Creek Dr. to the Six Range three- and four- story buildings that would be directly across the narrow street, is a jarring contrast to the dramatic size, bulk and mass of the new construction. There is no harmony here. There are also no other 4 story apartment buildings within miles of this lot. Change the design to a maximum of 3 stories the same height as the 3 stories in Icon Apartments. 2. Make better use of the land so the buildings can be smaller and lower. The solution is to remove the commercial building from this plan and use that land for more units. Reduce the 4 story to 2 or 3 story buildings that are compatible to the built environment, such as Icon Apts. Or build more triplexes, smaller in scale, less bulk and mass and reflective of Valley West condos on West Babcock across the street. Although substantial green space is important, if the goal is increased density, perhaps sacrificing a little green space is part of the answer. Also moving some green space to the rear of the lot, adjacent to the units on Palisades would make the transition to taller buildings more visually pleasing and less “in your face”. A walking path would mirror the one on CT Condos. 3. Alter the location and size of the parking lots. The majority of the parking proposed by Six Range is a huge lot at the rear of their lot adjacent to the rear of the CT units on Palisades. Successful plans such as Icon Apts. has placed its parking on the interior of the development closer to the actual buildings for convenience of its renters. More parking needs to be moved to the central part of Six Range closer to its buildings. 4. Settle the question of the easement onto S. Hanley and parking rights. Mr Paine claims to have an easement giving him the right to access South Hanley. His site plan also shows parking spaces on South Hanley which is a private road within CT Condos. Ct Condos knows of no such parking easement and we allow parking on South Hanley only during limited hours of the day . Also, in the event Mr Paine can demonstrate that he has such an easement, CT Con- dos would need to see the maintenance agreement for sharing the plowing, repair and upkeep of that section of South Hanley, use of which would be greatly intensified by his project. In closing, we are not opposed to development on the lot in question, nor the City’s goal of increased residential density. However, for the sake of our existing neighbor- hood and greater community, we would like to see compatibility modifications that all parties could be proud of. These would protect the integrity of what we already have while providing valuable infill. The City of Bozeman is the only entity available to our citizens to harmonize the needs of our neighborhood and increased growth.