Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-21 Public Comment - D & C Cleaveland - Six Range Infill ProjectFrom:Tom Rogers To:Agenda Cc:Lynn Hyde Subject:FW: Bozeman Zoning Commission Date:Friday, October 29, 2021 4:49:06 PM From: D & C Cleveland <cleve2cleve@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 2:17 PM To: Tom Rogers <TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Re: Bozeman Zoning Commission 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. Thank you. Since I wrote that letter, I have added suggestions to make the Paine projectenhance our neighborhood. Couldyou please forward this newer letter to those who you thinkmight respond to my letter. Thank you, Charlotte Cleveland 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 surroundings and the greater community. This opinion is shared by many institutes that have studied infill and made recommendations 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 neighborhood structures and can introduce new housing forms that are incompatible with those in the neighborhood.” “Make infill compatible—be respectful of existing neighbors and neighborhood 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 Successful 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 neighborhood . . .” CURRENT BOZEMAN PLANNING/ZONING GUIDELINES There are no City of Bozeman regulations or guidelines specific to infill. However, under project design division 38.500.010 , this article implements the Bozeman growth policy. “Overall, this article D. “Ensures that new development within existing neighborhoods are compatible with and enhance the character of Bozeman’ neighborhoods” We believe that the current plan for Six Range is not compatible with our neighborhoods. Below we will suggest modifications we think think should be incorporated to make this project more compatible with the existing West Babcock neighborhood where we live, in CT Condos. First however, we will briefly describe the existing neighborhood and why the Six Range project is not compatible. ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD LAYOUT AND ROAD PATTERN AND WHY SIX RANGE IS NOTCOMPATIBLE: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 established 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. (show Icon, CT and Valley West from the air) 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 buildings. The remaining thirteen are 2 stories. Valley West has one-or two-story dwellings with only one 3-story single family residence. The apartment complexes on Cottonwood, further away,are three stories. In Ferguson Farms, a little distance from Six Range, the tallest buildings are 2 stories with an exception for the towers, reminiscent of grain elevators. The closest 4-story apartment building is miles away on Oak and 27th Ave. There are taller commercial buildings on Huffine in a commercial zone. In contrast, Six Range has 4-story building(s) that simply do not fit in our neighborhood. While they may be allowed under new regulations, just being allowed is not the only consideration here. They are not compatible with our locale. They are monumental in size and mass. (Icon for example, has increased density on its lot and 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 3 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 development. 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. (picture) 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 balconies. Valley West, with hundreds of living units, shows the most diversity in design and materials. 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 contemporary 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 massive buildings 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 existing one-story units on Palisades and Slough Creek Dr. to the Six Range three- and four-story buildings that would be directly across the 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 W.Babcock across the street. While everyone loves green space, if the desired 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 S. Hanley. His site plan also shows parking spaces on S. Hanley a private road. Ct Condos knows of no such parking easement nor do we allow parking on S. Hanley during some time periods. Also, if Mr Paine has such an easement, CT Condos would need to see the maintenance agreement for sharing the plowing, repair and upkeep of that section of S. Hanley. In closing, we are not opposed to development on the lot in question, but for the the sake of our existing neighborhood, we would like to see compatibility modifications that all parties could be proud of, protecting the integrity of what we already have while providing valuable infill. The City of Bozeman is the only entity our citizens have to consider and represent them in cases such as this.. On Oct 29, 2021, at 11:25 AM, Tom Rogers <TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET> wrote: Dear Mr. Cleveland, Thank you for your comments. I wanted to follow up and respond that we have read your comment and I forwarded the comment to all parties through the City’s comment tracking system. Tom Rogers | Senior Planner | AICPCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MTtrogers@bozeman.net | 406.582.2268 The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 has been adopted to guide our community into the future. See the final draft and map at www.bozeman.net/communityplan. From: D & C Cleveland <cleve2cleve@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 9:02 AM To: Tom Rogers <TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Bozeman Zoning Commission 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 am trying to reach Nicole Olmstead who sits on the Zoning Commission. Shewas recently quoted in the Bozeman Chronicle about the fact that the city needs to balance flexibility in the housing crisis and balancing that with impacts to existingneighborhoods. I live in CT Condos on the west side of town. We are facing a project proposed by the Paine Group for one of the last undeveloped lots in our neighborhood. Weare not NIMBYs and expected the lot to be developed. But with the RO district height limit being raised to 4 stories to facilitate infill, we find ourselvesoverwhelmed and dwarfed by what Mr Paine is proposing. This is the letter I sent to the commissioners and to Brian Krueger and Martin Matsen in advance of the proposal reaching adequacy. This is an elevation of what he is proposing: <image001.jpg> this is my letter to the commissioners , Brian and Marty: 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 , CT Condos, because there 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 , Planning Department 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. Most neighborhood parking is in garages, so the infill has to provide garages and not massive parking lots reminiscent of a mall. How simple is that? And how perfect. No personal taste or opinion involved. It’s simple math. 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. What stands out in our neighborhood is that Icon Apartments more than matches almost completely the 51% test. In fact it’s close to 80% compatible. Clapboard siding, peaked roofs on the majority of buildings, subdued color palette, parking adjacent to buildings, not in massive lots, fenestration that matches ours and only several 3 story buildings, with most two stories, matching the entire neighborhood. Why the Six Range infill project should be modified Infill is a great tool for urban and suburban areas by promoting efficient use of Bozeman’s undeveloped area or lots. If done correctly, it can add to a vibrant already existing neighborhood. If done badly, it will have a negative impact on its surroundings. This is not just my opinion, but those of many institutes that have studied infill and made recommendations 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 neighborhood structures and can introduce new housing forms that are incompatible with those in the neighborhood.” “Make infill compatible-be respectful of existing neighbors and neighborhood 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 Successful 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 neighborhood . . .” CURRENT BOZEMAN PLANNING/ZONING GUIDELINES There are no City of Bozeman regulations or guidelines specific to infill. However, under projectdesign division 38.500.010 , this article implements the Bozeman growth policy. “Overall, thisarticle D. “Ensures that new development within existing neighborhoods are compatible with andenhance the character of Bozeman’ neighborhoods” I believe that the current plan for Six Range is not compatible with our neighborhood. I will laterdiscuss what modifications I think should be made to make this project more compatible with theexisting West Babcock neighborhood where we live, in CT Condos. But first I will briefly describethe existing neighborhood, ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD LAYOUT AND ROAD PATTERN Our neighborhood pattern of development is orderly, neat and traditional. The current neighborhoodconsists of single family homes, condo associations with duplexes, apartment complexes, condoassociations with triplexes and townhouses. This is a well established neighborhood, with mostdwellings, duplexes, condos and apartment complexes being built starting in the early 2000’s. The existing built environment of streets and frontages show all structures to be in tidy block format. The streetscapes are orderly and echo each other. (show Icon, CT and Valley West from the air) Structures are parallel or perpendicular to the streets, even in the inner streets of Aspen Place, ValleyWest and CT Condos. ESTABLISHED HOUSING HEIGHTS The established height of structures in this neighborhood varies little. It consists of one and twostories buildings and a small number of 3 story structures. CT (155 units) and Aspen Place condos are mostly one story with a few two stories. Icon Apartments (18 buildings) the most recently built complex has five 3 story buildings. Theremaining thirteen are 2 stories. Valley West has one or two story dwellings with only one 3 story single family residence. The apartment complexes on Cottonwood are three stories. In Ferguson Farms, a little distance from Six Range, the tallest buildings are 2 stories with anexception for the towers, reminiscent of grain elevators. The closest 4 story apartment building is miles away on Oak. There are taller commercial buildingson Huffine in a commercial zone. HOUSING DESIGN AND EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS CT and Aspen Place condos share a very conservative building style, having been built by the samedeveloper. Aspen Place units are all painted the same color with clapboard siding. There is verylittle difference between each one story style or between the two story style. No buildings use flatroofs. The fenestration is very orderly and balanced. (picture) CT condos are clapboard sided but painted in a range of subdued colors. There is some variety in thedesign 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. (picture) Icon Apartments are all painted with the same subdued color palette and except for the 3 story units, 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 storyhave peaked roofs.The fenestration is very orderly and balanced as are the balconies. (picture) Valley West with hundreds of living units shows the most diversity in design and materials. However, their 33 page architectural and landscape guidelines show that they demand a certain kindof design consistency within the development. In 2007, Valley West won an award from theSonoran Institute “Building from the best of Northern Rockies.” Valley West was described as aproject “based on traditional neighborhood design principles.” Valley West has a few condos that incorporate metal siding and other small contemporary designdetails in their design, but generally the buildings are compatible with the building designs of CTCondos, Aspen Place and Icon Apartments. The vast majority use clapboard siding and peakedroofs. CURRENT PLANNING/ZONING GUIDELINES There are no City of Bozeman regulations or guidelines specific to infill. However, under projectdesign division 38.500.010 , this article implements the Bozeman growth policy. “Overall, thisarticle D. Ensures that new development within existing neighborhoods are compatible with andenhance the character of Bozeman’ neighborhoods” MODIFICATION TO SIX RANGE Let’s embrace infill as part of the solution to Bozeman urban sprawl, but let’s not ruin wellestablished and well designed neighborhoods in the process. Sensitive infill development can occuron this lot. Being respectful to those of us already living here is as important as increasing thedensity. Compatibility is the key here. Four story buildings are not compatible with the built environment. Four story buildings simply do not fit on this lot. They are too tall, and out of scale with ourneighborhood. The transition from the one story units on Palisades and Slough Creek Dr. to the SixRange three and four story buildings is insufficient to blunt the dramatic and visible size, bulk andmass of the new construction. There is no harmony here. There are no other 4 story apartment buildings within miles of this lot. Find more land so the buildings can be smaller and lower. The solution is to remove the commercial element 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 IconApts. Or build more triplexes, smaller in scale, less bulk and mass and reflective of Valley Westcondos on W.Babcock across the street. While everyone loves green space, if the desired goal is increased density, perhaps sacrificing a littlegreen space is part the answer. Also moving some green space to the rear of the lot, adjacent to theunits on Palisades would make the transition to taller buildings more visually pleasing and less “inyour face”. City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.