HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-22 Public Comment - M. Smotherman - Six Range Condos Application 21235From:Lynn Hyde
To:Agenda
Subject:FW: Six Ranges Condos, Application 21235
Date:Friday, July 8, 2022 10:53:23 AM
Attachments:Letter to Lynn Hyde, re SR 5-18-22 submission (7-5-22).docx
Lynn Hyde | Development Review Planner, Community DevelopmentCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771406.579.1471 | lhyde@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net
The City has enhanced our project intake process and will now be receiving all project submittals –
New and Revisions, through ProjectDox. As a result of this transition in process, response times to
inquiries may be delayed. We understand the impacts any delay may create for your site
development and we will make every effort to provide you with the highest level of customer service
in a timely manner.
We encourage you to review our Development Center webpage and become familiar with the new
intake process. Your patience during this transition is greatly appreciated.
From: Mickey Smotherman <mickeysmo67@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 7:57 PM
To: Lynn Hyde <lhyde@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Jim Seneker <jseneker1@gmail.com>; Laura Nichols <lc84195@gmail.com>; Jon Schmidt
<jonos4jc@me.com>; LaDeen Arthun <ladeenarthun@gmail.com>
Subject: Six Ranges Condos, Application 21235
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 Lynn,
Attached is a letter regarding this project from the CT
Condominium Board of Directors. It is essentially the same
letter as I emailed to you on June 28, 2022, with paragraphs b),
c), and d) added under the discussion of Dwg 013 (regarding
location of garbage dumpsters). Please consider these public
comments on behalf of CT Condominium.
Mickey Smotherman
1 | Page
Tuesday, July 5, 2022
Ms. Lynn Hyde
Development Review Planner
Community Development
RE: Application 21-235 (Six Range Condos)
Dear Lynn:
We finally received copies of the Drawings & Documents submitted on 5/18/22 by the Applicant, in
response to a Public Records Request. We have reviewed them with great interest. We are writing to
convey to you comments and questions we would like for your team to consider in your ongoing review,
rather than waiting for the public comment period.
DRAWING 007 Existing Conditions C0.2 dated 5-17-22:
a) This drawing shows "60' Access and Utility Easement per COS 1872 see note #6" on the Six Range
Condos (“SR”) west boundary, which is shown extending 36.63' onto CT Condominium (“CT
Condos”) property and 23.37' onto the SR property.
b) The drawing also shows a "30' lineal park/trail easement per MS#295" extending from the SR south
property line into CT Condos property and a "10' utility easement per MS#295" also extending into
CT Condos property.
c) The drawing also shows a "12' utility easement per MS#295" and a "42' public pedestrian access
easement per MS#295" on CT Condos’ east property line, extending into CT Condos property.
d) Upon legal advice, CT Condos’ position is that none of these alleged “easements” are valid and do
not permit Six Range Condos to build on, or damage, any CT Condos property without CT Condos
permission.
e) An existing stormwater drainpipe at the northeast corner of CT Condos property is shown
extending into the SR property and terminating at a point which is unclear from the drawing. We
want to confirm that the existing CT Condos pipe will empty into the new concrete vault that SR
will install, according to other drawings. Can you confirm this?
DRAWING 008 Construction Management C1.0, dated 5-17-22:
a) Construction traffic flow is shown in and out at the Babcock entrance. Can you confirm that
Babcock is the access for ALL construction traffic, NOT Hanley Avenue (as shown on previous
drawings)?
b) The drawing also shows “Demo approach and road. Utility access road to be constructed (see
sheet C4.1)” and “Demo water valve and main to 4’ from property line, main to end with new
hydrant”
c) CT Condos objects to demolition of the portion of the Slough Creek "stub" on the east side of
Hanley Avenue, without our permission. Although a portion of the Slough Creek "stub" (on the
east end) is on the Applicant's property, CT Condominium has a prescriptive easement for such
portion, since it has been in place and in continuous use for more than 5 years prior to
acquisition of the property by the Applicant.
2 | Page
d) Also, CT Condos objects to demo of the water line on our property, and the new fire hydrant
must be located on SR property. No such agreement on either point has been reached to date
with SR.
009 Civil Site Plan C1.1 5-17-22:
a) At the Slough Creek stub location, the stub is gone, a curb is shown along Hanley and a “New
Fire Hydrant” and a “New Fire Service and 4” Domestic Service” is shown on CT Condos
property. CT Condos objects to this demolition of our property and new installations by SR on
our property, without our permission.
b) The existing CT Condos stormwater drainpipe is NOT shown extending from our NE retention
pond to the new vault (culvert) to be installed by SR. We can’t find any detail drawings that
show actual design of the new vault – can you confirm that the existing drainpipe from CT
property will remain in place and connected to the new vault, so that the current CT Condos
stormwater plan is not compromised?
c) A 10’ Public Access Easement is shown pointed at a wide sidewalk extending to the asphalt trail
on the SR south boundary. CT Condos objects to this connection across our property to the trail
built and maintained by CT Condos.
d) Two dashed lines are shown on CT Condos property parallel to the SR south boundary and one
dashed line parallel to the SR west boundary. There is no explanation – can you tell us what
these dashed lines are intended to depict?
e) There is a “Connect to existing 8” water main” shown at the end of a water main line extending
from Mill Creek. Does this water line already extend into SR property?
012 Enlarged Site Plan Southeast C1.4, dated 5-17-22:
a) There is a “Connect to existing 8” water main” shown at the end of a water main line extending
from Mill Creek.
b) The CT Condos stormwater drainpipe at our NE corner is not shown. Can you confirm that SR
has proposed (on some drawing) to connect this existing drain pipe to the New Vault/culvert to
be installed by SR?
c) There is an Underground Electric (UGE) line shown on our property. Does SR propose to cross CT
Condos property to connect to it? If so, we object to this connection without our permission.
013 Enlarged Site Plan Southwest C1.5, dated 5-17-22:
a) This drawing shows “1800 SF Permeable pavers with storm water retention along west
boundary”. What is the planned water retention, and how will it be accomplished by SR on its
property?
b) Dwgs 009, 012 and 013 show three dumpster enclosures on the southern border of the Project,
adjacent to 15 CT Condominium units on Palisade and Mill Creek. While we recognize that Six
Range’s owners want to locate these unsightly parts of their development as far away from their
3 | Page
residents as possible, locating them immediately adjacent to 15 of their neighbors will subject
CT Condo neighbors to unpleasant odors and noise, since trash collectors often pick up early in
the morning.
c) We respectfully suggest that these dumpsters should be located on the Babcock side of the
project, where they would be more accessible to pick up vehicles and would create less
disturbance to residents.
d) If the City does not agree that the dumpster locations should be moved, then this is all the more
reason for insuring adequate, year-round screening on the south side of the project (see
discussion below of Dwg 053).
018 Paving Plan C4.0, dated 5-17-22:
a) A new “Utility access road” is shown at the Slough Creek stub location. For the reasons stated
above, CT Condos objects to installation of this feature on our property without our permission.
b) Six (6) sidewalks are shown crossing CT Condos property and connecting to the asphalt trail on
CT Condos property constructed and maintained by CT Condos. Also, a wide trail on the SR east
side is shown connecting to the CT Condos asphalt trail at the CT Condos NE corner. For the
reasons stated herein, CT Condos objects to installation of these sidewalks/trail(s) on our
property without our permission.
PAVED CONNECTIONS TO SOUTHSIDE PAVED TRAIL, PART OF CT CONDO PRIVATE PROPERTY
Drawings 009 Civil Site Plan, 012 Enlarged Site Plan Southeast, 013 Enlarged Site Plan, 018 Paving Plan,
020 Drainage Plan, 024 Enlarged Draining Plan Southwest, 025 Enlarged Draining Plan Southeast, 027
Overall Site Plan, and 053 Landscape Plan all illustrate and refer to paved connections extending from
the south side parking area of Six Range onto CT Condo private property for the purpose of connecting
to the existing paved trail. CT Condo opposes these connections for several reasons: 1) Liability to CT
Condo of users coming from Six Range onto the trail via these proposed connectors; 2) Trash and debris
concerns stemming from the possibility of Six Range residents using these connections as quick access
for dog relief and subsequently not cleaning up pet waste or other debris and trash; 3) additional time
for landscape maintenance by CT Condo contractors. Adding concrete extensions from Six Range to the
existing trail and crossing over grassy areas owned and maintained by CT Condo, may create more work
and time, thus more money, to maintain these areas (which are currently unobstructed grassy areas).
027 Overall Site Plan A1.01, dated 5-16-22:
a) At the Slough Creek stub the drawing shows “Rollover Curb”, “All Weather Access Gravel”, a
hydrant symbol (FH) and a depiction of a road/path/trail from Hanley to the SR property line.
For the reasons stated above, CT Condos objects to installation of these features on our
property without our permission.
4 | Page
b) A “Underground Power Easement” is shown pointing at our property on our NE corner. Does SR
propose to connect to an UG power line across CT Condos property? If so, CT Condos objects to
such an installation without our permission.
053 Landscape Plan, dated 5-16-22
a) Sec. 38.550.050.2a. (subsections 1, 3 and 4) require that parking lots be screened, that they
must be screened from adjacent residences and that this screening must be continuous.
“Continuous” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “marked by uninterrupted extension in
space, time, or sequence” and by the Oxford English Dictionary as “characterized by
continuity; extending in space without interruption of substance; having no interstices or
breaks; having its parts in immediate connection; connected, unbroken. In unbroken
connection with; joined continuously to; forming one mass with” Keeping these definitions in
mind and aligning the proposed trees and shrubs on the Paine landscape plans, none of the
plantings meet the definition of “continuous”.
b) Furthermore, based on the provided growth height and width data in the Paine landscape
submission, Drawing #053, and the growing tendencies for each selection, the majority of
shrubs and trees selected fail to meet the criteria of proper screening per City code, i.e.,
“continuous” (subsection 38.550.050.2a.1 and 3). Additionally, these selections, based on
the growing patterns, will create a maintenance burden on the CT Condo neighborhood as
all but one tree selected is deciduous in nature, which will lose their foliage each fall and
leave the area they are to screen completely void for 7-8 months (as Bozeman has a very
short summer season of leaves and flowers).
c) Lastly, while the City Landscaping Code, Sec. 38.550.050.C.2b offers options between large
canopy or non-canopy trees with one small tree, the choice of primarily deciduous, messy
canopy trees does not fulfill the stated purpose and intent of that same code (Sec
38.330.101) “to provide visual buffering between land uses” and “aiding in noise and glare
abatement”. All of these listed plants produce flowers, blooms or fruit of some kind in
addition to losing leaves annually. Such growth creates excess maintenance for surrounding
areas, including CT Condos, as well as creates opportunities for pests such as nuisance birds,
bees, wasp, ants into an area adjacent to the CT paved trail. This is a risk to any and all users
on the path. Additionally, Cheyenne Privet is a poisonous shrub, so its presence along the
pathway presents a danger to pets and children.
SCREENING PROPOSAL:
In order to create adequate, continuous screening of the Six Range south-facing parking lot (as well as
trash dumpsters and transformers), that will “provide visual buffering between land uses“ and “aid in
noise and light abatement”, we propose that the following options be strongly considered by the City as
alternatives to the Landscaping screening plan submitted by the Applicant for the Six Range site:
1. Require a solid wall or fence: Either of these provide continuous screening, can be built with
materials complimentary to the overall Six Range West Condo Scandinavian design, provide a
low-maintenance non-transparent screen between properties, assist in preventing light and
noise pollution and trespass into the adjacent homes in the CT Condo community, and align with
the newly implemented water conservation standards for new developments.
5 | Page
In particular, as it pertains to water conservation, in a February 15, 2022 memo1 to the City
Commission from Jessica Ahlstrom, Water Conservation Program Manager and John Alston,
Director of Utilities, they sought city direction “to develop landscape and irrigation performance
and design standards for new development” because “Bozeman is a fast-growing drought-prone
community facing numerous water supply constraints”. They further stated “In order to ensure
that Bozeman has a reliable water supply available for the future, City Staff ask the City
Commission to consider landscape and irrigation performance and design standards for new
development to ensure that outdoor watering associated with future growth is more efficient.”
Additionally, in a February 15, 2022 presentation2 by Ms. Ahlstrom, she recommends “turfgrass
limits based on total vegetated area multi-family to be 40% turf”. It seems that with this desire
by the City to have new developments, whether single or multi-family, to be more water-
conscious and efficient, these standards should be implemented now, at the beginning of
possible construction of Six Range. In fact, this is the perfect time to demonstrate how a large
development like Six Range West Condos can not only be a good neighbor by constructing
purposeful, aesthetically pleasing, water-efficient screenings, but also be a good community
steward of water conservation in light of accelerated city growth and city vision. The enormity
of the property dictates that water conservation be part of its plan; hence, making a wall or
fence screening an appropriate resource to aid in meeting the water conversation vision AND
screening requirements held within the City’s respective departments.
2. Require a berm: This idea was originally offered to CT Condo residents by Mr. Paine in a
meeting in October, 2021. Such a berm should follow an approved design and one that
challenges the gold standard set by the community of Loyal Garden when it was developing its
condominium complex at the corner of Huffine and Cottonwood. With over 150 parking spaces,
three (3) large trash dumpsters and two (2) electrical transformers being proposed to become
the backyard of 15 established homes in CT Condos, creating a continuous screening using soil,
evergreen plantings and even rock accents will not only provide shelter from vehicle lights that
will otherwise flood into home windows, but also provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape for
new Six Range condo owners, pathway users and the CT Condo homes. However, this option
would need finessing to ensure full compliance with the newly adopted City of Bozeman water
restrictions.
3. Regardless of which screening solution is ultimately approved by the City, the dimensions of
such should be no less than 60” high to provide complete screening from headlights of an
average pickup, for instance a Chevy Silverado, or an average SUV, like a Ford Explorer, which is
45” to its headlights. The City allows for fences to be maximum 6’ height, even up to 8’3 with
proper approvals, so building berms, walls or fences that are both attractive and functional at
heights that block headlights of various large, vehicle sizes should be doable by and required of
Paine and his landscape team.
1 Bozeman City Memorandum, “Direction to City Staff on the Development of Water Conservation Standards for
New Development and City-Wide Outdoor Watering Restrictions”, 2-15-2022 2 Work Session Proposed Landscape and Irrigation Performance and Design Standards, 2-15-2022
3 Sec. 38.350.060.A.1. Fences, walls and hedges, Bozeman Municipal Code (accessed 2-4-2022)
6 | Page
Thank you for your time to review our concerns. If you have any questions, we look forward to
discussing them with you. We also look forward to your responses to our questions. We look forward
to consideration, and productive discussions, of any alternatives that the City or the Applicant may
propose to our proposals and objections. We look forward to being good neighbors, regardless of what
is approved, but we want to find “win-win” solutions to the problems we have pointed out with the
Applicant’s submittal.
CT Condominium Board of Directors