HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-22 Public Comment - C. Cleveland - Six Range 21235 Comments in response to the Community Dev. Board Staff reportFrom:D & C Cleveland
To:Agenda
Subject:Six Range 21235 Comments in response to the Community Dev. Board staff report
Date:Sunday, July 17, 2022 8:17:52 AM
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 Community Development Board:
I was initially hoping that the hearing on the 18th could be postponed until all abutters within
200 ft of the development boundaries had received the warning that Mr Paine neglected to provide. If the warning was mailed on the15th many will not even receive the warning by
Monday the 18th.
There are several points I’d like to make concerning the Staff Report dated 7/14/22 for application 21235, Six Range.
On page 11, the staff report discusses promotion of compatible urban growth. The problem
with this section is that the staff report does not make any effort to analyze the existing neighborhood to determine if Six Range is compatible in any other sense than it has met the
technical requirements of the code.
The report lacks an in depth analysis of the already built neighborhood and then a comparison to Six Range to determine compatibility. The report does none of this analysis and does not
even touch on the actual buildings, size, height, color palette, density, size of parking lot, or lack of suitable screening.
While everyone understands that Six Range does not have to match exactly what is already
built, an analysis of what is already here is missing from this report and that is crucial. If you don’t analyze what is already built in detail, how do you know if Six Range is compatible?
Merely stating that Six Range is allowed and has met all the standards (checked off the boxes) does not automatically make it compatible. It just makes the application complete.
I am not saying that because Six Range has fully utilized all the options it has to develop this
parcel, that they should be denied the ability to build. However the choices they have made: buildings with a Scandinavian look, buildings taller than anything nearby, a limited stark
palette of colors, with 5th floor gathering places, and one very large parking area, make this development “unlike any other that currently exists here” (Paine’s own description).
On page 12 under the topic Residential Office District the report quotes from the RO district
that requires the development should blend well with adjacent land uses. There is more to this than just stating that the neighborhood use is residential and so is Six Range. “Blend well” is
the operative requirement. One can have residential units in a 4 story building, but they do not “blend well” with our neighborhood of primarily one, two and a few three story buildings. In
fact Paine’s 4 story buildings will dwarf any adjacent homes.
To say that Six Range complies with Bozeman regulations is the bare minimum interpretation of “compatibility.” To those of us living here, compatibility is how Six Range melds into the
neighborhood. The application may be “complete”, but the project review falls far short of
measuring the true meaning of being compatible with our neighborhood.
The intent of Bozeman’s regulations is to approve a project that is in harmony with the existing neighborhood.
Charlotte Cleveland