Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-22 Public Comment - M. Anderson - CT Owner CommentFrom:Michelle Anderson To:Lynn Hyde; Agenda Subject:CT Owner Comment Date:Sunday, July 17, 2022 2:49:58 PM Attachments:CT Owner Comment - Screening Proposal.docx 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, My name is Michelle Anderson, and I live in the Cottonwood Condos on Palisade Drive. My unit will be directly affected with the development of the Six Range Condos so I've attached a letter of comment for your consideration. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Michelle Anderson 4215 Palisade Dr. Bozeman, MT 59718 Sunday, July 17, 2022 Ms. Lynn Hyde Development Review Planner Community Development RE: Application 21-235 (Six Range Condos) Dear Lynn, I live on Palisade Drive and am asking you to consider my comments for the Screening Proposal. 1. City Code Sec. 38.550.050.2a. (subsections 1, 3 and 4) require that parking lots must be screened from adjacent residences, and that this screening must be continuous. a. “Continuous” is defined by dictionaries as “marked by uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence” or “characterized by continuity; extending in space without interruption of substance; having no interstices or breaks; connected, unbroken.” b. Under either of these definitions, the proposed trees and shrubs on the Six Range landscape plans (dwg 053), do NOT provide continuous screening. i. The screening area will be completely void for 7 - 8 months because the plants and trees selected will lose their foliage each fall as Bozeman has a very short summer season of leaves and flowers. ii. The 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, wasps, and ants into an area adjacent to the CT paved pathway. This is a risk to any and all users on the path. 2. City Planner Lynn Hyde stated in her comments on the parking lot landscaping (entry #74 of the Project Flow Sheet) that the parking lot MUST be “be adequately screened, year round,” and “robust screening is imperative” along the property line between the CT Condos units and the Six Range parking lot. a. Use of primarily deciduous plants and trees in no way meets these criteria. 3. The purpose of the parking lot screening requirements of the codes is to protect the CT residences from harsh intrusions into the tranquility of our residences (especially bedrooms) at all hours of the night. a. The rear (southern boundary) of the Six Range parking lot has 81 canopied parking spots directly facing the CT units approximately 50 feet away. While it is possible that some Six Range residents may choose to back into their parking spaces, it is far more likely that drivers will head into their parking spaces with their headlights facing the CT residences. This means their lights will be shining directly into my bedroom. I respectfully suggest TWO other options which would clearly meet all of the elements of “parking lot screening” that are NOT met by the current Six Range landscaping plan: 1. 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, and assist in preventing light and noise pollution and trespass into the adjacent homes in the CT Condo community. 2. Earthen berm: Such a berm (between CT Condos and over 150 parking spaces), if rigorously designed to create a continuous screening using soil, evergreen plantings and rock accents, will not only provide screening from vehicle lights, but will also provide an aesthetically pleasing landscape for new Six Range condo owners and CT pathway users. Regardless of which screening solution is selected, it should be no less than 60” high to provide complete screening from headlights of an average pickup, or an average SUV, which is 45” to its headlights. These heights fall within allowed heights for fences (maximum 6’). Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. Sincerely, Michelle Anderson