HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-22 Public Comment - D. Cleveland - Six Range 21235From:David Cleveland
To:Agenda
Subject:Six Range 21235
Date:Friday, July 22, 2022 2:27:17 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.
It is my opinion that the Community Development Board failed to adequately consider several
aspects of the impact the Six Range Development on the existing neighborhood:
1. There will be a significant effect on the property values of the homes bordering the project.When your home goes from having a view of the mountain ranges to being backed up to a 5
story “wall,” the value of those homes will drop significantly in the eyes of prospectivebuyers. Mr. Paine stands to make a lot of money from Six Range, but it is highly likely that at
least 16 existing residents will take a significant financial hit, not to mention that manyowners on nearby streets will also be affected. I am not saying that property values won’t be
affected by any new development, but this case is truly lopsided.
2. Not only will abutting neighbors suffer financial loss, they will also lose significantprivacy. Even if screening is adopted, people living on Palisade Drive will need to keep their
shades drawn if they do not wish to be literally “looked down upon” by residents of the upperfloors of Six Range, including those participating in gatherings on the roof that Mr. Paine has
heralded as beneficial to the neighborhood. I do not believe anyone will benefit from such“gatherings” except Six Range residents.
3. The Board felt that the heights of the buildings were perfectly fine. One member implied
that people would get used to them. For evidence, he said that he hardly notices the 7-storybuilding that has gone up in another section of town. He is entitled to his opinion, but to
assume that Six Range neighbors would agree is to ignore multiple comments to the contrary.
4. The Board felt that the architecture of Six Range was compatible with surroundingneighborhoods. Take four bricks and arrange them in a square with a space in the middle. In
that space, place a 5-gallon white plastic pail of the kind used to store paint or plaster. In bothproportions and aesthetics that is just about how well Six Range will fit next to Valley West,
Aspen Place, and CT Condos. In no way is it a good, blending fit, and no amount of screeningwill mitigate its overall visual impact.
5. The Board stressed the desire for “connectivity” with existing paths and green spaces. But
the proposed connectivity is totally one way. Few people in the existing neighborhood willhave any real reason to go INTO Six Range, but Six Range inhabitants need to get out because
they have no real green space (having paid to skip green space requirements). They will needto use other nearby paths and parks to roam outdoors or walk their dogs (get your pooper
scoopers ready, neighbors!) yet they will not be contributing anything toward the maintenanceof those places.
6. Parking will be adversely affected. Originally, Mr. Paine proposed parking on S. Hanley
Avenue as a partial solution to his realization that there will be more cars than spaces withinhis development, but that road is a private road, with no parking allowed! I think we can
expect increased parking on West Babcock as a result.
7. Finally, no mention was made by the Board and no consideration was given to the fact thatthe current plans for Six Range as submitted actually show him building on land that he does
not own and has not produced any easement for. This important aspect of his plan must beaddressed and legally settled before any construction begins or anyone else’s property is
appropriated.
David Cleveland