HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-29-22 Public Comment - J. Masker - FW_ 21235 Six Range Public CommentFrom:Lynn Hyde
To:jim_masker@cate.org
Cc:Jonathan Fuller; Agenda
Subject:FW: 21235 Six Range Public Comment
Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 2:10:59 PM
Attachments:21235 Six Range Condos SP Jim Masker.pdf
Thank you Jim for your public comment. It has been received and forwarded to the City Clerk which
will ensure it is included in the public record, provided to all reviewers, and the applicant.
Thank you for your interest in the project and we are happy to receive public comments in many
forms.
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
From: Jonathan Fuller <jfuller@BOZEMAN.NET>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 12:59 PM
To: Lynn Hyde <lhyde@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: jim_masker@cate.org
Subject: 21235 Six Range Public Comment
Hi Lynn,
Jim Masker stopped by our office today to drop off some public comment he had regarding 21235
Six Range SP. I wanted to make sure you received this so I scanned his comment and am sending it to
you as he addressed. I have cc’d him to verify his comments were sent out.
Jim, as I told you I am newer and still learning how all this process is carried out. The official way to
send public comment in is online, and you can do so here. Just for the next time, you can save a trip
to our office.
Thank you,
Jon
July 28, 2022Lynn HydeDevelopment Review Planner, Community Development20 East Olive StreetBozeman, MT 59771Re: Application 21325Dear Ms. Hyde,I hope you have fully recovered from the illness that kept you from attending in-person the July 18 CommunityDevelopment Board meeting and that you are now able to take full advantage of these glorious days we are currentlyexperiencing.I am writing in the context of Section 9. Relevant Comment from Affected Parties (38.220, page 20) that is contained inthe Staff Report. Specifically, I would like to add my comments to the first bullet point: Concern that the proposeddevelopment is not compatible with the existing neighborhoods nor enhancing it. (including heights, densities, buildingtypology and design, building street layout).First, I recognize that the applicant is seeking to provide a profitable remedy for our community's housing needs and todo so in a way that increases housing density and integrates residential and commercial functions. I do not disagree withthe applicant's intentions. Additionally, I applaud the applicant's public statement during the July 18 CDB meeting tomake the condominiums available for sale to local citizens as owner-occupied dwellings and not to sell to investors thatwill seek to rent/lease them.Second, my opposition to the project is based on the fact that the Staff Report assigns a "Meets Code" designation to"Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, ...the adjacent neighborhoods..." (38.530.030, page 18).While I cannot find Bozeman codes that stipulate maximum height, the four-story buildings (A, B, C), with atleast one having a fifth story leisure/gathering area, do not reflect in any way the height aesthetic of theimmediate neighborhood nor the neighborhoods that stretch north to Baxter Lane and west of Fowler Lane.All residential structures contained within the several-neighborhood geographic area defined above arecomprised of one and two-story single-family residences and multi-unit housing.The Staff Report is correct that "...a more recent development to the west (Icon Apartments...)...developedmulti-househotd units.-.at a density reflecting numbers closer to the full density potential allowed by the zoningdistrict" (38.100.040.D, page 12). While this was used as a rationale for higher density and extended height inthe Six Range application, the fact is that the applicant's proposed Buildings A, B and C in no way reflect thecommitment made by the developer of the Icon Apartments to design buildings that respected the architecturalaesthetics of the immediate neighborhood and that of the other contiguous neighborhoods.o The two dissenting CDB members indicated that their "no" votes were cast, in part, because of theaesthetic dissonance of the Six Range exterior architecture with that of the several surroundingneighborhoods. One member described the buildings as looking like "dormitories." Once constructed,those dormitories will be a visible blight in the neighborhood for decades to come for anyone driving orwalking along Resort Drive, West Babcock and South Ferguson.o As for the architectural aesthetic of the Icon Apartments blending in with that of the surroundingneighborhoods, below are photos of the 3-story and 2-story buildings experienced by anyone walking ordriving on Resort Drive. The same outward-facing architectural style is visible from all roads that borderthe apartments.//
?•*«'711i%^i^'ff^;IBS!rf't^fc!••»a,:'.n44Kt[^T'l^®«JSi-Sg!.r'IBS)II^IsAa^•!~1-1-1;;l-t;o Compare that street view of the multi-story Icons Apartment buildings to the one below of SixRange's Building C to recognize how incongruous it is regarding, "Compatibility with, and sensitivityto, ...the adjacent neighborhoods..." (38.530.030, page 18).Building Cma^^•I •• u4 t.:l -;-.fr-a ur"^•^•T:I-i'a -3|^r'.,-LI j/y^ir'1t-ssa^^r?a7~~\^--^ffA.»»JJJJ-L-^•^rll.'a-_1rV.°'.^Bozeman is facing a housing shortage and by default a shortage of housing that is affordable for many of our fellowcitizens. I recognize that you and your colleagues face considerable pressure to mitigate these issues by approvingresidential projects submitted by developers that often meet minimum code requirements or that are granted waiversbecause they do not initially meet code requirements.The two CDB members who voted "no" regarding Application 21325, spoke on behalf of those of us who do not have atrue voice in the decision-making process.Thank you for asking the Staff to encourage the Director to read this letter before making a final decision,With gratitude for all you do on behalf of our community,hU^4^<^-Jim Masker268 Pine Creek Drive