Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-05-22 Public Comment - D. Dyk - Six Range Condo project feedbackFrom:Donald Dyk To:Agenda Subject:Fwd: Six Range Condo project feedback Date:Friday, August 5, 2022 1:05:53 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. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Donald Dyk <don.dyk@gmail.com>Date: Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 9:46 AM Subject: Six Range Condo project feedbackTo: <lhyde@bozeman.net> I live in Cottonwood condos adjacent to the proposed Six Range project. I feel that their planfor the high rise buildings would not be compatible with the current surrounding neighborhood, of which I am a part. One of our residents in Cottonwood (CharlotteCleveland) has submitted feedback to your department, and I will copy that as follows, as it reflects my exact sentiments toward the negative impact of the proposed Six Range project. CAREFUL INFILL IS CRUCIAL TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD Infill is a great tool for urban and suburban areas, and especially for promoting efficient use of Bozeman’sundeveloped areas and lots. Infill on this lot is a perfect choice. If done correctly, it can add vibrancy toan already existing neighborhood. If done badly, it will have a negative impact on its surroundings and thegreater community. This opinion is shared by many institutes that have studied infill and made recommendations forsuccessful infill in western states, e.g: Idaho smart growth, Urban Land Institute, Quality Infill for Boise: “Without careful attention infill can be mismatched with existing neighborhood structures and can introduce new housing forms that are incompatible with those in the neighborhood.” “Make infill compatible—be respectful of existing neighbors and neighborhood character.” “Infill must also address how the new buildings fit into the pattern of the existing built environment including: harmonizing with existing streetscape . . .transitions both in height and visible building mass to its surroundings. and where parking is located . . “ King County WA Housing Partnership study: Ten Essentials for Successful Urban Infill Housing: “In smaller infill projects the builder cannot shape the look and feel of an entirely new neighborhood. Rather than defining the character of a new neighborhood . . . the builder inherits the character of the existing neighborhood . . .” BOZEMAN CITY PLAN AND REGULATIONS There are no Bozeman City regulations that deal solely with infill. However, several regulations exist thatguide the developer toward a compatible development in an established neighborhood The Six Range project must meet certain City standards: the Bozeman City Plan goals, City RO zoning regulations, Regulation Section 38.500.010 D and Regulation 38.230.100.A.7 1. The Paine proposal needs to conform to the Bozeman MT Community Plan, page 20 “The needs of new and existing development coexist and they should remain in balance; neithershould overwhelm the other.” This is the basic planning precept that the City of Bozeman endorsed and adopted. They also endorsedinfill. These two are not antithetical. What we are asking for here is that Mr. Paine’s infill project notoverwhelm our existing development and a balance should exist between new and old. 2. This proposal should conform to RO zoning regulations. The Paine proposal is located on a parcel in zoning district RO. The intent of RO “is to provide for andencourage the development of multihousehold and apartment development and compatible professionaloffices and businesses that would blend well with adjacent land uses.” Section 38.300.100 G.Residential-office district (R-O) The words that resonate from both the Community Plan and RO zoning are “blend well with adjacentland uses” and “neither should overwhelm the other”. This is to protect the already existingresidential built neighborhood. Blend well does not mean it must be exactly the same. However, the newdevelopment has to be in scale with and in harmony with the already built area. “Blend well” means to be unobtrusive or harmonious by being similar in appearance. The new buildingsand its site plan should blend with the older ones: harmonize, go well with, fit in, be compatible with,match or complement. 3. This proposal should conform to Bozeman zoning 38.500.0010 D Under project design division 38.500.010 article D the article implements the Bozeman growth policy to “ensures that new development within existing neighborhoods are compatible with and enhancethe character of Bozeman’s neighborhoods.” Some of these statements rely on what might appear at first as subjective judgement: “compatibility”,“enhance”, ”blend well,” neither should “overwhelm”. So a person’s “opinion” must be based on thespecifics of the proposal and the factual character of the existing neighborhood. 4. This proposal should conform to Bozeman’s zoning section 38.230.100 A.7. Under this section Conformance with the project design includes “Compatibility with and sensitivity to,the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approveddevelopments relative to architectural design, building mass, neighborhood identity, landscaping,historical character,orientation of the buildings on the site and visual integration.” This section includes some of the above rules but goes further to include architectural design andorientation of the buildings on the site and also visual integration. Visual integration means the newconstruction, its architectural design and the orientation of the buildings on the site must reflect the“sense of place” that already exists. SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD Comparing our neighborhood with Six Range shows how jarring and discordant Six Range is comparedto the built environment it is supposed to be sensitive to. It simply does not blend well with or enhanceour neighborhood. SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING HEIGHTS: The established height of structures in the existing neighborhood varies little. It consists of one- and two-story buildings and a small number of 3-story structures. CT condos (155 units) and Aspen Place condos are all one-story or two-story. Icon Apartments (18 buildings) the most recently built complex has several 3-story buildings. Icon’sremaining thirteen buildings are 2 stories. Valley West has one-or two-story dwellings with only one 3-story single family residence. The apartment complexes on Cottonwood, further away, are three stories. In Ferguson Farms, a little distance from Six Range, the commercial buildings are 2 stories with anexception for the towers, (reminiscent of grain elevators). The closest 4-story residential apartment building is miles away on Oak and 27th Ave. (There are tallercommercial buildings on Huffine in a commercial zone.) There is another complex being built onCottonwood south of Huffine. Again, it is not near our neighborhood. Six Range building heights are not compatible with our neighborhood. They are monumental in height and are unnecessary to increase density. (Icon for example, has increased density on its land and has no 4 story buildings. Valley West has increased density by adding ADUs.) While 4 story buildings may be allowed under new regulations, just being allowed is not the most important consideration here. How do they fit in? The four story buildings of Six Range are totally out of character, overwhelm the buildings in the existing area, do not blend well, are mismatched with the area, and do not enhance our neighborhood. While the City’s goal may be increased density, this project’s building height destroys our neighborhood at the expense of those already living here. Increase the density in more, shorter buildings and allow some reduction of open space requirements to do so. Six Range has monolithic 4 story buildings with flat roofs that do not match the majority of buildings in the area. (The triplexes might fit in with a more traditional design, gable roofs and other more conservative building and design touches.) Even the commercial buildings of Ferguson Farms between Huffine and CT Condos are all two stories. The visual scale ( building height to human height) of the existing neighborhood is much smaller, cozy and comforting and this development throws the balance of human scale totally off. Avoiding monumental scale is important to preserving the human scale of our neighborhood. SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD LAYOUT ANDSTREETSCAPE:The pattern of our neighborhood development is orderly, neat and traditional. The current neighborhoodof Valley West, CT Condominiums, Aspen Place Condominiums and Icon Apts. consists of single familyhomes, condo associations with duplexes, apartment complexes, condo associations with triplexes,quadra plexes and townhouses. This is a well established neighborhood, with most dwellings, duplexes,condos and apartments being built starting in the early 2000’s. The existing pattern of streets and frontages arrange all structures of every kind in tidy block format. Thestreetscapes are orderly and echo each other. Structures are parallel or perpendicular to the streets, evenin the inner streets of Aspen Place, Valley West and CT Condos. In contrast, Six Range’s siting of its buildings is not compatible with the orderly neighborhood pattern of building placement in relationship to the streets. Six Range has three buildings on angles, not parallel or perpendicular to the city streets or private roads of CT Condo. This seems to be an arbitrary decision merely for some kind of design effect. Placing the buildings in a more orderly fashion that mimics the neighborhood might open up more space to change the 4 story buildings to 2 or 3 story. SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ESTABLISHED BUILDING DESIGN CT and Aspen Place condos share a very conservative building style, having been built by the samedeveloper. All are simple in design and traditional in style. Aspen Place condos are exactly the same, all the same one story or two story design. All have clapboardsiding and vertical siding in the eaves. No buildings use flat roofs; all use gable roofs. The fenestration isvery orderly and balanced. The windows are double hung style. Aspen Place has double car garages,back patios and front porches. CT condos are one or two stories high. There is some variation in the design of the condos as the sizesvary. All units are clapboard sided with vertical siding in the eaves. All units have gable roofs. Thefenestration is very orderly and balanced with double hung windows and matching smaller windows in thegarages and some rooms. All units have a double garage, back patio and front porch. Icon Apartment design is also very conservative in design. All two-story units are clapboard sided andhave gable roofs. The 3-story units have flat roofs, and vertical siding. The fenestration is very orderly,symmetrical and balanced. Units have a front porch on ground level and balconies on the second thethird floors. Some units have built in garages. Valley West, with hundreds of living units, shows the most diversity in design and materials. However,their 33 page architectural and landscape guidelines show that they demand a certain kind of designconsistency within the development. In 2007, Valley West won an award from the Sonoran Institute“Building from the Best of Northern Rockies.” Valley West was described as a project “based ontraditional neighborhood design principles.” For example, front porches are required to add friendlinessand a welcoming touch. Valley West has a few condos that incorporate metal siding and other small contemporary design details.but generally the buildings are overwhelmingly compatible with the building designs of CT Condos, AspenPlace and Icon Apartments. The majority of living units use clapboard siding and peaked roofs. The overall design of the Six Range buildings is contemporary, industrial “chic” or pseudo Scandinavian not seen anywhere in our neighborhood. The design does not have the charm or warmth of Valley West or the rest of the neighborhood. There is not one front porch added as a welcoming touch. There is no Scandinavian theme to any of the buildings within our neighborhood. The design of all the buildings is stark, cold and antithetical to our neighborhood. Six Range’s design uses raw materials like bare wood, concrete, metal trim and balconies, large expanses of glass, and wide concrete plazas. The designer draws elements from industrial spaces or Scandinavia for their design. Most of the exterior building materials that Six Range has chosen are foreign to the neighborhood. While the architect may have chosen some quality materials, they are of a kind that do not appear in our neighborhood. The neighborhood has no buildings clad in wood or unpainted wood. The use of fake brick siding is found no where else in the vicinity. There is no clapboard siding, no gable roofs in the main buildings and no double hung windows and as a result no charm. The windows look like retail store windows because of their size and black metal trim. The larger windows with wide expanses of glass clash with the windows in our neighborhood. Some of the windows look like dormitory windows you see on MSU’s campus. The large three and four story banks of windows are not repeated in Icon or on the three story apartment complexes on Cottonwood. Even the commercial buildings in Ferguson Farm do not have 3 or 4 story banked windows. These buildings would be right at home in the Cannery District, on a college campus or on the block at Oak and 27th street, but not here. SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ESTABLISHED BUILDING EXTERIOR COLORS Exterior color is one way for new buildings to mesh into a neighborhood. New colors of any massivebuildings have to be very careful chosen to help them visually integrate into the neighborhood, as theBozeman regulations require. All of Aspen Place units are all painted the same color, same trim color and same patio fence color. CT condos are painted in a range of subdued colors, with the same colors repeated many times over inthe 155 units. The decks are all painted the same color. Trim varies from white to cream Icon Apartments are all painted with the same subdued color palette ( only three colors) and actuallyshare some of the the same colors with Aspen Place and CT Condos. Their balconies have black metalrailings, but that is the only use of the color black. In Valley West, the color palette is more varied but governed by their design guidelines. The covenantscall for a “color palette of the body of the house . . . in white, cream, earth tones or as approved by theVWARC based on color scheme merit or historical precedent.” Six Range uses Hardy vertical siding in most buildings. The color choices appear to be black/dark wood or white. But the desired effect of minimizing the bulk and massive size of the buildings is not met by using these color choices. (While Icon kept its colors to a minimum, a four story building has more hurdles to overcome to reach the warmth of Icon. Icon also changes the colors to offer a variation in the facades of its apartment buildings.) Six Range uses black as an exterior color in its fake brick veneer and the window trim and molding, suggesting a store front appearance. There are no double hung windows with trim to soften the harsh unbroken glass. Unlike Six Range, the existing neighborhood does not have any bare concrete elements such as the concrete screen walls. The commercial buildings in Ferguson Farms use brick in a warm colors to avoid a harsh exterior. Six Range use of white or dark colors in its massive monolithic buildings is off putting and unfriendly. SIX RANGE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ESTABLISHED PARKING PATTERNS IN THE AREA CT Condos and Aspen Place have parking in garages and driveway or in the case of Aspen Place, theyhave small off street parking places for visitors for day use only. Overnight parking is not allowed in thestreets in both developments. Valley West has parking in garages, driveways, alleys and on street. There are small parking areas offalleys behind some condos but that is uncommon. Icon Apartments has parking in garages, on street and in parking lots on site. While they provide a largenumber of parking spaces on site, none of the parking lots are as large as the one proposed for SixRange. Icon has integrated parking into their design by breaking up the parking into smaller areas neareach apartment building(s). Tenants park closer to their units in smaller parking lots. Six Range has several parking lots on site, but has one gigantic parking lot reminiscent of a mall parking lot at the rear of their development. This lot on the northern side of the site holds spaces for over 160 cars. The site plan is unbalanced by relegating most of the parking to this one lot. Breaking up the parking in this lot and moving it closer to the actual condo buildings would do two things. It would bring the owners’ parking closer to their units and improve the visual aspect of this massive paved area. It appears there is some parking available in garages, but the number of garages is very small. In closing, there is no opposition to development on the lot in question, but for the the sake of ourexisting neighborhood,Six Range needs to make compatibility modifications that all parties could beproud of, protecting the integrity of what we already have while providing valuable infill. The City ofBozeman is the only entity our citizens have to consider and represent them in cases such as this.-- --Don Dyk -- --Don Dyk