Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-23 Public Comment - G. Gettler - Truman Flats #23148From:Gail Gettler To:Agenda; Susana Montana; Anna Bentley Subject:[EXTERNAL]Truman Flats #23148 Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:52:15 PM Attachments:Truman Flats comments.pdf .pdf 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 Ms Bently and Ms Montana, I am a long time resident in the Legends 1 subdivision. The way our City commission and itsplanners have handled the application, etc., for Truman Flats is a dereliction of duties as representatives of the north side of the Bozeman. You turned your back when Homebaseabsolutely destroyed over 120 mature trees which were the home to many wildlife species which traversed our neighborhoods. The gigantic piles of mature cottonwoods was like a hugepile of dead bodies at the intersection of Story Mill and Bridger Drive. In addition, you have ignored your own decisions concerning design and have no idea what it is like to livenorth of the train tracks with the traffic jams they create. I am in full agreement with the document submitted by Marcia Kaveny October 30, 2023. I have attached it to this email. Do your jobs! Protect Bozeman. We are not in the downtown city center where this type ofhousing makes sense. It's not too late to reevaluate this project. Very truly yours, Gail Gettler ___________________________________ Gail Gettler Friends of Kafika House - President Formerly Friends of The Plaster House 1362 Pinnacle Star Street Bozeman 50715 +1 406-580-1618 Canyon Gate – Truman Flats- 23148, Site Plan Comments 10/29/23 Marcia Kaveney Dear Ms. Bentley and Ms. Montana- Given that Canyon Gate’s applicant was not required to follow the general design standard of 38.410.010. B. Natural Environment, it is impossible for Truman Flats to comply with some of the criteria in the required Site Plan criteria of SecEon 38.230.100. However, some of the remaining criteria, if strictly addressed by city staff, offer a path to improve the non-compliance of the Truman Flats site plan and help it become better integrated into its surrounding neighborhood while making up for some of HomeBase’s poorly aligned principals. (Basic Planning Precepts, pg.20, Bozeman growth policy.) My comments on specific review criteria per 38.230.100. follow (in bold): 38.230.100. A.1. Conformance to and consistency with the growth policy: The Bozeman Growth Policy includes goals for striking the balance between preserving habitat, current neighborhoods, and new housing (pgs. 20,43,50, etc.). Truman Flats only meets the goal of new housing. It fails miserably regarding working with the natural landscape and preservaEon of habitat, in parEcular bird habitat, by the brutal removal of all its 150 mature trees. It doesn’t begin to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The site elevaEons describe two buildings that are classic examples of “anywhere USA”- something to be avoided according to the growth policy (page 50). It could be a dormitory at any mid-level college. It neither reflects the former agrarian use of the land it sits on, nor the mountains beyond. Furthermore, without added awnings, the buildings, by design, will require more energy to heat and cool. Lastly, it is beyond insulEng to any intelligent person that knows the background of Canyon Gate to read in HomeBase’ Project NarraEve (002) that their Design Intent is the following, “Architecturally, the goal is to enhance the natural, mountainous feel of the site while being mindful of the wooded surroundings and picturesque se^ng.” A_er their heartless destrucEon of bulldozing every single tree on the property during nesEng season, there are no “wooded surroundings” le_. They singlehandedly destroyed their own “picturesque se^ng”. Who do they think they are kidding? They are certainly not fooling me, and they shouldn’t be fooling city staff either. However, I remain an opEmist and I believe that some of this poor design and destrucEve behavior could be remedied by city staff if they take proacEve measures for the following site plan review criteria (in bold): 38.230.100. A.7.a. CompaDbility with, and sensiDvity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods, and other approved development relaDve to architectural design, building mass, neighborhood idenDty, landscaping, historical character, orientaDon of buildings on site and visual integraDon; 2 The roofline has inadequate “varying roofline expressions” and does not do enough to “break up the building and bring it down to a residenEal scale and feel” as described in the project narraEve (Doc.002). These buildings will appear as large flat-topped blocks both from a distance and up close and they reflect neither a mountain style nor a farmhouse style- the two most prominent architectural styles in this area. The surrounding area has highly varied rooflines, and a variety of heights from single to double stories. The blocky four-story Truman Flats will feel imposing and unfriendly when compared to the nearby lower structures and will block resident and pedestrian views of the mountains- which contributes to the sense of place on this north side of Bozeman. While I appreciate the slight variaEon in wall configuraEon and it is helpful for breaking up the long wall, it is simply not enough. My eyes are drawn to the 5-foot tall “parapet”. Perhaps it is a railing for a roo_op deck. However, the resulEng 5-foot-tall gabled roof is inadequate for breaking up the roofline. Removing the parapet to expose the full height of the gables will provide beder roofline variability and will serve to complement the surrounding neighborhoods and mountain backdrop. AddiEonally, on each end of the two buildings, requiring step-backs of at least 10 feet would help offset the plain estheEc of the buildings, mimic the mountains somewhat, and help the buildings fit into the surrounding neighborhood while providing beder circulaEon of light and air. Even beder would be to break up the two large buildings into 4 separate buildings with similar suggesEons to design changes as above and it would greatly improve neighborhood compaEbility and circulaEon of air and light. The fact that this might diminish the total number of units in these buildings is irrelevant since HomeBase has apparently added 20 units to their overall plan according to their Trip Comparison Leder (015) and will be market rate units, not affordable units. The applicant also referenced some white accents to be reminiscent of the snow-covered mountains in their Project NarraEve. I think we can all agree, this is a stretch. What about green or gold accents for the seasons without snow? Or barn red like the nearby barn? The exterior elevaEons show lidle to no white. I see light gray, dark gray, and brown- nothing to get too excited about. They can and should do beder. (See Plan 129 A3.01 Exterior ElevaEons, Page 1 of 1., Document 002. Project NarraEve, Page 1., and Plan 124 A0.10 Architectural Site Plan) 38.230.100. A.7.d. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space and pedestrian areas, and the preservaDon or replacement of natural vegetaDon; The applicant plans to plant 102 trees on the enEre Canyon Gate property according to their preliminary plat presentaEon. However, on the Truman Flats site alone, HomeBase removed over 111 mature, naEve Codonwood trees, which had a much larger canopy cover than 102 saplings will ever provide, and given the low success rate of new trees (i.e.50 % in nearby 3 Legends City Park), the city staff should require the applicant to plant more trees than they removed on the specific site and more naEve trees than not naEve to replace some of the lost bird habitat. To comply with this criterion, the applicant should be required to increase the number of tree planEngs to 150 in the Truman Flats site, the majority of which should be naEve codonwoods to replace the type and size of canopy that they removed. Codonwoods are used as boulevard trees in other towns such as Choteau and Malta with great success. They do not spread like aspens but grow quickly and will provide much needed shade and ecological benefits to humans and wildlife alike. *Please also advise the applicant to remove all fruit trees to discourage bear conflict and replace with naEve trees such as willow, codonwood, or aspen. (See Plan 110 L300 Tree Plan.) *Regarding bear acEvity- Truman Flats sits in the middle of an acEve bear corridor. Their trash faciliEes appear to have open sides large enough for a bear to enter. These enclosures need to be fully enclosed and have bear proof doors. 38.230.100.A.8. Conformance with environmental and open space objecDves set forth in arDcles 4-6, including: a. the enhancement of the natural environment (e.g., through low impact development stormwater features or removal of inappropriate fill material); b. Watercourse and wetland protecDons and associated wildlife habitats; and Unfortunately, the first two of these three criteria cannot be met since Design Standard 38.410.010. B. was not applied during the Preliminary Plat process. Had it been applied, low impact stormwater features would be possible, as well as protecEon of habitat since the habitat and stormwater features were in the same locaEon. c. if the development is adjacent to an exisDng or approved public park or public open space area, have provisions been made in the plan to avoid interfering with public access to and use of that area; However, the last criteria, A.8.c. can be applied to an ongoing exisEng problem with the Truman Flats/Canyon Gate Park Plan. *Require the addiEon of a 3-foot naEve grass buffer to east edge sidewalk along Block 3 Lot 1. This sidewalk will be plowed in the winter and the applicant has not le_ enough room for snow removal and storage. All sidewalks in this neighborhood have an allowance of a few feet on either side of a sidewalk to accommodate snow. Certainly, there is an enforceable code about property line encroachment. If this encroachment is allowed to proceed, it will very likely damage the integrity of the Legends II engineered retenEon pond. Fixing this seemingly small detail will go a long way towards avoiding a likely problem while helping to build a more posiEve 4 relaEonship between neighbors. If the design is not improved, it may create the necessity for Legends II to fence their property in this locaEon to protect their storm water retenEon area. (See Plan 023 Park Master Plan) (The lack of snow storage along this sidewalk also shows a lack of considera4on for the Legends II neighborhood storm water reten4on pond and therefore is also not compa4ble with 38.230.100 A.7.a.) Relevant history: I first made this request to planner Montana over a year ago and requested it again during the Preliminary Plat public comment period. It is Eme to act and fix this error in design. The Canyon Gate linear trail ends abruptly and awkwardly at the western edge of the Legends II stormwater retenEon pond which is NOT A PARK. It is a private open space with steep sides. The CG sidewalk then splits and turns both north and south at this juncture. The drawings show the sidewalk on the very edge of the property line adjacent to Legends II HOA. Furthermore, there have been references made to a public right of way for a trail in that same area. That right of way was for Legends II and is now obsolete because that is precisely where the steep sided retenEon pond sits which was engineered specifically for Legends II stormwater retenEon and approved by the City.