HomeMy WebLinkAboutMark CampanelliCAUTION: 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.
Greetings,
I was looking through the NCOD section on multifamily housing <https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8932/638585601132630000> and read the following (Chapter 3 Section
E):
The underlying goal of the guidelines in this section in regards to multi-house-hold construction is that, to the greatest extent feasible, the buildings should be compatible with the
context of the neighborhood. Historic structures associated with the multi-household projects should be retained when feasible.
followed by these guidelines to achieve the City's stated policy:
1. Retaining an existing single household building that contributes to the established character of the neighborhood in a multi-household project is encouraged.
2. Minimize the perceived scale of a multi-household building.
3. Use traditional features that will convey a human scale.
4. A new multi-household building should be within the range of heights seen traditionally in the neighborhood.
5. A primary building face should not exceed the width of a typical single household building in a similar context (see illustrations).
6. The proportions of window and door openings should be similar to
those used traditionally in the neighborhood.
7. Brick, stone and painted wood are preferred primary building materials.
8. Orient a primary entrance to the street, when feasible.
9. Provide some useful, functional common open space that can be enjoyed by all residents in the development.
10. Minimize the visual impacts of multi-household garages.
11. Design a surface lot with landscaping.
Consider the proposed building, The Depot on Church <https://bozemanrealestate.group/blog/depot-on-church> (scale drawing below). Given the above NCOD policy, I find it entirely laughable
that the City is not setting expectations with developers around such development in the NCOD. How could any reasonable individual/entity find that this building is in compliance? The
City continues to massively screw this up, causing needless despondency among our neighbors and seemingly endless conflict with neighborhoods.
I am long out of patience with the City's flagrant disregard of established City policy, which is unevenly applied between what appears time and again to be profit-above-all-else development
interests and single-family homeowners, few-unit landlords, and more historically-minded ventures like this parcel's adjoining Vintage Estate <https://www.facebook.com/vhbozeman/> .
Clearly the City's priority is to try to pad its coffers with luxury-development tax money from Kardashian condos with 90-foot high private views of the Bridger Mountains. It may be
impossible to stem the gentrification and unaffordability, but at least the City could stop welcoming it with open arms all while inviting our neighborhoods to look like some sort of
Frankenstein monster.
Just ridiculous. Do better.
Mark Campanelli
Bogert Park Neighbor
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/markcampanelli/>