Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-18 Protest - W. & J. Darden - Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment August 20, 2018 Bozeman City Clerk 121 N. Rouse Ave PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment File 18-240 TO: Bozeman Zoning Commission Bozeman City Commission Please accept this letter of protest regarding the Rainbow Creek Zoning Map Annexation request to zone the property located at 4555 Baxter Lane, Bozeman, MT to R-5. We are the owners of and reside at the real property well within 150 feet of the area affected by the Rainbow Creek proposal. Our property is located at 4518 Drafthorse Drive, Baxter Meadows Sub PH 3A, S34, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 15, Lot 11, Bozeman, MT 59718. We have no objection with annexation of this property into the City. In fact, we are supportive of annexation. We question removal of the mature Spruce trees, retention the abandoned headgate, and the need for R-5 zoning. Spruce Tree Retention We oppose the removal of the four mature (45+ foot) Spruce trees located on the Southeast side of the subject property. These trees act as a natural windbreak and are a nesting habitat for Great horned owls, Swainson's and Red-tail hawks, and other birds that contribute to the control the rodent and insect population in Baxter Meadows subdivision and new Bozeman Sports Park. We believe that retaining these Spruce trees should be a condition of the site plan approval. Irrigation Headgate Removal We favor the removal of the abandoned ditch irrigation headgate located next to the subject property line and the Baxter Meadows trail at Geo 45.700303, -111.100789. We believe that this abandoned irrigation headgate will interfere with the expansion and alignment of future sidewalks and should be a condition of the site plan approval. ®1 Zoning We oppose the proposed R-5 Zoning of the subject property and favor R-1 Zoning for the following reasons. The Baxter Meadows community has been expanding for over a decade using a planned and measured approach. It is one of, if not the first, Planned United Developments (PUD) in Bozeman. When one looks at the Baxter Meadows planned community, one finds density increasing as one moves East. Within the PUD there is R- 1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-S and B-2 zoning. South and East of the applicant property, the new Flanders Mill development is zoned R-4. Developments further East are zoned R-3. To the South of the new Bozeman Sports Park, there is R-0 zoning, as well as R-3 and R-4. It is our opinion that the Baxter Meadows community and surrounding developments have already adopted, in spirit and in deed, the tenets of the Bozeman Community Plan. These tenets are stated in the Community Plan, Chapter 2, Introduction, Section 2.1 Guiding Principles: "Strives to achieve a fair and proper balance among conflicting interests, to protect the rights of citizens, and to affirm community values as they have been expressed by citizen's and throughout the planning process." And, "Affirms Bozeman's commitment to responsible stewardship of the natural environment, excellences of environmental design and conservation of heritage of the built environment." Additionally, stated in Section 2.3, Why Do We Need a Plan?: Promote the interest of the community at large, while respecting and protecting the interests of individuals or special interest groups within the community." It is our opinion that these guiding principles of the Community Plan are already being met and "spot" zoning R-5 in the middle of the R-1 section of a planned community moves away from the spirit and principles outlined in the plan. Chapter 3, Land Use, Section 3.2, Major Themes and Related Chapters, under Land Use Principles - Neighborhoods states: "There is strong public support for the preservation of existing neighborhoods and new development being part of a larger whole, rather than just anonymous subdivisions." It is our opinion that the proposed Rainbow Creek is more an anonymous subdivision than part of the larger whole. Further in Section 3.2, Land Use Principles— Centers, the following is discussed: "Centers are further supported through careful location of high density housing in a manner that provides support for commercial operations while providing amenities to residents." A list of benefits potentially derived from this type of use area is included in the section. They include: • Increased business synergy • Greater convenience for people with shorter travel distance to a wide range of businesses • The opportunity to accomplish several tasks with a single trip. • Facilitates the use of transportation alternatives to single occupant motor vehicles with a corresponding reduction in traffic and road congestion and air quality impacts • Enables greater access to employment, services, and recreation with reduced dependence on the automobile. • Greater efficiencies in delivery of public services • Corresponding cost savings in both personal and commercial applications In reviewing the above benefits, we do not see how they can be achieved considering the relative isolation or anonymity of the applicant property. In the same section, under Land Use Principles— Sustainability, one finds: "Development should be integrated into neighborhoods and the larger community rather than a series of unconnected stand-alone projects." We feel this development represents an unconnected stand-alone project that is not integrated into the neighborhood or larger community. Section 3.3, Land Use Goals and Objectives, Objective LU-1.4 states: "Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it." We support infill on the applicant property. We ask for respect of the larger community plan and the context of the existing development. R-5 zoning does not respect either. In the same section, Objective LU-2.1 states — "Locate high density community scale service centers on a one-mile radius and neighborhood service centers on a half mile radius, to facilitate efficient use of transportation and public services in providing employment, residential, and other essential uses." Given the fact that there is existing B-2 zoning within one half mile of the applicant property we fail to see how this R-5 "spot" zoning advances the cause. In the Criteria narrative provided by the applicant, they state that the requested R-5 zoning is aligned with the growth policy because the current zoning is residential, and the requested zoning is residential. R-1 does not equal R-5. In fact, the ®RC notes state: "Use of this zone (R-5) is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed use districts and/or served by transit." The above sentence is a truncated version of the following one found in the Bozeman UDC Update, Part 2, Zoning District Intent& Purpose Statement, Section 38.300.100, F: "Use of this zone is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed use districts and/or served by transit to accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs and services." The subject property is neither adjacent to mixed use nor served by transit. Additionally, we fail to see how increasing the density on such a small parcel places a significant number of people in close proximity to jobs and services. Also in Section 38.300.100, F., the partial sentence cited by the applicant in their Criteria Narrative is found. The applicant notes: 66...walkable area to serve the varying needs of the community's residents." The full sentence reads: "The intent of the R-5 residential mixed use high density district is to provide for high density residential development through a variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive commercial uses in a geographically compact, walkable area to serve the varying needs of the community's residents." We do not think the requested "spot" zoning realizes this intent. In Section 3.4, Land Use Category Descriptions-Residential one finds the sentence cited by the applicant: "Large areas of single type housing are discouraged." Further in that section it states: "All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development....and in a fashion that compliments the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy." We do not think the request is compatible nor complementary to the furtherance of the Community Plan (Growth Policy). These tenets are echoed in the Residential Emphasis Mixed Use section, which states: "All uses should complement existing and planned residential uses." It should be noted that the creation of the R-5 zoning district (2016) was preceded by the Bozeman Community Plan (2009) so alignment of the two has not yet been fully realized in our opinion. The Bozeman Community Plan addresses growth on a large scale. The zoning change request is small scale and does not align with nor further the goals and principles of the Bozeman Community Plan. In our opinion the zoning request benefits the applicant far more than it benefits the neighbors, the Baxter Meadows community and the Bozeman community at large. We request the application for R-5 zoning be denied. R-1 zoning is more in alignment with the tenets of the Bozeman Community Plan and community goals. If zoned R-5, the subject property is of great concern for the above reasons. Also, increased residential and business traffic coming from the subject property will add significantly to traffic congestion on Baxter Lane when combined with traffic associated with the new Bozeman Sports Park, which has access to a 140-stall parking lot directly across Baxter Lane from the subject property. The Bozeman Sports Park Master Plan shows Baxter Lane as having arguably less traffic control, allowing Eastbound or Westbound traffic while exiting the park. Because of this lack of physical traffic control on Baxter Lane, increased Eastbound and Westbound traffic from the subject property is expected, if zoned R-5. Sincerely, William E. Darden III Judith A. Darden 4518 Drafthorse Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 Baxter Meadows Sub PH 3A, S34, T01 S, R05 E, Block 15, Lot11