HomeMy WebLinkAbout18240 Rainbow Creek ANNX Public Comment 082018 1 � !
_ I
LJ r
1-
1 _p
� ( J
'!1
vi.
f
C
O f
N q'
a�
N
O
m
Q C7
U 3
U Z rn
u_
U
I"� If�.y:_+�:1 t(>,l��:ll tn3�ta71711�.fa411C}I uj rncn
LLI m
3
W �
� N
OD
U11
E
ll �
+ (D
� a
0 a)
R
C 2
Cca Q
C �
1]
(lC L:
J C) O.
CL
O [J1 �
E
`n S
I
M (1) U
CID
(Q
/�
l .. (f ( Q_
4� car
L
c
r
H O
N !n
N a
r v
� r
August 17, 2018 �� _,�
D � !�_�� �
City of Bozeman Zoning
AUG 2 p
121 North Rouse ZQ'8
Bozeman, MT 59715 COM DE AR E�E ENT OF
� LOP 1
Re: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zoning MEIV
To: Bozeman Zoning Commission
My husband and I, along with our two school-aged children live in Baxter Meadows
West neighborhood at 4261 Equestrian Lane.
This is a letter to protest against the Rainbow Creek Zoning Map Annexation request
to zone the property located at 4555 Baxter Lane to an R-5. This parcel is located
across from the near-completed sports park and further surrounded by all R-1
zoning. High-density housing can be found much further east in our neighborhood.
R-5 zoning in this parcel will stick out like a sore thumb. How ridiculous will it look
to have an R-5 island surrounded by all R-1?
As a homeowner and resident of our home on Equestrian Lane since 2012 1 am
asking the commission to NOT APPROVE this proposed annexation as it will not fit
in with the surrounding homes and detract from our neighborhood. Immediately
next to and surrounded by R-1 housing is not a place for a R-5 dwelling with the
potential for commercial use high-density housing.
I ask of the commission to please consider the viewpoints of the current residents.
And for those commissioners who live in single-family homes on R-1 lots, Would you
be concerned if a R-5 development went up next to you? It is always easy to have
someone else's neighborhood be the brunt of high-density developments,but
consider how much you would be concerned if it were going in next to your home, in
your neighborhood.
Should this unconnected high density development be approved by the commission,
this would be the very definition of"Spot Zoning." R-5 is ONLY appropriate for
areas adjacent to mixed districts and/or served by transit. This parcel is neither.
We request the application for R-5 zoning is denied.
Sincerely
David &Lora Crites
4261 Equestrian Lane
Bozeman, MT 59718
ocalt�,,
re&e•
ed
August 14, 2018
Bozeman City Clerk
121 N. Rouse Ave
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment for the property located at 4555 Baxter Lane
which is legally described as Book 148, Page 207, S34, T01 S, R05 E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin
County, Montana.
To: The Bozeman Zoning Commission and the Bozeman City Commission
Please accept this Letter of Protest to the Initial Zone Map Amendment to zone the property located at 4555
Baxter Lane, Bozeman, MT, 59718, legally described as Book 148, Page 207, S34, T01 S, R05 E, P.M.M., City
of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and hereinafter referred to as"Subject Property", to R-5"Residential
Mixed Use High Density District'.
My wife and I (Kaitlin & Garrett Drake) own the property at 4582 Danube Ln, Bozeman, MT 59718, legally
described as Baxter Meadows Sub Ph 3A, S34, T01 S, R05 E, Block 15, Lot 8, Acres 0.345, PLAT J-448 Plus
Open Space. Our property is located approximately 50 feet north of the Subject Property as shown in Figure 1
below. The Baxter Meadows West Subdivision is located in the northwest corner of Bozeman and defines the
northwest portion of the City Limits.
MEL
Drake Residence
Current City Limits 4582 Danube Ln
I �
- _ ` Subject Property
Figure 1: Proximity of Drake Residence to Subject Property
The Subject Property is contiguous to the City of Bozeman on the north, east, and south side and there is a
single family home on county property to the west. The property to the north and east is zoned R-1
"Residential Single-Household Low Density". The property to the south, which is separated by Baxter Lane, is
the future Bozeman Sports Park and High School. Based upon the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman
Community Plan (Growth Policy) as shown in Figure 2 below, which designates the Subject Property as
Residential, we believe the most fitting zoning for the Subject Property is R-1 "Residential Single-Household
Low Density"which is in conformance with the Growth Policy, current development pattern of the area, and the
established sense of place of the area.
The "Core" of Baxter Meadows, was designed '
to incorporate Community Commercial Mixed �;
Use and Residential Emphasis Mixed UseAkl N ROAD
Il
' •r•r•�■r•r�r■J
1.1IIItl'.RNN'l( I%J. S 1'
�,11, X,V F R I
' � riir�rt■�t•asss•�.- --- - -�-----� - .� "�'' I:aas
■ I J4 1,0 .�1 8 _�C, nmunlry Plan BourrJery.
F'
If Currerd City Linr;s
■
■ Community Plan Future Land Use
1 Rezidnnhal
• Residenlial Emphas;`.11Ked U=-e
■
' OULUrL3n R&• idei!1.V
■
Regs
Subject Property - Approving a e,_:ni»munll>•core
Cu n a;awl
ncnn
R-5 zoning would create an island
■ Cc�nmunily Cu!wuurd.0 LL.c:1 Us❑
of High Density Mixed Use inside ' Bus !a::P,14,Mead Uso
a quite residential neighborhood MIL . A
NMI,In'AtWimir,
■ � P.n Li,Open SpiaY,:vid Rctr c;rliou.d L.uvJs
R�� �• •�.■�■�_ `1 1. ti l OU:er Pul')hc 1:e!d:
' . ( i ■ Coll Ccurse
i■ ��r •
1 l j ' F'reselll Rural
Figure 2: Bozefnan Conmi unity Plain Rupert - Future Lend Use Mali
To zone the Subject Property R-5 "Residential Mixed Use High Density"would be to error in a number of ways.
Section 3.4 of the Bozeman Community Plan states,
"...High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers
to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring
the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide
for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers..."
The closest commercial centers to the Subject Property, which would align with the Bozeman Community Plan,
are located along N. 19th Ave and are over a mile and a half away. This distance would not be conducive to
facilitate the provision of services or employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an
automobile as outlined in the Bozeman Community Plan . The closest option for public transportation is also
over a mile from the Subject Property, as shown in Figure 3 below. The Bozeman Unified Development Code
(UDC), updated on March 31, 2018, states,
"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"
when referring to R-5 "Residential Mixed Use High Density"zoning. The location of the Subject Property does
not meet either of these criteria and should not be considered a suitable zoning designation for this property.
1.9 miles(approx.at •
minute walk
YELLOWL E '
b, 1.5 miles(approx.30 Elm 1
minute walk) j F�-^
It
Jil
man ` .. ...�• 47 M� L i t •1 E t 1� _
o E
OI N«II OV�ENW EOS • EOMLIOH 8 ONIIMONS f
S0TOP STOE
OILOELLNE REOLWE
OOVI`IIOfVN r..tuSn.vO '" - YELLOWUNE ONEEHLWE
N.I cuLANH W[NI +y —
,..t1{1,YLL OIUHO[NIIE
Figure 3; Nearest public transit stops (Streamline busy
The R-5 "Residential Mixed Use High Density"zoning is appropriate for areas of Bozeman like along N. 7th
Ave where urban-style building projects are part of a revitalization effort. The majority of R-5 zoning in
Bozeman is contiguous to B-2M "Community Business-Mixed" and is more in conformance with the land use.
In fact, there are no R-5 zoning areas which are greater than a half mile from major business areas and none
that are contiguous to a R-1 which are not separated by a major or arterial Bozeman roadway.
The traffic associated with the future Bozeman Sports Park, which has a 140 stall parking lot directly across
Baxter Lane from the Subject Property, and increased residential traffic coming from the Subject Property is of
great concern. The Baxter Meadows West Subdivision has a high percentage of families with children ranging
from newborns to young adults attending high school. The Bozeman Sports Park Master Plan shows Baxter
Lane as having arguably less traffic control, allowing eastbound or westbound traffic while exiting the park,
than the unconstructed extensions of Cottonwood Road or Oak Street which appear to have a median to
control traffic more efficiently. Because of this lack of physical traffic control on Baxter Lane, increased
eastbound and westbound traffic from the subject property is expected. Directly east and contiguous to the
Subject Property is a walking path for Baxter Meadows West which would expect to see a significant amount of
pedestrian traffic crossing Baxter to utilized the Bozeman Sports Park and the future high school. To zone the
Subject Property anything more dense than R-1 'Residential Single-Household Low Density", and thus
creating more daily vehicle traffic on Baxter Lane, would cause unnecessary risk to those utilizing the park or
commuting to the high school during already busy vehicle commute times.
The Baxter Meadows West Subdivision, which is contiguous to the Subject Property on the north and east
sides, has been classified by the city to allow for Type-1 only Short Term Rentals (STR). Per the UDC a
Type-i STR is, 'A shod tern►� rental Of Gi1e ir►770re bedrOOi17S ii'Z an OwnE'i Occupied dwelling While the Owneri3
occupying the same dwelling unit for the entire rental period." The UDC states,
"The purpose of this article is to provide for the regulation of short term rentals in certain zoning
districts within the city in order to preserve neighborhood character while encouraging economic
activity and diversity, and to promote public health, safety, and welfare."
To zone the subject property anything other than R-1 "Residential Single-Household Low Density" and have it
classified as anything other than a Type-1 only STR would effectively degrade the neighborhood character of
the established Baxter Meadows West Subdivision. In reviewing the STR map for the City of Bozeman there
does not appear to be any Type-1 only STR classifications where the zoning is R-1 and a small land section,
like the Subject Property, has been allowed. Again, to zone the subject property anything other than R-1 and
have it classified as anything other than a Type-1 only STR would be in conflict with the existing planning
throughout the City of Bozeman.
Furthermore, when the Baxter Meadows subdivision was initially planned and approved, it was done so with
the stragic development that encorporates multiple zoning types as is encouraged by the Bozeman Community
Plan. The subdivision was designed around the concept that there would be a business "Core" surrounded by
residential housing that transitions from High-to-Low Density has you expand outward from the Community
Business Core area, as can be see in Figure 4 below. The nature of the Subject Property, being only 2.29
acres and adjacent to the Baxter Meadows West neighborhood and open space, must be required to fit into the
overall spirit of the neighborhood. In order preserve the character of the neighborhood and limit things such as
allowable land uses, building height, and land densities, an R-1 designation is the only acceptable zoning for
the Subject Property.
J
a
tt Bisel
Low Density }
R-4
:1
Community Business
B-2
is
x
Subject Property High Density
bu iI n.al
sn�a► � ' i 1
IL
=ate
I L+ i li lac
Figure 4; Existing Neighborhood Zoning
We chose to build a house and raise children in the Baxter Meadows West Subdivision because of the
established R-1 "Residential Single-Household Low Density"zoning which directly lends itself to the quality
and residential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is filled with families who care about the
property they own and those around them.
Based on this application for Annexation and Initial zoning, it would appear that the driving force behind a
request for R-5 zoning is not to own own a premier piece of land within the City of Bozeman, but rather to
capitalize on developing revenue generating real estate. That mentality is in direct opposition to the majority of
residents in Baxter Meadows who have chosen to live in the suburbs with like minded neighbors. We
personally believe that annexation should be reserved for large parcels of land and not be done on a lot by lot
basis, allowing a proper development plan and appropriate zoning to be instituted. However, if and when small
parcels of land are annexed into the City they should be required to comply with the zoning of the adjoining
properties.
We respectfully request that the Zoning Commission and the Bozeman City Commission deny the Rainbow
Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment for the property located at 4555 Baxter Lane, as R-5
"Residential Mixed Use High Density" and consider zoning it as R-1 "Residential Single-Household Low
Density" if it is to be annexed into the City of Bozeman. We strongly feel that this is the only way to respect the
residential character and quality of the Baxter Meadows subdivision and ensure the area is in congruence with
Bozeman's Unified Development Code.
Sincerely,
Garr tt Drake Ka*-Dna�e
Owner-4582 Danube Ln Owner-4582 Danube Ln
FROM THE HOME
SUMMERFIELD
August 15,2018 AU6 15
City of Bozeman Zoning COMMUNITY�U EVELOPMENT
Attention: Danielle Graber
121 North Rouse
Bozeman, MT 59715
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zoning
TO: Bozeman Zoning Commission
My wife and I, along with our two children live at 4525 Draft Horse Dr, Baxter
Meadows SUB PH 3A,S34,T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 16, Lot 1.
This is a letter of protest against the Rainbow Creek Zoning Map Annexation request
to zone the property located at 4555 Baxter Lane, Bozeman, MTto R-5. We live within
200ft of this property and received a notice as to the change of zoning.
Annexation of this land into the City of Bozeman is an appropriate step for this parcel,
however we have major reservations regarding it's R-5 zoning because it is
surrounded by R-1 zoning and does not align with the city's Community Plan under
Land Use Principles.
The Baxter Meadows community has been building out 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(see attached map).
Within the PUD there is R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-S and B-2 zoning. We firmly support this
type of planned approach and have lived in two different homes in the Baxter
Meadows community since 2003, having designed and build our dream house here
on Draft Horse Drive in 2016.
One of the marks of a thriving and functional community is our ability to support each
other. Our neighborhood's response bears witness to this strength. What follows
below is a very strong case against the proposed zoning as written by our concerned
neighbors Edward and Barklay Hook at 4634 Danube,and we agree with them 100%.
4525 DRAFT HORSE DR. BOZEMAN MONTANA (406) 585-9815
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
Sports complex,there is R-O 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/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 DRC 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: "...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
hia_h 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.
It is our opinion that the zoning request change would be a significant detriment to
our community and neighborhood. The changes we fear are actually well supported
by the zoning and planning guidelines. We request the application for R-5 zoning be
denied.
Sincerely,
Leif Summerfield - Melissa Summerfield - Avery Summerfield - Ethan Summerfield
4525 Draft Horse Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
BAXTER MEADOWS SUB PH 3A,534,T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 16, Lot 1
celve
August 17, 2018
Bozeman City Clerk
121 N. Rouse Ave
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zoning 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. My
wife and I live at 4510 Drafthorse Drive, Bozeman, MT, 59718.
Legal Description: Baxter Meadows Sub PH 3A, S34, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 15, Lot 12,
ACRES 0.336, PLAT J-44B PLUS OPEN SPACE.
We have no problem with annexation of this property into the City. In fact, we are
supportive of annexation. We do question the need to zone at R-5 given the following
criteria and current understanding of the Planned United Development (PUD) in
Bozeman.
The Baxter Meadows community has been building out 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 (see attached map). 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 Sports complex, there
is R-O zoning, as well as R-3 and R-4. It is my 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, and 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 the inclusion of"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/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 DRC 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:
"...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 with, 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 Bozeman Community Plan (2009) precedes the creation of
the R-5 zoning district (2016). The alignment of the two has not yet been fully realized in
our opinion. The Bozeman Community Plan addresses growth on a large scale, while
this zoning change request is small scale and does not align with nor further the goals
and principles of the Bozeman Community Plan.
The above reasons, plus the additional traffic associated with the future Bozeman Sports
Park, which has a 140-stall parking lot directly across Baxter Lane from the Subject
Property, and increased residential traffic coming from the Subject Property if zoned R5
is of great concern.
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 if zoned R5 is expected.
To zone the Subject Property anything higher than R1 or R2 would be in our opinion a
mistake.
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 should therefore be denied.
Sincerely,
Leonard E. Keown Donna J. Keown,
4510 Drafthorse Drive
Bozeman, MT, 59718
Baxter Meadows Sub PH 3A, 534, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 15, Lot 12, ACRES 0.336,
PLAT J-44B PLUS OPEN SPACE.
a1212018 City of 9ozemen Zoning
, 4
„IL
ry
r. ,` .-.�1
_ C.IVIt�In
.- {'l.l jl_i�!ic.,n•,:.i�.hrt!:_t:?'a.r! ,
Bozeman OIS,Bureau of Land Management.Earl Canada,Ead,HERE,Caaimin,INCR...
Address Search
Io1pJMzenlan.mepa.elcgis.cwnleppWwa6appvlewerindex•htm171d=801R08Ba09134aYB9hea09cA4939e903 117
rT-nAYN
Date: August 16, 2018 f
To: Bozeman Zoning and Planning CC::, (lW I E
D. Garber R
I ID
AUG 16 2818
From: Annmarie Zimmerman GEPANifML__N OF
Jed B. Zimmerman COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Home Owners
4610 Equestrain Lane
Bozeman 59718
Baxter Meadows Subdivision Phase 3A
BLK 13 LOT 2 Parcel No. RFG56906
Subject: Opposition to Rezoning of Rainbow Creek Annex Parcel, App. 18-240
4555 Baxter Lane, Book 148, pg. 207, 534, T01, S, E, P.M.M.
to R5, "Residential mixed use- high density"
We are property owners in Baxter Meadows West, living close to the parcel that is up for
rezoning to R5. Our homes are zoned R1. Most owners here paid between $400K-$680K for
their homes. A new soccer stadium is going in across the street from us on Baxter Lane and
Flanders Mill Road, which will add greatly to the noise, light, traffic and density. Rezoning of the
above parcel to R5 will make it far worse.
We are against the rezoning of this parcel because of
-Increase in traffic that is already dense and congested to the point of being unsafe, especially
at Andalusian and Baxter. The soccer stadium will add to the hazards that already exist and the
mixed use high density buildings will make it worse.
-Increase in noise that will ruin the quiet, especially at night, in our currently peaceful
neighborhood. The soccer stadium will generate much noise and adding a commercial building
with stores and restaurants will make it worse.
-Increase in bright ambient lighting from the stadium and now the R5 business/multiple
dwelling parcel will add more bright lights.
-Rezoning to R5 adjacent to our R1 community will seriously devalue our properties. We pay
high RE taxes and would like to keep our property values high.
Our neighborhood is already compromised by the proximity of the soccer stadium. We can do
nothing about that. Please do not make it worse by rezoning this Baxter Rd. parcel to R5. We do
not want to see our property values go down.
Th an k you.Aaw*4we g4no auorax, Pd 9. g4nmeum"
Danielle Garber
From: annmarie zimmerman <silver_city_bear@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:16 PM
To: Danielle Garber
Subject: Rezoning App 18-240 for Rainbow Creek Parcel at 4555 Baxter Lane
Attachments: R5 Rezoning of Rainbow Creek Annex.doc
Please submit our letter attached for objection to the above app for R5 zoning in our R1 neighborhood.
Thank you,
Annmarie Zimmerman
1
August 17, 2018 ('� C �I _j r�/
AUG 17 2018
Bozeman City Clerk DEP T3AI MENT OF
PO Box 1230 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zoning
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 live at 4659 Danube
Lane, Baxter Meadows Sub PH 3A, S34, TO1 S, R05 E, BLOCK 15, Lot 2, Bozeman, MT.
59718.
We would like the city to deny 4555 Baxter Lane to be annexed in as zone R-5. We chose to live
where we do because of the bit of space and peace we have surrounding us. We specifically
chose not to live in a high density area because of the commotion that stems from it. When we
leave the downtown and surrounding areas and drive down Baxter Lane toward home,there is a
pronounced feeling of calm in our area of town. At the moment it feels like an organized and
well thought out zoning.
The introduction of a"spot" of R-5 zone in our R-1 neighborhood is like a shock to the feel of
our planned community and the surrounding area. Such an approval would affect the current
residents of the area greatly. We ask that you please deny the approval of this zoning request in
order to affirm and respect the value of the community where we reside.
Sincerely,
�\,.r,— �) cam_
Jeffrey Nohava Rebecca Nohava
LVQV%-, '
August 17, 2018
� �121Bozeman City Clerk F-Q-OMMUNITY
N. Rouse Ave [ uPO Box 1230 ��G 17 ZQ��
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
DEPAI 1RM VIE T OF
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zoning DEVELOPMENT
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 have no problem with, and are supportive of,the annexation of this property into the City. However,we do
question the need to zone at R-5.
The Baxter Meadows community has been building out 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 Sports complex,there is R-0 zoning, as well as R-3 and R-4. It is my 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/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 DRC 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:
"...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 chose to buy a home and raise our child in the Baxter Meadows West Subdivision because of the established R1-
Residential Single-Household Low Density zoning which directly lends itself to the quality and residential character of the
neighborhood. The neighborhood is filled with families who care about the property they own and those around them.
Zoning the Subject Property R-1 is the only way to respect the residential character and quality of the area in
congruence with Bozeman's UDC.
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.
Sincerely,
Joshua Lu h� Anne Luchetti �
21S3 Andalusian Ave.
Bozeman, MT,59718
Baxter Meadows Sub Ph3A,S34,T01 S, R05 E, Block 17, Lot 1
rf-Z,
August 16, 2018
Bozeman City Clerk AUG 17 2018
121 North Rouse Ave DEPARTMENT OF
PO Box 1230 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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 proposed Rainbow Creek Annexation and
Zone Map Amendment (File 18-240). The subject property, an approximately 2.29-acre lot
located at 4555 Baxter Lane, Bozeman, MT, is proposed to be annexed into the City of
Bozeman and zoned as R-5 (Residential Mixed Use High Density).
We are owners of and reside at real property within 150 feet of the area affected by the
proposal. Our names are Gregory M. Kujawa and Margaret A. Kemner(spouse). Our property is
located at 4532 Drafthorse Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718. The legal description is:
BAXTER MEADOWS SUB PH 3A, S34, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 15, Lot 9, ACRES 0.286,
PLAT J-448 PLUS OPEN SPACE
We are supportive of annexation of this property into the City. However, we do question the
need to zone this as R-5.
The Baxter Meadows community has been building out for over a decade using a planned and
measured approach. It is one of, if not the first, Planned Unit Developments (PUD) in Bozeman.
When one looks at the Baxter Meadows planned community, one finds density increasing as
one moves east (see attached map). Within the PUD there is R-1, R-S, R-3, R-4, and B-2
zoning.
South and east of the applicant property, the new Flanders Mill development is zoned R-3 and
R-4. Developments further east are zoned R-3. To the south of the Sports complex, there is R-O
zoning, as well as R-3 and R-4. We firmly believe the Baxter Meadows community and
surrounding developments have already adopted, in spirit and in deed, the tenets of the
Bozeman Community Plan (growth policy).
Two tenets relevant to this proposal are stated in the Bozeman Community Plan, Chapter 2,
Introduction, and 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.
• Affirms Bozeman's commitment to responsible stewardship of the natural
environment, excellences of environmental design and conservation of heritage of
the built environment
Additionally, Section 2.3 Why Do We Need a Plan? lists benefits of the planning process, one of
which is to help:
• Promote the interest of the community at large, while respecting and protecting
the interests of individuals or special interest groups within the community.
We believe these guiding principles of the Community Plan are already being met but that
insertion of (or"spot" zoning) R-5 in the middle of the R-1 section of a planned community
moves us away from the spirit and principles outlined in the Community 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 Annexation and R-5 zoning 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/anonymity of the applicant's 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. However, we also ask for respect of the larger
community plan and the context of the existing development. R-5 zoning in this location 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 one-half mile radius, to facilitate the 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 meets Objective LU-2.1.
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 Bozeman UDC (Unified Development Code) Update, Part 2, Zoning District Intent &
Purpose Statements, Section 38.300.100, F and the DRC Notes Rainbow Creek Annexation
document posted on the City's website both state:
• Use of this zone [R-5] 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 a mixed-use district 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:
"...walkable area to serve the varying needs of the community's residents."
The full sentence in the UDC 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 believe the proposed "spot" zoning meets this intent.
The applicant cites a sentence in the Bozeman Community Plan Section 3.4, Land Use
Category Descriptions-Residential:
"Large areas of single type housing are discouraged."
However, that section of the Community Plan also 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 believe the proposed R-5 zoning is incompatible with the adjacent development and is not
complementary to the overall goals of the Bozeman 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 Bozeman Community Plan (2009) precedes the creation of the R-5
zoning district (2016). The alignment of the two has not yet been fully realized in our opinion.
The Bozeman Community Plan addresses growth on a large scale, while this zoning change
request is small scale and does not align with, nor further the goals and principles of, the
Bozeman Community Plan.
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 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.
To zone the subject property anything different than R-1 or R-2 would be a mistake. We believe
the zoning request is inconsistent with the Bozeman Community Plan and UDC Update and that
an R-5 designation would degrade the adjacent neighborhood, Baxter Meadows community,
and the Bozeman community at large. Therefore, we strongly urge the application for R-5
zoning be denied.
Sincerely,
JA
Gregory M. Kujawa ar�jc ret A. Kem r
4532 Drafthorse Drive
Bozeman, MT, 59718
BAXTER MEADOWS SUB PH 3A, S34, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 15, Lot 9, ACRES 0.286, PLAT
J-448 PLUS OPEN SPACE
(hat*�.nr
0
AmA
August 11, 2018
Bozeman City Clerk
121 N. Rouse Ave
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
AUG 17 2010
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zoning DEPARTMENT OF
TO: Bozeman Zoning Commission COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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 have no problem with annexation of this property into the City. In fact, we are supportive
of annexation. We do question the need to zone at R-5.
The Baxter Meadows community has been building out 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 (see attached map). 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 Sports complex, there is R-0
zoning, as well as R-3 and R-4. It is my 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/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 DRC 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 io their Criteria
Narrative is found. The applicant notes:
"...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.
Sincerely,
Mark Momberg Lisa Mombe�r��
g
4615 Equestrian Ln
Bozeman, MT 59718
Baxter Meadows SUB PH 3A, 534, T01, R05E, BLOCK 12, Lot 9, ACRES 0.209, PLATJ-448 PLUS
OPEN SPACE
&4�
ce
August 11, 2018
Bozeman City Clerk
121 N. Rouse Ave
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zoning
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. My wife and I live at 4626 Equestrian
Lane, Baxter Meadows Sub PH 3A, S34,T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 13, Lot 1, Bozeman, MT.59718
We have no problem with annexation of this property into the City. In fact,we are supportive of
annexation. We do question the need to zone at R-5.
The Baxter Meadows community has been building out 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(see
attached map).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 Sports complex,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/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 DRC notes state:
"Use of this zone(11-5)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:
"...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.
Sincerely,
Jeff R. Bader Donna Bader
4626 Equestrian Lane
Bozeman,Mt 59718
BAXTER MEADOWS SUB PH 3A, 534,T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 13, Lot 1
D ECIL
August 17,2018 - -
Bozeman City Clerk AUG 17 2010
121 N. Rouse Ave DEPARI'MENT OF
PO Box 1230 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zoning �FiL,;� 1� — 24 o
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 have no problem with annexation of this property into the City. In fact,we are supportive of annexation.
We do question the need to zone at R-5.
The Baxter Meadows community has been building out 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(see attached map).
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 Sports complex,there is R-O zoning, as well as R-3 and R-4. It is
my 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:
1
"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/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.
2
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 DRC 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:
"...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.
3
Sincerely,
Edward L.Hoo r.. Barclay G. o
4634 Danube Lane
Bozeman,MT.59718
Baxter Meadows Sub Ph 3a,S34,T01 S, R05 E, Block 15, Lot 5
M '
Kevin P McKenzie 7ennifer fCcKenzie
'✓
4651 Danube Ln
Bozeman, MT 59718-8095
Baxter Meadows Sub Ph 3a,S34,T01 S, R05 E, Block 15, Lot 3
Gene A. Mickoli
4579 Danube Ln
Bozeman, MT 59715
Baxter Meadows Sub Ph 3a,S34,T015, R05 E, Block 13, Lot 12
r
Michael D Bergevin Kathy R Bergevin
4559 Danube Ln
Bozeman, MT 59715
Baxter Meadows Sub Ph 3a,S34,T01 S, R05 E, Block 13, Lot 13
Chilton Robert Q
4627 Danube Ln
Bozeman, Mt 59772-3851
Baxter Meadows Sub Ph 3a,S34,T01 S, R05 E, Block 13, Lot 9
4