HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-21 Public Comment - T. Moltzan - Buffalo Run App. 21076From:Terry Moltzan
To:Agenda
Cc:Terry Moltzan
Subject:Opposition to the Buffalo Run ZMA
Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:02:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I want to thank the commission for taking the time to hear public comment on this zone map
amendment. I appreciate that this staff report is quite long and that there is a large amount of public
comment to consider. The staff report itself acknowledges that this proposal has more complexity
and scope of public comment than many applications of the same type.
The property in question did not get a recommendation from the Zoning Commission for Annexationas R5 in January on a 3 to 1 vote and did get approval on the current proposal with a 3 to 1 vote.George Thompson, the chairman of the commission, was opposed to the current proposal. Thesemixed votes show that it has not been clear that the burden of proof has been met, even with thisrevised proposal.
I acknowledge and appreciate that the developer has tried to compromise and get more community
involvement since the initial zoning commission meeting. There has been a lowering of the density
by going from R5 to R4, but I request that the commission consider the merits of the arguments
against R4 on their own standing. R4 is still classified as High Density Housing and may not be
appropriate for this site. I know that the community often gives public comment opposing new high
density projects, but that does not mean that the concerns of the community do not have merit in
this case.
I oppose this zone map amendment on the grounds that high density housing at this site is not incompliance with the Letter or Intent of the Growth Policy. Changing the proposal from requesting R5to R4 zoning did not materially alleviate the concerns that lead the zoning commission to notsupport the initial proposal.
It is hard to find compliance with the growth policy when the concept of putting higher density
growth along main corridors is a recurring and fundamental component of the growth plan. Fowler
is labelled as an arterial on some forward looking plans, but it is not now a functional arterial, now
will it be one in the near future. This site is not adjacent to mixed use properties, it is not served by
transit, and commuting is not viable by means other than automobile.
The labelling of Fowler as an arterial is a misnomer. Residents of Fowler lane have publiclycommented on the harsh travel conditions on Fowler in the winter where the road drifts shut. It iscurrently a 30 foot wide gravel road. The current proposal may consider paving it, but even thatdoes not bring it up to the level of being an arterial street. The staff report states that “Arterialstreets are the most intensive category of streets.” Merely paving a rural gravel road does not bringit up to city standards to function in the way that categorizing it as an arterial road implies. Anarterial street is intended to server longer distance flows of traffic between important centers ofactivity. Heading into town on Fowler from the proposed site traffic comes to a “T” Junction atStucky, which is itself a country road. This is not a functional arterial even if the road is widened andimproved. It simply does not have the connectivity to activity centers to fulfil the working definition.
The Staff report brings up the fact that Fowler is on the long term capital improvements plan in
Section 6 part A to imply that Fowler is going to become more connected to the rest of the city, but
this is misleading in relationship to this proposal. The capital improvement plan is for connections on
Fowler going north from Huffine. This proposal is on the far south end of the city limits. The name of
the roads are the same, but the two sections are separated by about a mile of MSU property. In no
public hearing regarding this site has anyone proposed that there will be a connection there in the
foreseeable future.
With the demonstrated absence of an arterial road the other theme in the Growth Policy is that byproperly planning and collocating high density areas with destinations and transit the need forautomobiles can be diminished. This is an admirable goal, but this island of high density is notcollocated near schools, business, restaurants or commercial centers. The Staff report attempts toalleviate this concern by referencing figure 2.10 of the transportation master plan that shows 35% ofthe commutes from this Census Tract are by bike, foot or transit. If you look at that figure, you cansee that the Census Tract including the subject property extends all of the way to College Street to
the north and as far east as South 3rd Avenue. The higher density areas that are located near MSUand other commercial property are obviously skewing this number and it does not represent thesubject properties outlook for non-vehicular commutes. It is unreasonable to believe that 35% ofresidence in the proposed development would commute by bike or foot. I am not including transitsince that number is zero and is expected to remain that way.
I appreciate the community goals of having a variety of housing and increasing the housing supply in
an attempt to reduce the cost pressure in our community. These are admirable goals, but I don’t
believe that pushing the zoning or rural areas up to high density is the only tool to achieve this. I
would like the commission to consider the use of phased zoning where there would be some high
density, such as R4 and perhaps some medium density R3 and R2 as well. If a variety of homes is a
stated goal, I think that would be most directly supported by a variety of zoning designations. Too
often we see new developments being built to their maximum density and they are not providing a
variety of housing.
Affordability is a real struggle in Bozeman, but I think that clear adherence to the growth plan doesnot need to be compromised to show that an effort is being made to increase density and worktowards addressing the problem.
I do oppose this Zone Map Amendment as it stands, but I am not opposed to annexing this site to
the city and developing it in a way that would benefit the community as a whole. I don’t believe that
a high density designation is in compliance with the growth plan.
Thanks,
Terry Moltzan