HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-21 Public Comment - J. Trianitis - Gallatin County Rest HomeFrom:Jason Triantis
To:Agenda
Subject:Ordinance 2093 to adopt Gallatin County Rest Home zone map amendment 21330
Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 1:38:36 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.
After having attended and speaking at the 10/11/21 zoning committee meeting wherein this
application was moved forward, I was incredibly disappointed to see it pass and being movedforward to your final vote.
I am strongly opposed to this proposed amendment from R3 to R4, as is everyone in this
neighborhood with whom I've spoken. No one is opposed to development on that lot, we allpurchased our homes and moved to this neighborhood knowing it would one day be
developed. However, we all did this with the knowledge and comfort of it being zoned R3and now the proposal, despite not having a clear plan yet, will have a significantly negative
impact on our neighborhood.
My primary points of opposition are these:
The traffic this change will bring will introduce safety issues. There is newly installed
playground equipment in Oak Meadows Park off of Juniper Street and it is lovely to seehow much this equipment is being used by local families as well as those clearly coming
from outside the neighborhood. The property in question will ONLY be accessible fromJuniper, as the south section of this property is not accessible from Durston due to the
rest home. This fact was even brought up by a committee member previously, howeverit did not seem to be heard. This will force all traffic in and out of the property to travel
on narrow residential streets. Primary access would likely be off of 15th which isalready a high traffic street and trying to turn left onto that street is already problematic.
The other potential access routes to Juniper, 12th & 14th Streets, are also narrow streetsexperiencing parking and traffic issues already. The idea of the additional heavy traffic
brought by high density housing gives me grave concern for the safety of the children ofthe existing and future neighborhoods. Residents who may move into this new
neighborhood will have to cross Juniper to access the park and the influx of traffic andinevitable parking people will do on Juniper will cause a huge safety concern for
children accessing the park. I have attached a map showing these not only likely, butonly access options.
Beyond the traffic safety issues, or perhaps directly related, is the inherent parkingissues that will be presented by this change. In the meeting held previously, the county
representatives stated they would work with the neighborhoods to ensure such mattersare considered and addressed. This feels very much like an empty promise given how
similar statements were made by the introduction of the parking variance requested andapproved for Larkspur. The city has set a very negative precedence by installing high
density housing and then allowing further variances which have caused parking andtraffic issues beyond that which would have already been presented in the first place.
The property in question is not huge and given Bozeman's recent desire to makeresidential streets narrow, parking on these narrow streets is a real safety issue.
Manzanita Street is a prime example of this. Due to the variance for parking allocationallowed for Larkspur it is impossible for two cars to pass each other on that street given
all the street parking occuring. RV's and multiple vehicles choke the street causingsafety issues and blight. I have attached a picture of Manzanita to demonstrate this
point. Those of us near the property will inevitably have a similar impact. 12th Streetcurrently has restricted parking, as does 14th so it is obvious where this will push people
to park and cause the same issues seen on Manzanita. There were a couple of statements made by both the city zoning committee members
and the county representatives that particularly hit me and already imply animosity andnot the good will they said they want to have with the current residents.
Mark Genito stated it was unfortunate high density had a negative connotation. Idon't disagree with this, but the reason that is the case is based on evidence within
Bozeman. Again the parking and traffic issues caused by Larkspur commons, is aprime and immediate adjacent example of this. This seems to be a problem of
perception created by the zoning commissions action themselves so thisargument falls flat. The facts are high density brings parking and traffic issues
this isn't a stigma, it's just a fact. I don't have any issue with high density housingitself, my issue is with how the city has allowed it to cause issues to existing
neighborhoods. When I commented how many of us purchased our homes here with the security
of maintaining the character of the neighborhood the current R3 zoning provides,I believe it was Sean O'Callahan who later countered, effectively "things change
and we should expect that". This is an old overly simplified argument and oneeasily countered with the notion of the city and county needing to be more
creative and do the hard work to find ways to address the housing issue inBozeman by accepting the conditions they have created and not attempt to correct
those issues by negatively impacting existing neighborhoods and breaking theunwritten contract they have entered with residents by doing zoning. What
assurance does anyone in Bozeman have their neighborhoods will be respected ifthe city changes zoning at will with no consideration to those existing residents?
Both committee members and county presenters pushed back against the manycomments from callers to the fact there is no current development plan driving
this request, no current request from a developer, much less a plan. The questionraised was why would this request be before the city when there isn't a plan at all.
It really appears the push for this is to make the property more attractive todevelopers. It was also implied that this change would offer clarity to future
plans, but that is absurd because there IS current clarity by it being R3...that is theonly thing offering us clarity. The committee members and presenters also said
there is nothing assuring that this change would mean high density housing wouldgo in, but that is unrealistic to say because, bottom line, a future developer can
make more money by installing high density and money drives everything. It'sunfortunate the county isn't willing to, again, be creative and work to actually
solve a problem by working within their current boundaries, so to speak, and finda developer who can work within the R3 zoning. Perhaps this could even be a
model for future development that wouldn't require a zoning change. This trulyfeels like a set up for the county to sell off this land for another developer to come
in and put in another poorly planned high density community. It appears thischange request is being sought only to make the property more attractive to a
developer, not to address the issues claimed.It is well known that so often the majority is a silent majority and therefore wrong
assumptions are made when people don't speak up. That being said, 90% of theneighboring residents who have been contacted by canvassing neighbors so far are
opposed to this zoning change. There is little doubt that percentage would only increasewith those who have not yet been contacted or responded. This is a significant number
and the council should take this into consideration as they consider this matter.
To be clear, no one I've spoken to is against the development of the property in some form
(particularly the daycare...which is permissible within the existing R3) and again we all movedhere knowing this was going to happen one day. However we are universal in our agreement
that such development should be as an R3 development only. This zoning change should bedenied as the additional traffic/parking and associated safety issues it will bring, not to
mention the significant change in the character of the neighborhood, will be detrimental to theexisting community.
Jason Triantis
1082 Oak Park Drive406.223.2949