HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-21 Public Comment - Maxey Limited Partnership - Gallatin County Rest HomeFrom:Maxey Ltd Ptr
To:Agenda
Cc:Maxey Ltd Ptr
Subject:ZMA 21-330
Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:27:34 AM
Attachments:2021.10.19, GC Rest Home proposed Zone change.pdf
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.
Please find the attached word document (below).RE: Protest of Application #21330
1221 West Durston Road, Gallatin County Rest Home parcel
19
October,
2021
Maxey
Limited
Partnership
4391
East
Ravens
Ridge
Drive
Columbia,
MO
65201-‐3113
1105
West
Durston
Road
Bozeman,
MT
59715-‐2723
RE:
ZMA
21-‐330.
1221
West
Durston
Road
Gallatin
County
Rest
Home
Zone
Map
Amendment
to
rezone
9.8
acres
from
R3
(Residential
Medium
Density
District)
to
R4
(Residential
High
Density
District),
application
#21330.
TO:
Cyndy
Andrus,
Mayor
Chris
Cunningham,
Deputy
Mayor
I-‐Ho
Pomeroy,
Commissioner
Jennifer
Madgic,
Commissioner
Chris
Coburn,
Commissioner
We
are
writing
in
opposition
to
the
proposed
rezoning
of
1221
West
Durston
Road,
commonly
referred
to
as
the
Gallatin
County
Rest
Home
parcel.
The
initial
Development
Review
Application
indicated
Gallatin
County
would
like
to
build,
or
have
built,
a
daycare
center.
Unless
we
are
interpreting
incorrectly,
we
believe
a
daycare
center
is
acceptable
under
the
current
R3
zoning.
The
initial
application
further
states
“some
form
of
housing
on
the
northern
end
of
property.”
Changing
the
current
zoning
to
R4
would
allow
for
a
major
deviation
in
the
existing
character
of
the
North
15th
Avenue
residential
corridor,
which
extends
east
to
North
12th
Avenue,
including
Juniper
Street,
Manzanita
and
Crabapple
Drives.
I
believe
we
all
agree
the
Roy
Walton
Farm
development
of
this
area
was
done
rather
tastefully,
with
a
sense
of
scale
and
local
community
in
mind.
We
see
no
need
to
change
character,
particularly
when
the
Aspen
Meadows,
a
high
density
residential
area
is
nearby.
If
you,
the
commissioners,
have
not
visited
this
area,
you
should
to
view
the
residential
area
first
hand.
Although
by
state
law,
a
zoning
change
does
not
require
specificity,
we
do
not
believe
there
has
been
serious
consideration
for
the
traffic
impact
on
the
existing
neighborhood.
Nor
has
there
been
consideration
for
potential
parking
issues,
or
parkland,
all
impacting
the
current
neighborhood.
We,
as
landowners
are
confronted
with
constant
trespassers,
many
with
dogs.
Very
few
deal
with
their
dogs’
fecal
matter,
which
in
turn
creates
a
biohazard.
Perhaps
the
commission
should
seriously
consider
a
dog
park
going
forward.
Changing
the
zoning
to
allow
for
higher
density
will
only
exacerbate
this
issue.
The
proposed
change,
if
made,
is
yet
another
example
of
the
city’s
overall
cavalier
attitude
towards
property
owners.
(As
an
example,
despite
opposition
voiced
at
the
appropriate
juncture,
our
farm
was
primarily
zoned
R5,
against
our
wishes.)
Residential
infill
should
not
automatically
trump
other
aspects
of
residential
life
–
sense
of
community,
aesthetics,
quality
of
life,
etc.
This
is
not
some
grand
experiment,
but
rather
consequential
decisions
that
effect
people’s
lives.
We
are
reminded
of
a
conversation
that
took
place
with
a
senior
planner
that
took
place
in
his
office
two
years
back.
Regarding
the
“zero
parking”
requirement
in
this
part
of
town
to
spur
investment
and
growth,
a
general
partner
was
told
the
new
relaxed
regulations
“were
an
experiment.”
This
was
made
defense
of
the
general
approach,
in
addition
to
the
Ruh
Building,
which
provided
for
26
spaces
on
site,
if
memory
serves
us
correctly.
Under
normal
circumstances
the
building
would
require
in
excess
of
200
parking
spaces,
given
the
square
footage,
and
functions.
The
Elm,
which
provides
virtually
no
parking
spaces
on
site
was
also
allowed
to
be
built.
How
many
seats
are
available
for
a
performance,
not
including
the
performers,
Elm
staff,
and
catering?
Are
we,
as
residents
of
the
area,
to
assume
the
City
Commission
views
this
as
responsible
long-‐term
planning?
In
our
opinion,
it
most
certainly
is
not,
and
once
again,
creates
a
situation
where
property
owners
in
the
area
are
forced
to
deal
with
poor
decision
making
by
the
Zoning
Commission,
and
the
City
Commission
that
lacks
any
long-‐term
vision
other
infill.
We
again
oppose
any
change
to
the
current
zoning
for
the
Gallatin
County
Rest
Home
property.
Respectfully
submitted,
The
Maxey
Limited
Partnership
Mary
F.
Palffy,
General
Partner
David
J.
Patterson,
General
Partner