HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-21 Public Comment - L. Yurga & B. Bell - Canyon GateFrom:L Yurga
To:Ross Knapper; Agenda
Subject:Comments for Project #21337 Canyon Gate Annexation and ZMA Public Hearing
Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 2:55:47 PM
Attachments:ZMA 21337 Project Letter.docx
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.
Hello,
We are respectfully submitting our comments regarding Project #21337 Canyon Gate forreview before the zoning and decision meetings November 22 and December 21 of this year.
We are adjacent contiguous owners with our HOA, Legends II and are directly impacted bythe project.
Please find attached a word document with our comments. Please let us know when they are
received, or if you have any questions.
Thank you for your consideration and the hard work that goes into making decisions aboutfuture land use in Bozeman, we appreciate it.
Respectfully,
Lori Yurga and Bruce Bell
1782 Medicine Wheel LaneBozeman
1
Oct 28 2021
TO: Ross Knapper, Development Review Coordinator; agenda @bozeman.net City/Zoning Commissions
RE: Public Hearing for Canyon Gate Annexation and ZMA Application #21337
We are writing to provide our comments about the annexation and zoning, ZMA and related future land
use of Canyon Gate, Application # 21337. We are residents of Legends II subdivision and adjoining contiguous owners of open space with our HOA at the east boundary of the property to be annexed and
zoned, therefore we are directly impacted by the decision and proposed future land use and
development of the property.
Our review included the following relevant documents, in an attempt to do our due diligence and
understand the proposed annexation and zoning, comparing it to the direction the city has adopted, and
ZMA criteria used to evaluate Project 21337:
1. Project 21337 documents, for public notice and for the ZMA application and narrative;
2. Documents presented by the Canyon Gate applicant to our HOA about the proposed
development; and other projects already developed by the applicant on their website;
3. The 2020 Community Plan and Future Land Use Development, and UDC;
4. Zoning Code documents and Municipal Code including Section 38.100.040C
5. Transportation plan documents;
6. Capital Improvement Plan, including SIF 116 and 117; 7. Recent Project Applications #21102 Stockyard Properties, and #19105 Bridger View, approved
for zoning and development near Canyon Gate and the Legends; and others across the city
where annexation, zoning and/or development was approved or is in review near subdivisions
similar to the Legends;
8. Articles in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle about other HOA’s input on projects adjacent to new
development like Alder Creek, Meadow Creek, and concessions made by developers to
accommodate concerns;
We appreciate the hard work of the commissions that goes into reviewing projects and considering
public comment in order to make important decisions. We respectfully submit the following general
comments (Part 1), which overlap ZMA criteria as noted in parentheses; and comments specific to
criteria for the annexation and ZMA and the application narrative (Part 2).
Part 1. General Comments
Agree with Annexation
We welcome the proposed annexation of the property in application #21337, Canyon Gate, and agree it
should be added to the city and developed as it meets the criteria for annexation very well.
We always expected that this property would be annexed and developed as clearly some roads were left
to be continued from the Legends subdivision. Five years ago, one could envision a Legends III, for
example. However, with changing needs and the 2020 future land use plan adopted, one could now
envision a development similar to Bridger View with R3 residential medium density housing which
maintains the character of adjacent neighborhoods and the unique riparian and canyon foothills land
use area, possibly also adding some transitional commercial development along Story Mills zoned B1.
This would not overly burden the existing roads, infrastructure, transportation network, or health, safety
and welfare of the area, and would complement development planned with the rezoning at Stockyard
Properties and Bridger View.
2
Disagree with Proposed Zoning (Criteria A, C, E, G, K)
Therefore, our primary concern is that we do not agree with the application’s proposed zoning
designations of B2M and R5 and REMU, which we believe would change the nature of the land use too
abruptly, allowing high density and tall buildings, and carry development of this unique area too far in
the urban direction, not allowing the best use of the Canyon Gate property or best fit to the future land use plan and current needs of the city. It also is not the best fit with existing development.
Suggested Revision to Zoning Proposal
Therefore, we believe a revision to the proposed zoning map amendment (to R3 and B1) would serve
the desire to meet the city’s needs for growth, housing and commercial development commensurate
with adjacent needs, and address the concept of balancing growth with being a good neighbor to
existing developments and businesses nearby, and primary use of the canyon.
We, the people of Bozeman, are stewards of the gate of this canyon for current and future generations
of residents and visitors. We believe this is a unique responsibility that should constitute a special
consideration to the zoning and development of the Canyon Gate property. The Bridger View
application 19105, in its answer to Criteria K stated that ‘R-3 is the most appropriate use of land
throughout the jurisdictional area because it returns the property to an appropriately scaled
residential neighborhood that complements the park, is respectful to surrounding existing
neighborhoods’
R3 zoning was accepted for the Bridger View property as the most appropriate use of land … in the very
same area across the street. Therefore, the Canyon Gate property deserves the same consideration and
zoning designation.
Recent nearby ZMAs should be considered for total impact on the area (Criteria K)
We think that ZMA 21337 should not be considered alone, but should be considered as part of recent zoning amendments for 19105 Bridger View and 21102 Stockyard Properties projects which together
constitute major changes to the mouth of Bridger Canyon within Bozeman, and the far east
development of the city, with significant impact to transportation, roads and emergency services, safety,
health and welfare, light and air in the area.
Commercial Needs are not underserved in the area now (Criteria G, I, K)
The statement that the area is underserved commercially now is misleading. There are numerous
businesses in walking and biking distance including breweries, restaurants, coffee shops, animal vets,
bike shop, gas station, The Cannery District, bars, retail, including 7th avenue and downtown - which are
accessible by bike. Project 21102 the Stockyard Properties will include even more options of B2M and
REMU zoning in walking and biking distance of the Canyon Gate property.
Open Space and Park are not adequately addressed in Project 21337 (Criteria B, C, E) This property and area have an important wildlife/riparian corridor that connects nearby river systems
to the foothills and Bridger Canyon. Mammals and birds use the corridor to move freely, coexisting now
with the thoughtfully designed residential developments currently in the area, and will not be negatively
impacted by the Bridger View R3 development.
3
If the development of B2M, REMU, and R5 zoning, with inadequate open space is allowed at 21337
Canyon Gate, it will have a negative impact on wildlife, nearby residential areas, and on transportation
with increased human/wildlife car incidents possible on Bridger Canyon and Story Mill roads.
Therefore, we think the open space shown as ‘linear park’ of only 2.14 acres proposed in 21337, which is
only a green space path, is inadequate to the needs of the property and surrounding area. Instead, a minimum of 5 to 7 acres, possibly incorporating existing mature trees could be thoughtfully designed as
an open space for people, birds and a wildlife corridor, which would also serve the new residents and be
a good neighbor to existing residents. With 24 acres available to develop, there is ample space to create
the open space and park needed… for the residents who will move to Canyon Gate, existing neighbors
and the bird/wildlife corridor that exists on the property now.
Cash in Lieu of Open Space should not be accepted for Project 21337
In the application, it is suggested that there is a ‘surplus’ of open space in the surrounding area. We
have never heard a Bozeman resident say this, not on trails or open space, parks, or subdivisions we
walk through. We are grateful for the open space we have and that the city has generally included it in
planning new developments. Especially during the pandemic, we appreciate the value of open space
and trails… it helps us through the worst times and is critical to health, safety, and wellbeing of
residents.
Canyon Gate is not a development that the city should allow cash in lieu of open space for the following reasons: it is a bird/wildlife corridor; neighbors would welcome some additional open space knowing
theirs will be used by new residents; new residents will need it for themselves and their dogs; and there
is adequate acreage in the property to allow for inclusion of open space needed for health and
wellbeing, in keeping with current land use. If open space is not included in planning now, it cannot be
retrieved.
Affordable Housing is not considered in Project 21337 (Criteria G, K)
We consider affordable housing to be a primary important current need in Bozeman, and think it should
be considered in a project the size of the 24 acres in ZMA 21337. It is designated NO, not TBD in the
application. The plan presented to the HOA gave the impression of luxury condos, townhomes and
associated retail to serve them. We do not think this proposal adequately serves the current needs of
the city, and similar projects downtown and on 7th have adequately addressed that type of
development. We suggest the zoning and future development in Project 21337 be on the same order as
Bridger View, recently rezoned, which consists of residential development on a scale that does not overly impact traffic and neighboring developments and complements land use in the area, and
thoughtfully intersperses affordable housing in quality built R3 medium density zoning.
New Residents and Businesses – Impact on Traffic and Existing Infrastructure (Criteria B, F)
Traffic and adequate parking should be considered for residents and retail development in the zoning
stage. High density urban zoning will result in increased traffic - substantially impacting Story Mill,
Bridger Canyon and subdivision roads and trails; and additional new developments like Bridger View and
Stockyard properties also increase pressure. The current intersection of Story Mill and Bridger Canyon is
not adequate to proposed development of these 3 areas, as addressed in the CIP SIF 116 and 117. An
R3 development in Canyon Gate similar to Bridger View would not have a significant impact, but the R5
and B2M and REMU zoning proposed would have a negative impact, as they would also rely on the
greater trade area to succeed.
4
The traffic situation with three railroad crossings on Griffin, Rouse and L street affecting access to the
rest of the city negatively impacts safety and access to emergency services. Intense urban or
commercial business development in the area could reasonably be postponed until a railroad crossing is
provided, considering there is commercial development already nearby, and planned in the Stockyard
property less than a mile away. R3 and B1 would be acceptable to the current infrastructure, R5, B2M
and REMU would negatively impact it.
Dark Sky (Criteria C, I)
Dark sky is present in the canyon environment and it is an important natural resource worth preserving;
it’s rapidly disappearing from Bozeman. If tall buildings (allowed in R5, B2M and REMU) are developed,
increased lighting will negatively impact night sky for residents, birds and wildlife in the area. Current
developments in the area have low impact street lights to purposefully allow for dark sky in the unique
canyon; increased high rise business and retail will not.
Recent developments elsewhere in the city should be considered (Criteria C, G, I and K)
Developments south of town adjacent to Alder Creek and Meadow Creek have considered input from
neighboring R1 developments, and agreed to place single family homes adjacent to existing single family
homes. We think the same consideration should be made for the Legends and the homes along Bridger
Canyon Drive. Interior to this perimeter buffer of single family homes, other approved R3 housing at
Canyon Gate would allow for multifamily homes, and complement the area, not overwhelm it.
R5, B2M and REMU should be changed to R3 and B1 for promotion of more compatible urban growth
(Criteria G, I, K)
Tall buildings are not compatible in the area, they are more in keeping with areas not immediately
adjoining R1 and R3, and will be allowed at the Stockyard 21102 development per recent zoning, less
than a mile away. Significant commercial development exists nearby. Suggesting the area is
commercially underserved is misleading. It is just over a mile to the Cannery District, developed to a
high extent recently, in an area that did not impact any nearby residential areas; it was a perfect area for
the type of development suggested. There are numerous areas in the city more suited to R5 and REMU
and B2M than this intersection adjacent to residential homes. Further residential development in
walking distance to Canyon Gate’s 24 acres is limited by the Bozeman city limits, so sustaining the B2M
zoned businesses proposed would depend on the greater trade area which will bring more cars, noise,
light, and negatively impact existing roads and emergency services, light and air, and is not the best land
use for the area.
We fully understand and agree that new development does not need to be uniform or conform to
existing development. But we think it should be complementary and transitional to existing
development as the future land use plan states. Project 21337 proposes zoning from residential to urban
development very abruptly, which causes undue conflict and pressure on existing development and
infrastructure. Project 21337 could be revised to allow more of a transition; with adequate open space
provided, R3 zoning instead of R5 residential, and B1 commercial zoning instead of B2M and REMU.
We appreciate the concept of Bridger View – with affordable homes interspersed in medium density R3,
that is compatible with the existing space and surrounding area. We suggest that same type of plan be
extended to the 24 acres of #21337, allowing for an adequate transition to existing R1 homes, not overly
impacting traffic and infrastructure; with the B2M and REMU commercial aspects addressed by the
nearby Stockyard Properties; allowing for B1 development along Story Mill Road.
5
We ask you to please consider these concerns and alternative zoning to the proposal of high rise, high
impact urban development which will have an overall negative impact in the unique canyon area.
Part 2. Comments Specific to ZMA Approval Criteria and response to the narrative provided in
application 21337 specific to the criteria A through K
A Is the new zoning designed in accordance with the growth policy?
While the application is in accordance with the purposely broad growth policy, under each category, the
zoning designations proposed are incompatible and disruptive to existing surrounding area land use and
infrastructure.
We suggest for consideration, an approach to urban development that is less abrupt, more of a
transition, resulting in less impact to the surrounding area land use and demand on infrastructure.
Urban Neighborhood The growth policy allows for a variety of zoning types within the designation of
Urban Neighborhood including R3, where the applicant has selected REMU. R3 would be more
compatible to existing development and put less stress on existing infrastructure. The city’s future land
use map does not show this 0.77 acre as Urban Neighborhood, was there an amendment made? REMU
is suggested for 5 acre parcels, this does not meet that criteria.
Community Commercial Mixed Use –The growth policy indicates a community commercial mixed use
designation, which could be B1, which is more compatible to the area, instead of the B2M selected by
the applicant which can have much taller buildings.
Residential Mixed Use The growth policy designates residential mixed use, including R3, which the
applicant has selected as a buffer to the surrounding R1. That is compatible zoning, but the jump to R5
could be omitted, so that the entire area could be R3 like the Bridger View 19105 development recently
rezoned across the street, which is more compatible with existing land use and infrastructure and
included affordable housing.
Because the application has intense urban selections for each zoning designation, little open space or
park, and no affordable housing, the overall impact is negative.
It could be changed to very positive with a transition from low density residential to medium density,
including affordable housing, more open space and park, and neighborhood commercial businesses,
allowing for a variety of housing options, with less retail. More intense retail is not as much a priority as
affordable housing, in current needs, and has been addressed in the Project 21102 Stockyard Properties
within walking distance nearby.
B Will the new zoning secure safety from fire and other dangers? How?
Overall impact of the new development will be negative on emergency services and safety.
Although the proposed development will be served by the city of Bozeman emergency services which is
positive, the impact of increased traffic with high density development cannot be ignored. In addition,
the separation of the area from emergency services and hospital by railroad tracks on L street, Griffin
and Rouse should be considered. If securing safety from fire and other dangers is given high priority,
intensive density development really should not be permitted to be zoned or developed until an
6
overpass or other solution to the railroad tracks can be addressed, especially since the Stockyard
properties have already been zoned for high density. What is the harm in delaying development here
until infrastructure is in place? There are other areas in the city suitable to high density development
that are not cut off by the railroad from emergency services.
The narrative that the new development provides for greater emergency access by continuing roads and creating new access points is negated by the impact that high density congestion of cars with businesses
and high-rise buildings will create. This would be true however, greater access would be provided, if
zoning were kept to medium density, and neighborhood retail development instead.
We suggest considering medium density development and neighborhood businesses which although
increase demand for services, would have much less impact than high density zoning in an urban setting.
21337 annexation and zoning should be considered together with the 2 others already approved in the
same emergency services corridor – 19105 Bridger View and 21102 Stockyard Properties, as a whole,
not separately.
C Will the new zoning promote public health, safety and welfare? How?
Although 21337 will adhere to the UDC to ensure compliance with codes designed with public health
safety and welfare in mind, and additional housing alternatives are a positive, the proposed plan does
not provide enough open space or park to promote health safety and welfare, and wellbeing. With 24 acres available 5-7 acres should be allotted to open space and park, and cash in lieu should not be
allowed in a development of this size.
The overall impact of intense high-density development without adequate open space and park is
negative to the wellbeing of future Canyon Gate residents and surrounding land owners. It could easily
be designed to incorporate open space as a positive welcome addition to the area.
D Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provisions of transportation water sewage schools
parks and other public requirements? How?
The application states that the development will comply with the UDC, extend existing streets and
utilities. It is an excellent property for annexation, as it is surrounded by the city and these services
exist.
However, the map considers the open space shown in the application to be linear parks. These are walking paths with green space, which possibly serve drainage requirements as well, so cannot
technically be considered parkland. The paths should actually connect to more internal open space and
park as well as the open space external to the development to ensure the adequate provision of parks.
As far as parks, the impact of the development is negative.
E Will the new zoning provide adequate provision of light and air? How?
The application states that following the UDC will ensure adequate provision of light and air, but the
zoning as proposed does not provide adequate park and recreational open space for future residents,
or adjacent neighbors and people who will come to the businesses, to enjoy the light and air that exists
on this property now. In a development of 24 acres, it could easily be included. The overall impact of
high-density housing and businesses without adequate open space is negative.
It could be revised to be positive by adding open space and maintaining low building heights compatible
with neighboring businesses and homes.
7
F Will the new zoning have an effect on motorized and non motorized transportation systems?
How?
The application acknowledges increased traffic on roads, streets, trails and sidewalks, but considers that
because the intent of the development is to increase opportunities to walk to work, services and
recreation, vehicular transportation won’t be needed – suggesting the net result is neutral. Also cited are studies and projections for traffic along Bridger Canyon and Story Mill roads from the 2017
Transportation Plan that suggest there will remain adequate capacity on those roads.
People who live here and use the roads, sidewalks, trails, paths, bike paths would disagree. There are
significant times of day and year that overwhelm the existing system now.
Project 21337 should not be considered alone in its impact but in conjunction with the nearby
developments Bridger View and the Stockyard property which will increase pressure on the same
transportation network. The frequent trains back up traffic, and increased cars will only add to the
problem.
The application states that completing new roads will allow dispersal of traffic and increased access by
emergency services, but fails to consider that the higher density allowed by R5, B2M and REMU will
have a negative impact. Cars take the path of least resistance and will not disperse through high density to reach low density housing. However, this could be a positive dispersal of traffic if the zoning is
changed to medium density not high density.
The overall impact of the development as proposed is negative, not neutral. CIP SIF 116 and 117 state
that development in the area could be delayed until the intersection and roads are improved to support
it. The plan could be changed to be a neutral though; there would be significantly less impact from
medium density R3 and B1 businesses, than from the proposed R5, B2M and REMU zoning.
G. Does the new zoning promote compatible urban growth? How?
The application states that the zoning requested fits the growth plan and provides a variety of housing.
While true, this does not address the compatibility to existing land use or the unique riparian/bird and
wildlife corridor and gateway to the Bridger Canyon that exists here. The application for 19102 Bridger
View did consider this. Canyon Gate is near the city limits without significant opportunity for additional
residential areas or growth, necessitating reliance on the greater trade area, adding undue stress here.
The mountains that surround us make our livable valley very unique, and design and implementation of
development at our canyon gates should be thoughtful, creative and compatible to existing use. What
the mountains and gateways provide us… light, air, creativity, hope, should be reflected in what we build
here for ourselves and future residents and visitors; it should not overwhelm this unique area or detract
from it.
Compatible urban growth in this riparian/wildlife and bird corridor would include adequate open
space/park in the zoning which could include the existing mature trees, especially since there are 24
acres available. If the wildlife that exists here and travels through this property is ignored, they won’t go
away, instead they will create the potential for more car/wildlife accidents, and put additional pressure
on existing developments, which have been thoughtfully designed to allow wildlife access to rivers and
mountains. Why not expect and require the same thoughtful design for Project #21337, coexisting with
wildlife and birds in the area? Too tall of buildings, too much light, noise and traffic, cars, and parking
8
are negative impacts to compatible growth. Businesses open later into the night than current land use
will have a negative impact on humans and wildlife.
It is currently a quiet, dark, residential area and impressive entrance to Bridger Canyon. Growth is
welcome, especially diversity of housing but it should be compatible with homes, open space and dark
sky that exits here now.
Compatible urban growth should consider the multiple commercial options available in walking and
biking distance now, not ignore them, but complement them; and consider that B2M has been approved
nearby at the Stockyard properties and likely will be for the Story Mill area.
H. Does the new zoning promote the character of Canyon Gate? How?
The character of the development is not really defined in the application. Canyon Gate was presented
to the HOA leaving the impression of luxury condos, townhomes and upscale urban retail and
restaurants, suggesting residents that would not work or live here full time and possibly encourage short
term rentals. We just don’t think that is what is needed on this property, which has great potential for
family homes, a percentage of which could address affordable housing, a primary need in Bozeman.
The application does not adequately address affordable housing or open space/park, or compatibility
with existing neighbors and land use.
I Does the new zoning address the affected area’s peculiar suitability for particular uses? How?
The application states that the area does not have a human/wildlife conflict, suggesting unfamiliarity
with the property and surrounding riparian and bird/wildlife corridor areas. The overall impact of higher
density development allowed with R5, B2M and REMU zoning, without adequate open space, and
increased traffic will increase the human/wildlife conflict and have a negative effect on the area.
Story Mill is a collector not supportive of B2M level of zoning as it exists. The impact on that road and
subdivision roads will be negative. The area is unique in its dark sky resource, this should be preserved.
J Was the new zoning adopted with a view of conserving the values of buildings? How?
The application states that existing buildings will be removed and development will follow code.
Conserving the value of the buildings in the surrounding area should be considered and best achieved by using R3 zoning for residential housing and B1 zoning for businesses, to complement existing buildings,
not overwhelm them in height. The proposed zoning will have a negative impact on existing buildings
nearby.
K How does the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area? How?
The application states that the growth plan and UDC are followed.
It does not address the need for open space, park and compatibility with surrounding land use, or the
unique character of the Bridger Canyon itself. The application as proposed would have an overall
negative impact, which could easily be changed to positive if different zoning is allowed; R3 versus R5
and REMU, and B1 versus B2M, with adequate open space provided, and some affordable housing
included. R3 zoning allows a variety of housing types and an appropriately scaled residential
neighborhood which complements and respects surrounding existing neighborhoods.
9
Specifically, from the municipal zoning code:
R5 residential mixed use high density - 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. This is not met in the area.
REMU Use of this zone is appropriate for sites at least 5 acres in size. This is not met in the proposed 1 acre area.
R3 residential medium density - Use of this zone is appropriate for areas with good access to parks,
community services and/or transit. Use of this zone in Canyon Gate 21337 and the Bridger View 19105
development would complement each other and the B2M zone at Stockyard Properties.
B2M Community business district mixed use - appropriate for arterial corridors, commercial nodes and
areas served by transit. This is not met in the area. Story Mill is a collector road. B2M is defined as a
substantial growth area which enhances the character of the city. It is not appropriate here where the
city ends and there is no further growth potential or residential areas available to develop to support
substantial growth. This would necessitate relying on the greater trade area and bringing more traffic
into the area which the infrastructure does not support.
B1 Neighborhood business district however, is appropriate for areas functioning as a center for
surrounding residential neighborhoods and maintains compatibility with adjacent residential land uses.
This is perfect for the area and would not impact traffic and infrastructure to the degree B2M would.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we support the annexation of the property #21337 to the city, but do not support
the zoning requested; R5, REMU, B2M, because of too many negative impacts on criteria A
through K of the ZMA. We ask the commission to reject the ZMA as proposed, and request that
it be resubmitted with R3 and B1 zoning which complement the area and are a better fit for
land use and the growth plan, possibly addressing affordable housing, and open space
requirements, without having as significant negative impacts to traffic and safety.
We envision a Bridger View type residential approach, R3 medium density zoning and
thoughtfully designed mixed housing options, with affordable homes interspersed; with added
open space and a neighborhood commercial area along Story Mill Road; instead of a high
density, tall building, urban intensive approach for this property which seems more suitable to
areas like the Cannery District which did not impact R1 housing developments.
Thank you for considering our comments, we appreciate the opportunity to give input to this
important project. We fully appreciate the hard work of everyone involved in making these
critical decisions for future land use in Bozeman.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Yurga and Bruce Bell
1782 Medicine Wheel Lane
Bozeman MT 59715