Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-21 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Canyon Gate Marcia Kaveney 1496 Boylan Rd. Bozeman, MT 59715 November 14, 2021 Jacob Miller, Planner Ross Knapper, Development Review Coordinator City/Zoning Commissions; agenda@bozeman.net Re: Public Comment for Canyon Gate Annexation and ZMA Application #21337 Dear Zoning and City Commissioners, I am writing to provide my comments about the annexation and zoning application of Canyon Gate, project #21337. I have been living in the adjoining subdivision Legends II- 3 doors away from the proposal property for the past six years and was a former resident in the NENA downtown neighborhood for the prior twenty-five years. I am very familiar with the area in the proposal as well as the ever-evolving local traffic patterns and commercial areas. I welcome the annexation of the property in Proposal #21337 and hope for a compatible design for the land to come forth that not only meets the city’s housing and growth goals but is also compatible and sensitive to existing neighborhoods, wildlife habitat, geographical constraints of the area, and other currently approved projects. Unfortunately I have many concerns with Project #21337 as proposed. In this letter, I will outline my concerns in response to the applicant’s narrative and also present my own vision of how the proposal might be adjusted to simultaneously meet the city’s and surrounding resident’s goals. Introduction Canyon Gate Vision, Design Guidelines, and Land Use Some concerns: While the applicant has the opportunity to design a thoughtful, vibrant, and compatible neighborhood, they miss that mark in this proposal by disregarding some growth policies and goals in other city plans. The type of density they propose is too great for the proposed location as they have not taken into account the geographical constraints of the canyon and property, the lack of additional collector roads, the existing and growing congestion on Rouse and Griffin including long train crossing delays, or the planned addition of new residents in Stockyard and Bridger View Properties. Their plan does not follow the basic planning precepts as outlined on pages 20-21 in the growth policy especially in regards to incremental infill, balance, geographical and transportation constraints, community desires, and, given the applicant’s development history, housing affordability. In the applicant’s introduction, they state that their Vicinity map on page 15 shows a lack of commercial amenities in the area of their proposal. This is misleading because they omitted outlining of all the businesses along Rouse, Bridger Drive, and Griffin. They also omitted outlining the Cannery District; which is only one mile from the property and full of retail properties. They also omitted noting the soon-to-be Stockyard district (B2M and R4). A quick google search of the one-half mile of Bridger Drive between Story Mill Rd and E. Griffin Drive identified 28 neighborhood businesses and services plus the city’s Story Mill Community Center. These include the following: garden nursery, blacksmith, bike shop, coffee shop, espresso barn, physical therapist, gym, brewery and restaurant, craft center and art classes, auto repair shops, gas station and convenience store, engineering office, indoor archery range, computer store, home health, massage school, ski foundation offices, hair salon, ice shop, architect office, plumbing, natural medicine, interior design, and medical imaging. My point is- this neighborhood is not lacking in the commercial and retail opportunities the applicant would like you to think. An alternate Vision: I envision and would welcome a more gentle approach than the applicant has proposed. A development with up to R3 density for the REMU area and a small strip of neighborhood friendly B1 businesses along Story Mill Rd would be welcome and still meet the goals of the Future Land Use Map but provide balance. A combination of R3 and small strip of B1 would not dominate the existing neighborhoods, or overwhelm the current infrastructure, and it would be sensitive to the already approved developments. The Future Land Use Map is a guide and needs to remain flexible to adjust with the current developments already in progress. For instance when the future land use map was approved, the Stockyard property was zoned for B1 and R3- whereas it has recently been rezoned for the much more dense B2M and R4. The Bridger View development was even re-zoned downward by the finding that R3 was more appropriate for their corner property; which happens to sit right across the street from the applicant’s parcel. The zoning structure I suggest would be an incremental and compatible increase in density from the surrounding R1 and RS neighborhoods. It would help build our city’s insufficient supply of duplexes and triplexes and potentially help with affordable housing and the missing middle problem while discouraging luxury condos, hotels, and fancy “ski lockers” for our out of town state visitors. A development of the type I envision would support the future land use map and Bozeman’s Growth Policy, the state zoning criteria in section 76-2-304, the Bozeman Community Plan’s goals for preservation of forests and wildlife habitat, and the Bozeman Climate Plan for expanding the urban forest with drought tolerant native species while taking into account the anticipated growth from Bridger View and the Stockyard property, and the desire of Bozeman Residents to have a thoughtful and gentle development at the entrance to Bridger Canyon. Annexation: Generally agree with except for Goal #7. I agree with the annexation of this property overall. I disagree with the applicant’s response to Annexation Goal #7. Project #21337 will not enhance the existing traffic circulation pattern, but rather add congestion to the already failing intersection of Story Mill and Bridger Drive ,N. Rouse, and E. Griffin. According to the applicant’s Figure 3.1 on page 12, the east west and north/south collectors of N. Rouse and Griffin Dr. will be at capacity by 2040. The capacity modeling done in 2017 did not take into account the increased density from the recent rapid growth, the Stockyards, and Bridger View. So, unless vehicles go in circles around Bridger Dr. and Story Mill Rd., they will add to the current and predicted traffic congestion. New traffic studies are needed that take into account the expected increased densities from the Law and Justice Center, the Stockyards, and Bridger View. Nor will Project #21337 add any additional circulation benefits to nearby residents because it’s proposed east/west connector on Maiden Spirit parallels the existing and more efficient Boylan Road and Bridger Drive. Also, the applicant states they will use Northview Street for a primary access but they have yet to acquire access to Northview Street from Legends II. Zone Map Amendment: Disagree with Proposed Zoning: 6a. No. This proposal is not designed in accordance with many aspects of the Growth Policy. On page 20 in the Bozeman Community Plan/Growth Policy we find, “the needs of new and existing development coexist and they should remain in balance: neither should overwhelm the other” and also that infill development should be “incremental”. If approved as proposed and subsequently built to the maximum allowable density, Canyon Gate will both overwhelm the existing neighborhoods, and not be incremental by definition. The surrounding neighborhoods are primarily R1 or RS, with a small portion zoned R3 but developed conservatively. I think the applicant is attempting to ask for the maximum they think the city will approve while disregarding many features of this particular location such as the scale of the surrounding neighborhoods, narrow mouth of the canyon funneling traffic into one arterial street, distance from other large commercial areas, and lack of public transportation and nearby emergency services. If allowed to develop at the high density proposed, we can expect to see 5 story hotels and condos based on the previous projects of this developer in Bozeman. According to Sec.38.300.100 F.2., the R5 designation would allow for offices and small scale retail and restaurants on the ground floors. The R5 zoning was presented to Legends II BoD as a dense residential area (such as R4) but would actually allow B1 commercial if the developer were to change their mind. This is not compatible or incremental infill. It adds to the already large expanse of commercial the applicant is requesting. Even if surrounded by R3, the heights and full lot coverage would dominate the landscape, existing neighborhood, and detract from the canyon entrance. According to the applicant’s site plan (proposed zoning, page 19) the extension of Maiden Spirit St. would curve south toward and into the largest and easternmost cottonwood grove and the proposed R5 would sit directly on the mature cottonwood grove. (See Figures 1 and 2.) These mature groves should be preserved and added to Bozeman’s urban forest. (UDC, Boz. Growth Policy pgs 20, 37-38, Bozeman Climate Plan pgs 147-151.) Figure 1. Aerial View of Project #21337. Figure 2. Aerial view looking northeast. 6b. No. This proposal will not secure safety from fire and other dangers due to the high density proposed. This will produce additional congestion at train crossings and add to the slowed response times of emergency personnel. The lesser densities of R3 and B1 might not overwhelm the already taxed infrastructure. 6c. No. This proposal will not promote public health, safety, and welfare in accordance with criteria 76-2-304 pg. 74 in BCP. Since the final intensity of this project is not known, decisions and recommendations need to be made regarding what “could” be built within the particular zoning designation. What maximum possibilities “could” exist regardless of the developer? Then take into account the building history of HomeBase Partners who usually build to the maximum allowable limit, with little to no collaboration with their new neighbors. This development is located partially in a historic floodplain and is directly connected to Legends II for flood mitigation. Dedication of parks are also listed in the BCP criteria and this applicant proposes only 43% of required park land dedication in the form of a trail along their flood mitigation path and plan to use nearby parks in Legends II and the Story Mill Park while paying cash-in-lieu (Aug.2021 Presentation to Legends II HOA BoD). Given the large size of their lot, the existing mature cottonwood groves, and the historic floodplain, cash-in-lieu is unacceptable to the goals stated in the BCP. It is well documented that public health is directly related to access to parks, trails, and open space and is supported by Sec. 38.100.040 B of the UDC. As a parent, I appreciated parks near our homes the most. Young children will not be accessing either of the above parks the same way they would a park within their own neighborhood 6d. Yes the project will facilitate adequate provisions of water and sewage. No, the project will not facilitate adequate provisions of transportation or parks. Also, the proposal is not close enough to any existing schools for kids to safely bike or walk to. I know this to be true from personal experience. Lastly, I am concerned about the continued growing demand on our finite water supplies. An overly dense development will add undue strains on the nearby Lyman Creek water supply. 6.e. Will the new zoning provide adequate provision of light and air? No. According to Bozeman’s established standards for park dedication and on-site open space on page 74 of BCP zoning criteria, Project #21337 is lacking in size and type of parks and open space. They have ample opportunity for an internal open space area and could incorporate the mature cottonwood groves for shade, flood management, public health and wellbeing, and adequate light and air.. Currently the applicant is requesting R5 zoning (up to 50 ft. high bldgs.) for the exact locations of the wooded areas. The potential height alone interferes with light and air, while also obliterating the existed wooded areas and their intrinsic value. 6.f. Effect on Motorized and Non-motorized transportation systems. I believe the effect on Non-motorized will be neutral or lean towards negative. Sidewalks do exist along Bridger drive now, and there are bike paths that are safely removed from the road. However, I find the bike lanes along Bridger Drive to be gritty, difficult, and dangerous and unless we allow bikers to use the sidewalks all the way to Oak St. the bike lanes are inadequate for higher capacity use. In regards to Motorized transportation, I believe that it is overall negative. Please see my comments for Annexation Goal #7. 6g. Compatible Urban Growth? No. The applicant’s response seems to indicate that simply following the future land use map is enough and that pushing the zoning districts to the densest levels is always desirable but this is just not always the case. They have failed to account for the rapidly changing needs of our times. Commercial is not what’s needed right now. The hospital is down approximately 400 employees! Signs are up all over town about job openings. What is needed is low and middle-income housing. We need housing that is inviting for people and families who want to invest in and make Bozeman their home. Residential zoning up to R3 would allow for a variety of homes that are more inviting to long term owners because of the variety of shapes and sizes that R3 allows for and the way the lots are used. By reducing the density of #21337 to B1 and R3, the development would be complementary to the commercial district approved for the Stockyard property. It could provide more residential zoning of the type that people who want to live here desire such as what you find in R1, 2, and 3. There could be variety in lot sizes and building heights while maintaining a sense of place. Starting with a lower density on this parcel would allow for infill in a manner “that allows for additional intensification over time” and “reasonable incremental development at the city edge” as stated on pages 75 and 76 in the BCP. 6.h. Promote the character of the district? No. While the applicant is not wrong when they say that R3 will be a good buffer between the proposed commercial area and the existing R1 and R3, they leave out a great deal more. Since there is only one small farmhouse and a few outbuildings on the property, the commissions therefore need to look at the character all around the property. As one is driving north on Rouse from Oak, one passes many commercial and manufacturing buildings with a few scattered residential lots. Not one of these buildings is greater than two stories yet there is a lot of variety in size and structure. And there is room for incremental growth over time. As one approaches the #21337 property the commercial gives way to more residential properties with the Story Hills on the right, Bridger Creek close in on the left, and ahead you see the M and the Bridger Mountains. It’s quite a majestic entrance to the narrow canyon mouth. At that point it would be very out of character to have the entire view shed towards the M suddenly blocked by 5 or 6 story B2M commercial buildings in front, perhaps a grand 6 story hotel, and followed behind by more 5 story Mixed Use R5 apartment buildings with ground floor retail. On page 13, the applicant states, “ The commercial component in the B2M will predominately serve the surrounding neighborhoods with services and job potential, promoting a walk-able environment”. The service they are promoting is nearly the exact description of B1 commercial, not B2M or even B2. B2M serves the immediate as well as “the broader trade area”. My concern here is that the applicant is promising one thing while asking for another. We have to think about what “could” be. The current character also includes old growth native cottonwood groves upon which the applicant has sited the R5 zoning on their Proposed Zoning plan on page 19. (Compare to Figures 1 and 2.). A thoughtful R3 designation could work around these areas while maintaining a lower height than the trees themselves and the groves would act as visual buffer between the existing neighborhoods and the new one while maintaining a sense of place and retain some of the original character of the land. 6.i. Does the new zoning address the affected area’s peculiar suitability for particular uses? No. This land does have a “unique physical attribute that makes it more appropriate for one use than another” as per 2.d. on page 76 of the zoning criteria in the BCP. The applicant states that the area doesn’t have major constraints related to floodplains, human-wildlife conflict, etc., which demonstrates unfamiliarity with the property. From the attached aerial views in Figures 1 and 2, one can see that the property has historical streambed markings in the northwest corner and trees groves and corridors that all mark low lying, flood prone areas. This low-lying area has been part of the floodplain management plan for Legends II since it’s inception (2007). In addition we can see from the applicant’s Connectivity Map on page 18 that Bridger Creek and the Story Hills are only about ¼ mile to the north and south. These two areas are prime bear habitat and will remain that way indefinitely. All HOAs in the vicinity have had to adopt bear attractant management plans such as no bird feeding and keeping garbage cans inside in an effort to lessen negative human/wildlife impacts. We’ve been successful so far but to state there are no human-wildlife conflicts is just naïve. 6. j. Conserving Values of Buildings? At the densities requested the potential size and shape of the buildings that could be built would not look remotely like those around them, and would have a negative impact on the buildings around them. The actual property values might not decrease but the overall desirability of the neighborhood would be negatively impacted if it is developed at the maximum level of the requested zoning. Zoning designations of R3 and B1 would be welcome and would complement the existing buildings and also offer variety. 6.k. How does the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area? It doesn’t. The applicant states their proposal is suitable simply because it conforms to the future land use map and that the UDC will continue to help them conform as their project moves forward. Unfortunately, Project #21337 as proposed does not promote the most appropriate use of the land as it connects back to the growth policy and guidelines and peculiar suitability (page 78 BCP). It has not been adjusted to meet the unique qualities of the location and the land itself. It has been designed as though it could exist anywhere. It would look the same if placed on the field by Walmart or on N. 7th in the old Kmart lot- both more appropriate locations. There is nothing about it’s site plan that acknowledges the geographical constraints as well as the existing infrastructure constraints. While Legends II and Creekwood follow the curves of Bridger Creek, the proposed Canyon Gate Project could literally be “anywhere USA”. Conclusion This particular parcel is “genuinely unique” due to it’s location at the narrow entry to Bridger Canyon on the northeast edge of town, it’s very close proximity to two distinct habitat zones- the Bridger Foothills via Bridger Creek and the Story Hills, it’s distance from community amenities such as fire stations, hospitals, schools, and major employers. It is somewhat isolated on the north side of problematic train crossings but that historic isolation has given it dark skies and a quiet presence. It is a welcome sight to see the Bridger Mountains when one drives east past this proposed parcel. A development that paid attention to this parcel’s unique and quiet nature would be welcome. Family friendly housing (R3) with some neighborhood business (B1) and it’s own set of parks and open spaces would be very welcome and complimentary to the surrounding neighborhoods. Respectfully submitted, Marcia Kaveney 1496 Boylan Rd. Bozeman, MT 59715 .