Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-21 Public Comment - C. Roberts - Proposed Canyon Gate Comment Letter (Annexation and Zoning Map Amendment Application #21337)From:christine roberts To:Agenda Subject:Proposed Canyon Gate Comment Letter (Annexation and Zoning Map Amendment Application #21337) Date:Wednesday, December 15, 2021 7:54:22 AM Attachments:Canyon Gate Annexation Comments.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. Attached please find my comment letter for the proposed Canyon Gate project. Please includethis in the materials provided to the City Commissioners for the upcoming December 21st hearing on the annexation and zoning amendment request. Thank you, Christine Roberts December 15, 2021 Subject: Comments on Canyon Gate Annexation and Zone Map Amendment Application: 21337 Commissioners: I am a homeowner residing at 1470 Boylan Road, Bozeman MT, which is within 150 feet of the proposed Canyon Gate Development. I am in favor of annexing the parcel but oppose the proposed high-density zoning. Such zoning would allow for development that is inappropriate for the character of the existing neighborhood and unique features of the mouth of Bridger Canyon. Specifically, I oppose the B-2M and R-5 zoning and am in favor of R-3 and B-1 zoning. In addition, the commercial zoning should be limited to Bridger Canyon Road and not allowed along Story Mill Road. The Applicant has requested the most extensive development possible for the parcel, but has not effectively evaluated the likely consequences of such extensive development as a result of decreases in traffic level-of-service, insufficient planned open space, and high-density development better targeted for areas linked to major arterials and not in existing residential neighborhoods that currently experience curtailed access from three existing at- grade railroad crossings and limited access to major arterials from the east along Bridger Road. The Applicant essentially asks the City to request the densest zoning on an undeveloped parcel and states that issues will be addressed at some future time in site-specific plans. Although the City must make a decision about this specific annexation proposal independent of other proposed and approved development, I encourage the Commission to view development in this area of Bozeman as a unique opportunity to define the future of northeast Bozeman in a holistic and integrated way. This and the adjacent developments in this area present a golden opportunity to develop sensibly and in concert with the unique features of the area. The in-progress Bridger view development brings much needed affordable housing to the City and the proposed Story Mill development will supplement commercial opportunities in the area. In addition, redevelopment along Rouse should be considered for future commercial development rather than creating a new high-density urban center in what is largely a residential community. Evaluating Canyon Gate, the largest of these proposals, independently would not allow for a full review of collective impacts to be considered and mitigated. ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS Rather than accept the most extensive possible densities in the annexation parcel as the Applicant requests, the zoning of the area should be as follows to achieve City objectives and maintain the character of the community:  R3--Residential Medium Density. I recommend this zoning because it allows for a transition from the existing largely single-family dwellings in the vicinity to accommodate more dense residential uses, while still maintaining overall community character. In addition, the anticipated commercial development at Story Mill and commercial redevelopment that could occur along Rouse would serve the existing and new residential development. R3 provides adequate opportunities to meet the City’s goals of greater density development by allowing single family residences that would accommodate up to five families per structure. In addition to allowing this level of density, R-1 zoning should also be allowed to integrate existing neighborhood zoning into the proposed increased densities.  B-1--Neighborhood Business District. I support this zoning because it would allow for smaller scale retail and service activities frequently required by neighborhood residents on a day-to-day basis, as well as residential development as a secondary purpose, while still maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential land uses. This zoning could complement the proposed commercial at Story Mill’s development, which is walkable from the proposed annexation parcel. The limit of 5,000 square feet for structures with this designation is appropriate for the unique development constraints of the site (providing flood flow capacities, ensuring adequate public park space, and access constraints from three at-grade railroad crossings).  REMU--Residential Emphasis Mixed-use District. The REMU designation presumes that the proposed used will be compatible both within the district and to adjoining zoning districts. The Applicant’s proposed zoning, however, relies on densities that far exceed the existing allowable R-1 zoning in the area and rely extensively on commercial and high-density residential development that abuts abruptly with existing zoning. I support compatible and incremental development, which is not achieved by the Applicant’s proposed zoning. This designation, however, would be appropriate if the densities were more in alignment with existing R-1 zoning as well as the B-1 and R-3 zoning. The Applicant states that its proposal complies with the City’s growth policy. Although the City’s growth policy does allow for multiple types of zoning to be considered, it does not mean that the most extensive densities are appropriate for all parcels, as the Applicant is requesting. The City wisely acknowledges in its growth policy that approval of potential zoning designations must consider several key precepts that factor in site conditions and community considerations. Relevant growth policy precepts that apply to the proposed parcel include the following:  The needs of new and existing development coexist, and they should remain in balance; neither should overwhelm the other. (Emphasis added)  Land use designations must respond to a broad range of factors, including infrastructure, natural, and economic constraints, other community priorities, and expectations of all affected parties concerning private development. (Emphasis added)  The City intends to create a healthy, safe, resilient, and sustainable community by incorporating a holistic approach to the design, construction, and operation of buildings, neighborhoods, and the City as a whole. Developments should contribute to these goals and be integrated into their neighborhood and the larger community. (Emphasis added) Therefore, compliance with the general growth policy does not mean that the most extensive zoning of an area is appropriate for all parcels considered for annexation. I encourage the Commissioners to consider what is appropriate and transitional for the area given nearby pending development and the existing character of the neighborhood. Thank you for considering my comments. Christine Roberts