Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-21 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Public Comment regarding Canyon Gate #21-337From:Marcia Kaveney To:Ross Knapper; Agenda Subject:Public Comment regarding Canyon Gate #21-337 Date:Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:29:25 PM Attachments:CityComm.C-GateLtr.dec15"2021.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 accept the following letter into public comment for the city commissioners.Thank you, Marcia Kaveney1496 Boylan Rd. Bozeman, MT December 15, 2021 Dear City Commissioners: Thank you for inviting public comment on ZMA application #21337 and taking the time to review it. Although I submitted comments earlier, I have been doing further research and want to add to my previous comments, especially in light of the recently proposed application changes and the recent zoning commission meeting result. According to the Basic Planning Precepts, the community wants incremental, safe, balanced, and integrated development. The Canyon Gate #21-337 zoning requests of B-2M, REMU, and R5 are NOT incremental types of growth and they do not promote safety, balance, or integration into the neighborhood. I am not against development and in general I am in favor of the eventual annexation and gentle development of this parcel into the city. However, I am also in agreement with the Zoning Commission decision that the benefits of Canyon Gate #21-337 do NOT outweigh the negative impacts when considering the 2020 Bozeman Community Plan’s Review Criteria for Zoning Amendments. My following thoughts are organized in direct correlation with the review criteria and guidelines in the BCP. Negative Impacts: 1.a.) B-2M, REMU, and R5 might be on the future land use map in the parcel in question but they are not in accordance with the growth policy because, if allowed, they would promote sprawl by the jumping too high up in density too soon, create a brand new commercial district where none has existed before that would depend on attracting more traffic to it, and not provide the predictable and gradual increase in density desired over time. 1.b.i.) B-2M, REMU, and R5 will not secure safety from fire and other dangers. They add too much density to the already failing railroad crossings. Expected longer trains, expected more frequent trains, and the resulting longer queues from added high density will add more time to emergency vehicles already lengthy response times and push this area over the tipping point of not being a safe place to live. The staff report erroneously states that the current longest response time of 20 will not change with increased density. 1.b.ii.) B-2M, REMU, and R5 will not promote public health, safety, and welfare. A potential fire truck or ambulance response time of 20 minutes is already too long. There is ample public comment on this but I would encourage you to consider the Idaho Pole Yard blight study which states the problem at L street with the railroad crossing and it’s need to be addressed. 1.b.iii) B-2M, REMU, and R5 will not provide reasonable provisions of transportation, schools, parks, etc. There is no room for road expansion to the south, north, and east. There is no availability for a road grid system to evolve. The current available railroad crossings all suffer from long delays with at grade crossings. The anticipated road improvements will not do enough since the at grade crossings will not be fixed in the foreseeable future. The high density will further overwhelm Hawthorne elementary which is currently having to send some of it’s students to Whittier. The applicant has stated it’s intention to use other parks and pay cash in lieu which would further eradicate the rural nature of this site which is at the heart of it’s character. 2.a.) The provision of light and air will be jeopardized due to the allowable uses in the B-2M, REMU, and R5. All three zones can fill 100% of their lots. By comparison R3 can only link 5 townhouses together creating space between structures which inherently provides air and space between buildings. The heights, widths, and lot coverage allowed in all three of B-2M, REMU, and R5 can drastically reduce air and light provisions in a highly rural area whose character is due in part to it’s dark night skies. 2.b.) The new zoning requested would negatively impact transportation systems by creating overcrowding in an area that has very limited growth potential. Hills and the narrow canyon will prevent growth to the east, south, and north. No grid transportation system can be developed. The staff report based their opinions on the 2017 Transportation Plan which used the previous future land use map from 2009. It goes without saying that much has changed since then. We really have to look at the last year and use current data to guide these future decisions. 2.c.) B-2M, REMU, and R5 would not promote compatible urban growth. , This criteria “focuses on what happens at the edge of the City, as well as what occurs in the heart of the City.” Here the city commission is directed to consider “What uses are allowed within each district” or what COULD be allowed, keeping in mind that ownership can change at anytime. This parcel is mostly surrounded by low density R-S, R1, with a small amount of R3 on one corner. Jumping two levels to R3 would be manageable. Jumping four levels to R5 is incompatible due to it’s potential difference in width and height, view blocking, lack of air and light provisions, as well as transportation impacts. R5 is also incompatible with local streets. R5 belongs on an arterial or collector street to be appropriately accessed. In this proposal residents would have to access the R5 locations in and out of the low density adjacent neighborhoods. B-2M and REMU are also incompatible scenarios for this property based on their potential density and intensity of use. The UDC states that B-2M is meant to function as a district that ”accommodates substantial growth” and is to provide uses that serve “the broader trade area”. B-2M placed in this location does NOT “allow for additional intensification over time” nor is it “reasonable incremental development at the City edge (Guideline C.) Accordingly, the UDC description for B-2M does NOT support its use at this site because it is intended for “arterial corridors, commercial nodes, and areas served by transit “. Bridger Drive may be considered an arterial corridor but this location along Bridger Drive has no room for additional growth to the east, south, and north. B2-M zoning at this corner would act as a destination center and could only survive by drawing traffic to it. In the case of B-2M, there appears to be no size cap in B-2M (UDC, Chpt.38). The average hotel is 48,000 sqft (Fixr.com). The smallest Cosco is 80,000 sqft (cheapism.com). These kinds of developments are obviously inappropriate and incompatible with the corner of Bridger Drive and Story Mill Rd. The Stockyard’s recent approval for B-2M is tolerable because it is well off Bridger Drive and in an area that has been commercial for decades resulting in fewer negative visual, transportation, and neighborhood impacts. (It has less than 5 adjacent residential neighbors). B-2M also allows for heavy retail and service businesses. According to the UDC Article 7, “this use category includes but is not limited to sales of agricultural supplies, building materials, manufactured home, and heating fuels, truck stops, transit terminals, outdoor displays/sales, and warehousing.” Imagine what it would be like to have a Flying J, Murdochs, or Kenyon Noble at the mouth of Bridger Canyon surrounded by low density residential neighborhoods. Even R3 can’t buffer against allowable uses such as these. 2.d.)The new zoning does not promote the character of the district for the reasons listed in 7 and 9. This criteria directs you to consider “all the options allowed by the requested district and not only what the present applicant describes as their intentions.” So, while I appreciate that HomeBase Partners have come forward with a willingness to commit to lower heights and the inclusion of affordable housing units, these comments fall outside of the deciding criteria and cannot be considered at this time. Ownership and plans can change. Zoning reflects what’s best for the area and land at the time of zoning regardless of details of the plan. 2.d. cont’d.The new zoning would not address the area’s peculiar suitability for particular uses. This parcel is unique because of its intimate connectivity with the major wildlife habitats of the Story Hills and Bridger Creek. There is no changing this location. It is what it is. This parcel has long been a wildlife corridor and contains wonderful bird and small mammal habitat in it’s two major cottonwood groves. The growth policy specifically lists goals of both reducing impacts on and also preserving wildlife habitat and corridors, “specifically wildlife habitat as we continue outward growth”. (BCP, EPO 1.5 and 2.3) Dense development on this area would go against the growth policy for the reasons stated above. 2.e.) Conserving the Value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of the land… This location is genuinely unique as the narrow entrance to Bridger Canyon situated between two major wildlife habitat areas of the Story Hills and Bridger Creek with no room to expand. In this location high density commercial and housing will not only disrupt the wildlife corridors but also add undesirable stress to the existing and future infrastructure. The most appropriate use of this land would be for moderate density housing such as R3. Anything denser than this will be inappropriate due to reasons stated in the previous criteria. Positive Impacts: 1.a.) R3 zoning would allow for development of the “missing middle” housing that Bozeman could use more of such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. I know that some of the negative impacts may not seem as important as the lure of new housing. And in their report, city staff make the argument that neighborhood compatibility will be protected because developments are subject to additional review under UDC Project Design Codes later in the development process. But we must not kick this controversial can down the road and rely on less powerful criteria later when proper zoning now can set the stage for appropriate development design. Proper zoning will provide the reliability we need going forward and the structure for sound planning. And I completely understand that additional housing is very important to the city. I too would like our work force to be able to live here just as I am able to. Maximum zoning designations of R3 and B1 would allow for this. B1 as described in the UDC fits the HomeBase narrative of neighborhood business perfectly. And R3 is less likely to become lock and leave condos. Hundreds of residents have spent hundreds of hours researching the pros and cons of zone map amendment application #21337 and find it to be unsuitable for this area as proposed. Given the unchangeable geographical constraints and special attributes of the area, the lack of available room to grow in three cardinal directions, the lack of adequate infrastructure to ensure safety to the residents due to problematic railroad crossings, the rural nature and location of the district at the edge of city limits, and the wishes of over 300 residents, I also urge the city commission to accept the recommendation of the zoning commission and vote NO on Application #21337 Canyon Gate as it is proposed, or vote to approve with MAXIMUM densities of R3 and B1. Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this matter. Marcia Kaveney 1496 Boylan Rd., Bozeman