HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-21 Public Comment - M. Siewert - Bridger CanyonFrom:mary siewert
To:Agenda
Subject:Bridger Canyon
Date:Thursday, December 16, 2021 8:40:21 AM
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.
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 commentsearlier, 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 zoningcommission meeting result. According to the Basic Planning Precepts, the community wants
incremental, safe, balanced, and integrated development. The Canyon Gate #21-337 zoningrequests 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 developmentand 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 thebenefits of Canyon Gate #21-337 do NOT outweigh the negative impacts when considering
the 2020 Bozeman Community Plan’s Review Criteria for Zoning Amendments. Myfollowing 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 usemap 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 abrand 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 overtime. 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 overthe 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 onthis 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 aroad 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 atgrade 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 toWhittier. 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 5townhouses 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 verylimited 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 theiropinions 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 thelast 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 theedge 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 R3would 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 astransportation 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 accessthe 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 ofuse. 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 inthis location does NOT “allow for additional intensification over time” nor is it “reasonable
incremental development at the City edge (Guideline C.) Accordingly, the UDC descriptionfor 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 arterialcorridor 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 onlysurvive 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 80,000sqft (cheapism.com). These kinds of developments are obviously inappropriate and
incompatible with the corner of Bridger Drive and Story Mill Rd. The Stockyard’s recentapproval 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 neighborhoodimpacts. (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 notlimited to sales of agricultural supplies, building materials, manufactured home, and heating
fuels, truck stops, transit terminals, outdoor displays/sales, and warehousing.” Imagine what itwould 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 allowableuses 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 therequested 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 tolower 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 forparticular 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 iswhat 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 listsgoals 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) Densedevelopment 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 theland… 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 toexpand. 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 mostappropriate 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. PositiveImpacts: 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 ofthe 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 becausedevelopments 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 onless 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 thestructure 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 ableto. 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 tobecome 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 beunsuitable 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 wishesof 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, orvote to approve with MAXIMUM densities of R3 and B1. Thank you for your time and
careful consideration of this matter.
Mary Beth Siewert8895 Sypes Canyon Rd
Bozeman, MT 59715