HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-22 Public Comment - W. Klenn - Protest of South 3rd Annexation and ZMAWilliam Klenn January 26, 2022
408 Overbrook Drive
Bozeman, 59715
ATTN: Tom Rogers
City of Bozeman Department of Community Development
Bozeman City Clerk
121 N Rouse Ave.
Bozeman, 59715
Bozeman City Commissioners,
My name is William Klenn, owner of the property at 408 Overbrook Drive and an adjacent
(within 150 ft) landowner to the proposed South Third Annexation. The developer CBJ LLC is
proposing an R-3 designation for the Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) - application 21161 - for
their single parcel at 2303 S Third Ave. Thank you for taking my comments.
I’m writing to protest the R-3 Zoning proposal.
I disagree with some of the findings of the Staff Report for the 21161: South 3rd Avenue
Annexation and Zone Map Amendment. The reasons for my protest follow, listed by Zoning
Criteria:
Regarding Criteria C. Promote public safety,
Criteria D. Facilitate the provision of transportation, and
Criteria F. The effect on … non-motorized transportation systems:
R-3 zoning in this instance does not address the above criteria in respect to people, some of
whom are young children, who walk or use a bicycle for transport. The parcel is surrounded on
three sides by private land; the only pedestrian/bicycle access is on/via South 3rd which has no
sidewalk, curb, or gutter for the quarter-mile from Kagy Blvd. to Westridge Dr. There is a bicycle
lane on the east shoulder of S. 3rd but it is not maintained and is adjacent to automobile traffic.
The lane/shoulders are very often impassable due to being covered with branches/sticks/leaves
in the warmer months, and snow and ice in the colder months. Forcing pedestrians/bicyclists to
choose between traveling on the debris/ice covered shoulder or in the automobile traffic lanes
does not promote public safety.
When asked at the January 3rd Community Development Board meeting about plans for
pedestrian improvements for that stretch of S. 3rd, city planner Tom Rogers said that section
currently is not slated for upgrades in the next 5-year or 10-year plans.
Criteria G. Promotion of compatible urban growth.
This section addresses the promotion of compatible development, and rightly mentions the
widely varying opinions of what constitutes compatibility. It quotes Article 38.7 BMC on
establishing a common reference for compatibility standards, defining them as being “in
harmony with adjoining development” including elements of “architectural design”; … “scale;
intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size”.
An R-3 designation on that property would allow an imposing, nearly solid, wall of structures up
to 46-feet high, five feet from the property line of the adjacent properties. The houses on the
properties on the south side are 16 feet tall, about 1/3 that allowed in R-3 zoning. That is in no
way harmonious in architectural design, scale, intensity, building siting, or size.
According to those standards, this R-3 ZMA does not promote compatible development.
When we first learned of this development a group of us from the Overbrook Owners
Association had a meeting with Bozeman’s Director of Planning and Community Development,
Marty Matsen, and we discussed various ways the development might move forward. One
option that surfaced was the possibility of dividing the existing parcel into 4 individual R-1 lots,
which would allow 4 single family homes, each with an ADU for a total of 8 dwelling units on
that parcel. 8 units is less than 11, but it would in my opinion be infinitely more compatible with
the surrounding urban area. In a similar vein, the Overbrook Condo development where we
now live was opposed by neighbors, and to address their concerns the impact of it was
softened by having the buildings closest to the existing homes on Westridge Drive be smaller
single-family houses, and then increasing the size of the buildings farther from the existing
homes to multi-family structures. It was a reasonable compromise, and allows Overbrook to
blend into the neighborhood.
Likewise, these three sections -
H. Character of the district,
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses, and
J. Conserving the value of buildings
describe aspects of character, suitability, and conservation but it seems to be considered only
from the perspective of the R-3 area. Those characteristics of an R-1 development would be
appropriate within an R-3 area, but the R-3 criteria are not appropriate in the surrounding R-1
area, and that is what most of the objections are about. Those characteristics should be also be
considered from the perspective of the effects of the R-3 development on the R-1
neighborhood.
Spot Zoning
Rezoning the parcel to R-3 constitutes spot zoning.
It is significantly different form the surrounding prevailing uses.
It is small in terms of number of landowners benefitted. And,
It would benefit one landowner at the expense of surrounding landowners.
I’ve owned and lived in homes in the City of Bozeman for 45 years, believe in urban densities,
and understand the needs and pressures for higher densities. It is appropriate to provide for
new residents, but it is at least as appropriate to protect existing residents from unnecessary
affronts.
I contend that to approve this R-3 ZMA with the aforementioned pedestrian safety issues and
lack of pedestrian connections to existing pedestrian walks and trails would be irresponsible.
I urge you to reject the R-3 zoning recommendation and tone things down. An R-1 designation
could still put 8 units on that property and achieve a medium density development that blends
into the surroundings and be fair to the neighbors, many of whom have lived in the area for
decades. This could be a perfectly acceptable alternative.
Sincerely,
William Klenn