HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-29-22 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Attn. Com Dev Board by May 2, 22 - Project 21442From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Agenda
Subject:Attn: Comm. Dev. Board, by May 2, 22- Project 21442
Date:Friday, April 29, 2022 3:48:23 PM
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.
Dear Community Board Members-
I am writing in regards to the Silo Annexation and ZMA application and in response to Mr.
Saunders' quote in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on 4/26,2022.Respectfully, I disagree with Mr. Saunders assertion that this is a "very ordinary annexation
and zoning at this point."
When you review this application I would like to bring your attention to the following items: 1) Contrary to staff opinion there is an unresolved issue/conflict with this application
concerning water consumption because it unnecessarily expands city limits while the city issimultaneously preparing to place water restrictions on all its residents. City limits should not
be expanded to include hundreds more homes when we clearly do not have enough water forthe current residents without rationing. This property should remain in the county where the
current zoning accounts for less water consumption.
2) Expanding city limits in this area contributes to sprawl which is antithetical to the BozemanCommunity Plan of focusing on infill and protection of current resident's quality of life first
and foremost.
3) This application does not meet Strategic Plan 4.2 because it is not an example of highquality planning unless the annexation comes with its own water supply and it only creates
demands on the city's infrastructure rather than adding any benefits to it due to its lack ofadjoining boundaries. (see more details below.)
4) I believe your best option at your meeting is to choose alternative #3 to recommend denial
of this application, or alternative #4 to keep the application open with specific direction to theapplicant to produce and document their adequate contribution to the water supply to cover
their needs.
Additional concerns include the misleading information regarding the contiguous nature of theproperty as outlined below:
The application narrative is misleading, this property does not currently adjoin anydeveloped city property. It is contiguous only on paper. Immediately to the north is Interstate 90, the Railroad tracks, Frontage Road, and Valley
Center Drive- all barriers to an actual, usable,contiguous connection to the awkward thumb ofcity land to the north. It would be extremely costly to cross those barriers to connect
infrastructure. And while it may be contiguous to a very small slice of city land to the east,that land is currently undeveloped- which also means that connecting to infrastructure would
be costly.
This is not a simple infill project. It creates, rather than solves, an infill problem. I have
linked the city map below and you will see that the annexation of this property, at this time,will create a 'croissant', if you will, of empty and unannexed land, and exacerbate the problems
the city already has with 'donuts' of county land within its perimeters. We do not need it. Thereis plenty of empty land already within city limits that will ultimately be developed. This
applicant is already making use of that land in other projects.
https://gisweb.bozeman.net/Html5Viewer/?viewer=planning
Final thoughts:While I appreciate what this applicant is doing with the old dry cleaning building downtown,
this proposal strikes me as a land grab of good agricultural land lying outside the city limitswhich is not directly adjacent to other developed areas. It will add to the sprawl the same way
the location of CJMS did, will contribute to hundreds more car trips/day, and according to theapplication will not be contributing any affordable housing.
So what's in it for the city? Nothing. It will be a drain on the water supply with nothing in
return. Please recommend NO to this annexation and others like it that will not contributeanything needed to our town. Remind the city commission they are not legally required to
vote in favor of this annexation and 'should" vote no due to the stress it will put on our watersystem, the inadequate adjoining of developed city property, and lack of any benefits to the
city of Bozeman. The property can stay in county hands where it is appropriately zoned forminimal water use.
Thank you for your time,
Marcia Kaveney
1496 Boylan RdBozeman