The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-27-23 Public Comment - H. & B. Morrison - Gran Cielo II rezoning requestFrom:Heidi Hokanson To:Agenda Subject:Gran Ceilo II rezoning request Date:Thursday, April 27, 2023 8:18:46 AM Attachments:Planning Commission Members.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. Planning Commission Members, We are respectfully writing to provide comments on the rezoning of the Gran Ciel II development property and ask that R3 be retained. R3 allows for plenty of density, but also requires some specific things that we feel preserve the character and natural beauty of the area that R4 simply does not. If the goal of the City is to create a community where residents are simply stacked on top of each other then you should rezone everything in your growth plan and trust that the developers will put profits aside and respectfully and thoughtfully build. You know as well as the rest of the resident population that would not be the case, so this is the only mechanism the residents have as their voice in the matter. Words on pages that seem to fall on deaf ears of the elected officials. Contrary to some of the Commissions belief, we are residents who voted for you and believed you would listen. We are not saying “NO, do not develop here,” but rather think about the choices you are making for your current residents. You are 5 people chosen to represent an entire population, but from the records are 5 people looking out for developers. From what I have seen you more often than not you vote to approve these rezoning applications, that seems to be proof that little to no consideration is being given in these matters. Below are responses specific to the areas of consideration: 1) According to the growth policy – sure if the growth policy is only to maximize doors. However, as it reads in the policy one of the main goals is to create middle income opportunities. Middle income housing opportunities are not just condos, townhouses and apartments. People still value single family homes. On top of this Gran Cielo I or II were never aimed at being affordable or middle income homes so this development in particular should not be considered relevant to the middle income opportunities. Additionally, if you read the predictions related to housing, in a decade there will be a huge decline in housing because the generations to come are much smaller and the demand will simply be far lower than the development that is occurring. 2) Safety – access in and out of this area is really limited. Graf is the main road into and out of the area so public safety would be of concern to existing and incoming residents. Drive out there and see how far removed from 19th this parcel is. It is understood that there may be a future fire station in the area, but we cannot bank on a future of promises. We must consider what is right now. Right now, the nearest fire station is more than 2 miles away, police even further now and any emergency response not even reasonably close. These are real safety things that are not addressed currently and to just stack more and more people into one area is reckless disregard for safety. This is not to say that the risk is not already inherently there, but increasing density means more people, more people mean more risk for all things related to safety. 3) Public health and welfare – it would seem as though there are other areas of concern that should be addressed prior to rezoning initiatives. Water especially is a public health and welfare item that tops the list, as it stands having to put permanent water restrictions in place and releasing grim reports about the future of our water source is more important than rezoning. Same with sewer services and the ability to keep up with a growing population. 4) Transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks- a. The area in question is not reasonably close to a major roadway nor any of the Streamline stops, which means it will mainly be a commuter and bike transportation area. When reading the growth policy, it seems to suggest that higher density housing should be located in proximity to public transportation and or main high traffic roadways to accommodate the increased density of the development. The consideration of rezoning this parcel is completely contradictory to that idea. b. Water & Sewer – it has already been noted that the water pressure and systems in this area already needed assistance to be better. More and more draw on those systems is not going to increase the efficiency by any measure. It seems like there are some important systems that need work and focus to allow for the growth we already have. This doesn’t even take into consideration the expected growth, so clearly there is no argument that there are more problems than answers. c. Parks – Meadow Creek has, what could be a nice park, but that park is barely managed. It does not have irrigation or grass really. This is an existing neighborhood with children and people living in it, we are already seeing how low the priority of open spaces and parks are to the City. High density zoning takes the parks and preservation of space/land out of the picture. So “win” for the City, but not for the preservation of the natural environment that is core to the Bozeman identity. It could be viewed as the City taking the easy way out of having to take care of parks, parks that were once considered essential to the identity of Bozeman. Open, natural space is noted as being specifically integral to the identity of Bozeman. 5) Light and air – high density housing will directly impede the Meadow Creek initiative to keep light pollution to a minimum and preserve the natural beauty of the area. This is not neighborly or considerate of the character or charm of lower density neighborhoods that havebeen in existence for years. Also, increased traffic compromises air quality. Currently we have no plansto look at or anything to even consider when thinking about how we would really be impacted, so the onlything we can comment on is what we know of the other high-density developments in the area. 6) Motorized traffic will increase not by 2x, but more likely a factor or 6 or 7 because of this type of rezoning. On top of increased traffic, rezoning to R4 does not require additional parking considerations which will push people to park on our neighborhood’s streets. 7) Compatible urban growth – this is not “infill” or considerate growth, this is annexation and expansion of the city boundaries that considers only a developer’s monetary return and had little to no consideration of the people already living in the area. The City has already allowed for the rezoning of dozens of developments within city limits to accommodate growth. Allowing only high- density development does not promote wellbeing or responsible growth it is a band aid that allows the City to say they are doing something about housing and trying to manage growth, when in reality it is a developers play ground where money and returns are winning over the residents and taxpayers who live here. Has anyone considered why the Gran Cielo developers have suddenly requested this change? It isn’t because it has the best interest of Bozeman at heart, it is because they can get higher returns with more dense zoning than they are getting with their first phase. 8) When one considers the development of other growing cities, high density projects are typically closer to the major thoroughfares because of the traffic, safety, welfare and management. The projects near 19th are suitable for this density of housing, but if you drive down Graf and get to 27th and go even further to get to Kurk these are not major streets (maybe Graf will be one day), but they are neighborhood streets and to build high density housing is neither suitable or in character with the area. Drive out to the area and see for yourselves. Again, the projects nearer to 19th absolutely fit what is suitable and with at least 5 other developments zoned for high density right along 19th and 2 others very close to this area, it is not the right choice for this area. 9) Value considerations – who knows, the only value considerations that seem to be in play are developers. The actual plans of Gran Cielo II have not been released, knowing their current development, there is no chance that anything except a high-end condo or apartment complex is in the works, but that consideration has not been afforded to us to provide comment in any accurate manner. 10) Appropriate use – if by appropriate you mean can it be used more to increase the number of doors on the parcel, sure. But as it stands, this is a more remote and rural area of Bozeman. There aren’t major areas of commerce and only small additions to services are actually part of development plans in the are. Maybe at one point a commercial district was the vision, but it just isn’t the reality. Again, there are several new developments with high density housing already in the works much closer to MSU and to major roadways. The attachment to this email is a PDF version of our letter to make printing easier. Thank you for your time. Regards, Heidi & Brian Morrison 3328 S. 30th Ave. Bozeman, MT 59718 Planning Commission Members, We are respectfully writing to provide comments on the rezoning of the Gran Ciel II development property and ask that R3 be retained. R3 allows for plenty of density, but also requires some specific things that we feel preserve the character and natural beauty of the area that R4 simply does not. If the goal of the City is to create a community where residents are simply stacked on top of each other then you should rezone everything in your growth plan and trust that the developers will put profits aside and respectfully and thoughtfully build. You know as well as the rest of the resident population that would not be the case, so this is the only mechanism the residents have as their voice in the matter. Words on pages that seem to fall on deaf ears of the elected officials. Contrary to some of the Commissions belief, we are residents who voted for you and believed you would listen. We are not saying “NO, do not develop here,” but rather think about the choices you are making for your current residents. You are 5 people chosen to represent an entire population, but from the records are 5 people looking out for developers. From what I have seen you more often than not you vote to approve these rezoning applications, that seems to be proof that little to no consideration is being given in these matters. Below are responses specific to the areas of consideration: 1) According to the growth policy – sure if the growth policy is only to maximize doors. However, as it reads in the policy one of the main goals is to create middle income opportunities. Middle income housing opportunities are not just condos, townhouses and apartments. People still value single family homes. On top of this Gran Cielo I or II were never aimed at being affordable or middle income homes so this development in particular should not be considered relevant to the middle income opportunities. Additionally, if you read the predictions related to housing, in a decade there will be a huge decline in housing because the generations to come are much smaller and the demand will simply be far lower than the development that is occurring. 2) Safety – access in and out of this area is really limited. Graf is the main road into and out of the area so public safety would be of concern to existing and incoming residents. Drive out there and see how far removed from 19th this parcel is. It is understood that there may be a future fire station in the area, but we cannot bank on a future of promises. We must consider what is right now. Right now, the nearest fire station is more than 2 miles away, police even further now and any emergency response not even reasonably close. These are real safety things that are not addressed currently and to just stack more and more people into one area is reckless disregard for safety. This is not to say that the risk is not already inherently there, but increasing density means more people, more people mean more risk for all things related to safety. 3) Public health and welfare – it would seem as though there are other areas of concern that should be addressed prior to rezoning initiatives. Water especially is a public health and welfare item that tops the list, as it stands having to put permanent water restrictions in place and releasing grim reports about the future of our water source is more important than rezoning. Same with sewer services and the ability to keep up with a growing population. 4) Transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks‐ a. The area in question is not reasonably close to a major roadway nor any of the Streamline stops, which means it will mainly be a commuter and bike transportation area. When reading the growth policy, it seems to suggest that higher density housing should be located in proximity to public transportation and or main high traffic roadways to accommodate the increased density of the development. The consideration of rezoning this parcel is completely contradictory to that idea. b. Water & Sewer – it has already been noted that the water pressure and systems in this area already needed assistance to be better. More and more draw on those systems is not going to increase the efficiency by any measure. It seems like there are some important systems that need work and focus to allow for the growth we already have. This doesn’t even take into consideration the expected growth, so clearly there is no argument that there are more problems than answers. c. Parks – Meadow Creek has, what could be a nice park, but that park is barely managed. It does not have irrigation or grass really. This is an existing neighborhood with children and people living in it, we are already seeing how low the priority of open spaces and parks are to the City. High density zoning takes the parks and preservation of space/land out of the picture. So “win” for the City, but not for the preservation of the natural environment that is core to the Bozeman identity. It could be viewed as the City taking the easy way out of having to take care of parks, parks that were once considered essential to the identity of Bozeman. Open, natural space is noted as being specifically integral to the identity of Bozeman. 5) Light and air – high density housing will directly impede the Meadow Creek initiative to keep light pollution to a minimum and preserve the natural beauty of the area. This is not neighborly or considerate of the character or charm of lower density neighborhoods that have been in existence for years. Also, increased traffic compromises air quality. Currently we have no plans to look at or anything to even consider when thinking about how we would really be impacted, so the only thing we can comment on is what we know of the other high‐density developments in the area. 6) Motorized traffic will increase not by 2x, but more likely a factor or 6 or 7 because of this type of rezoning. On top of increased traffic, rezoning to R4 does not require additional parking considerations which will push people to park on our neighborhood’s streets. 7) Compatible urban growth – this is not “infill” or considerate growth, this is annexation and expansion of the city boundaries that considers only a developer’s monetary return and had little to no consideration of the people already living in the area. The City has already allowed for the rezoning of dozens of developments within city limits to accommodate growth. Allowing only high‐density development does not promote wellbeing or responsible growth it is a band aid that allows the City to say they are doing something about housing and trying to manage growth, when in reality it is a developers play ground where money and returns are winning over the residents and taxpayers who live here. Has anyone considered why the Gran Cielo developers have suddenly requested this change? It isn’t because it has the best interest of Bozeman at heart, it is because they can get higher returns with more dense zoning than they are getting with their first phase. 8) When one considers the development of other growing cities, high density projects are typically closer to the major thoroughfares because of the traffic, safety, welfare and management. The projects near 19th are suitable for this density of housing, but if you drive down Graf and get to 27th and go even further to get to Kurk these are not major streets (maybe Graf will be one day), but they are neighborhood streets and to build high density housing is neither suitable or in character with the area. Drive out to the area and see for yourselves. Again, the projects nearer to 19th absolutely fit what is suitable and with at least 5 other developments zoned for high density right along 19th and 2 others very close to this area, it is not the right choice for this area. 9) Value considerations – who knows, the only value considerations that seem to be in play are developers. The actual plans of Gran Cielo II have not been released, knowing their current development, there is no chance that anything except a high‐end condo or apartment complex is in the works, but that consideration has not been afforded to us to provide comment in any accurate manner. 10) Appropriate use – if by appropriate you mean can it be used more to increase the number of doors on the parcel, sure. But as it stands, this is a more remote and rural area of Bozeman. There aren’t major areas of commerce and only small additions to services are actually part of development plans in the are. Maybe at one point a commercial district was the vision, but it just isn’t the reality. Again, there are several new developments with high density housing already in the works much closer to MSU and to major roadways. Thank you for your time. Regards, Heidi & Brian Morrison 3328 S. 30th Ave. Bozeman, MT 59718