HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-24 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Reflections on CC mtng.1_23_24From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Jennifer Madgic; Joey Morrison; Terry Cunningham; Christopher Coburn; Douglas Fischer
Cc:Jeff Mihelich; Agenda
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Reflections on CC mtng.1/23/24
Date:Wednesday, January 24, 2024 12:45:09 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 Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Commissioners, and Staff-
Many thanks for your hard work and the long hours you spent discussing many topics at lastnight's City Commission meeting (1/23/24).
Jen and Joey: Thank you for your "no" votes on the zoning of application #23127. Your votes
and comments underscore your understanding of and care about neighborhood character, zonetransitions, neighborhood walkability, and the lack of guarantees once a zoning is in place on a
property.
Jen: Thank you also for your vote against the annexation of #23127 for many of the abovementioned reasons. It's not easy to be the lone vote and I applaud you for it.
Chris: You spoke to the public about how their statements of 'not being opposed to
development in general but being opposed to the particular zoning application' (paraphrased)land with you and the other commissioners. While your experience is certainly valid, I believe
it is not what the residents are trying to communicate. As one that said the same type of thingabout Canyon Gate, I think the residents are talking about zone transitions and, in particular,
the following priority of the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) on page 20,"The needs of newand existing development coexist and they should remain in balance; neither should
overwhelm the other." I hope you, and the other commissioners, will not lose sight of the goal of balance and zone
transitions when voting on future applications. And please also keep in mind that R3 has longbeen discussed as an excellent bridge between high and low density- as solid medium density
allowing for the much desired "missing middle" housing and that B1 is a worthy designationfor neighborhood commercial buildings that are less likely to overwhelm less dense areas and
both B1 and R3 still contribute to the growth you want to see.
Food for thought: 1) The BCP also makes some unsupported statements about growth that relate to what the
public was trying to convey last night, such as the following statement on page 13,"Development within the City lessens the likelihood of conversion of agricultural and open
spaces to other uses but does convert uses on some land with annexation." However, there isno footnote or data to support this conclusion and the recent growth pattern does not
support it. In my experience, City annexations simply grow a more sprawling city and haveactually increased my dependency on car ownership in Bozeman, while also making adjacent
agricultural land more attractive for future development. Additionally, the City has no controlover County land- so growth continues there simultaneously. What happens when we reach
that growth boundary? Is there anything preventing further expansion?
2) Is continual growth truly good for this valley? When do we have enough restaurants, coffeeshops, breweries? More is not always better.
3) When we hear that a parcel is going to have to be dewatered- let's stop and think, does this
align with good land stewardship? Should this land be developed for housing or is it providingus ecosystem and ecological services that are equal to or more valuable than housing in that
location? How does this parcel fit with the Sensitive Lands Study?
4) If it is true that staff are recommending R5 and R4 instead of R3 for land that is surroundedon 3 sides by county ag land, I have to wonder why? Just a few years ago, there was much
discussion about R3 being a much desired and "missing" designation and excellent fortransitional areas.
Thanks again for listening and for all the hard work you do,
Marcia Kaveney