HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-25 Public Comment - Bozeman Tree Coalition - #24492, 5532 Fowler Lane Annexation and ZMA application public hearingFrom:BozemanTreeCoalition
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Jennifer Madgic
Subject:[EXTERNAL]#24492, 5532 Fowler Lane Annexation and ZMA application public hearing
Date:Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9:00:06 AM
Attachments:2025.4.07.BTC Comments for CC and 5532 Fowler Ave. Annexation and ZMA_F..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.
Good morning,
Please add the attached letter to the City Commission packet for tonight's (4/8/25) public
hearing on Annexation and ZMA application #24492, 5532 Fowler Lane Annexation andZMA.
Please also add it to the #24492, 5532 Fowler Lane Annexation and ZMA folder.
Thank you,
The Bozeman Tree Coalition
April 8, 2025
Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and City Commissioners-
The Bozeman Tree Coalition (BTC) submits the following comments to
consider for your review of Application #24-292, 5532 Fowler Lane.
The BTC is interested in the 5532 Fowler Lane property because of its
significant collection of mature trees and vegetation, as well as the property’s
location on the southwest edge of Bozeman near the wildland-urban interface
and the wildlife corridor provided by the adjacent irrigation ditch. The cover
page of the applicant’s Narrative provides a good illustration of the trees and
nearby row of trees along the historical ditch.
The BTC agrees with the recent vote by the Community Development Board
(CDB) in their capacity as Zoning Commission to deny the Zone Map
Amendment (ZMA) request of R4 for the subject property. We also support
denying the annexation request at this time to help conserve open land and
Bozeman’s finite water supply.
If the City Commission (CC) does approve the annexation, we urge the CC to
deny the R4 zoning request and invite the applicant to return with an R2 or R3
proposal. Zoning designations of R2 and R3 are both allowable zones in an
Urban Neighborhood designation on the Future Land Use Map and are much
more suited to the edge of town near the wildland-urban interface because (1)
their land use requirements include more open space and setbacks, (2) the
lowered density will lead to fewer drivers on the daily commute, and (3) fewer
commuters will lead to fewer conflicts with wildlife.
Regarding annexation:
1. The applicant does not present a persuasive argument or need for
annexing the property into the City.
Given the subject property is not wholly surrounded by City boundaries, it is
incumbent upon the applicant to present a persuasive argument for annexing
the property at this time. The Narrative does not state that the two housing
units present a looming sanitation concern, and City sta\ have recently
reported (at the UDC open houses) that there are about 1,000 homes per year
in the "pipeline" which meets the City's stated goal. There have also been
reports at recent UDC meetings that there is currently a 10% vacancy rate in
the rental market indicating what some would consider a reasonable amount
of available housing. Adjacent properties such as Bu\alo Run were annexed
at the height of the housing crisis, but this applicant does not present a
persuasive argument for annexing this property at this time or that the
property, when developed, will not strain the City’s available services.
Although the applicant states that a long-term goal is to provide some
financially assisted a\ordable housing, goals are not contractual, and
annexations cannot be based on speculative plans.
2. Many residents have requested a slowing of the City's sprawl due to
lack of development’s contributions to public transit, police staEing,
schools, and the water supply.
At recent UDC meetings, residents have expressed a tolerance of
incremental, neighborhood-friendly increases in density within City
boundaries but less tolerance of sprawl. In the Bozeman Community Plan
2020 (BCP), “Sprawl” is defined, in part, as “Forced reliance on individual
automotive transportation”, and “distribution of land uses which require
driving in order to satisfy basic needs”. Annexing and subsequent
development of the subject property will exacerbate both undesired
consequences.
Regarding Zoning:
1. The applicant failed to provide justification for zoning the property R4
instead of R3 or R2.
The applicant appears to be crossing their fingers when they say in their
Narrative on page 13, “Allowing these extra housing types will hopefully allow
for the creation of smaller units which in theory could help meet this missing
middle demand. Additionally, by allowing R-4 to happen in this location it will
allow for the creation of a\ordable housing.” (our emphasis) How will it allow
for the creation of a\ordable housing? Is a\ordable housing only in
apartment buildings? This is never explained.
The R3 designation, also designated in Urban Neighborhoods, provides ample
opportunity for a wide variety of housing including three-story structures and
multiple-story townhomes while explicitly addressing the "missing middle"
housing gap. The Urban Neighborhood designation on the Future Land Use
Map is not a default zoning mechanism, and it could be argued, as Mark Egge
did in the 3/17/25 CDB meeting, that R2 or R3 are more conducive zoning
designations for the subject property, which is far from the urban center.
These lower density zoning designations would allow the property to blend
visually into the rural landscape, provide more open space for wildlife and
trees, and supply fewer cars to the morning commute.
The definition of “Missing Middle Housing” in the Glossary of the Bozeman
Community Plan 2020 (BCP 2020) is accompanied by an excellent illustration
of “missing middle housing” and describes it as housing “constructed in
buildings which are of a size and design compatible in scale and form with
detached individual homes” which is exemplified by R3. On the other hand, R4
allows four-story apartment buildings, or “Mid-Rise” buildings that would not
be “compatible in scale and form with detached individual homes”. Four-story
apartments are not part of the “missing middle housing”; therefore, R4, when
fully developed, is not part of the missing middle solution, as defined in the
BCP 2020 aka growth policy.
In ZMA Approval Criteria i (Section 76-2-304 MCA), the applicant fails to
address the lack of compatibility to the agricultural county land on two sides
of the property by focusing on the adjacent R3 and R4 instead and omitting
the fact that 50% of the adjacent property is nearly devoid of buildings, and
completely rural in nature.
2. The walk score is zero which does not contribute to the desired
“walkable” neighborhoods.
One of the BCP goals is walkable neighborhoods. The walk score is so low, the
sta\ didn’t include it in their first report. Residents will be entirely dependent
on automotive transportation for work, amenities, and essential services for
the foreseeable future. There are no applications for commercial projects in
the vicinity of the project. Public comment provided by Sunshine Ross,
HRDC/Streamline Transportation Director was not able to provide any
certainty of Streamline service to this area in the near or distant future.
3. The CDB in their Zoning Commission capacity recommends not
approving the zoning application for the R4 designation. “Initial zoning
classification of the property to be annexed will be determined by the City
Commission, in compliance with the Bozeman Growth Policy and upon a
recommendation of the City Zoning Commission, simultaneously with review
of the Annexation petition.” (our emphasis) (Page 8 in the application
Narrative, Zoning Policies, #4.) In this case, the CDB, acting in their capacity of
Zoning Commission recommended not approving the zoning application of
R4.
The BTC reviewed the 3/17/25 CDB meeting video and agrees with the
recommendation of the majority of board not to approve the zoning
application of R4, and their reasons including the following: (1) it is not
located near public transit or commercial areas and will be entirely car
dependent, (2) the potential high-density massing would likely overwhelm the
current roads and location, (3) too far from likely future public transit, and (4)
not close enough to employers or schools.
In summary, BTC recommends not annexing this property for the reasons
listed above. In the event the annexation is approved, BTC recommends
approving nothing denser than R2 or R3 zoning. R2 and R3 are more suited to
the rural location by requiring larger setbacks and more open space than R4.
The area does not have good multimodal transportation opportunities now,
and it is not located near commercial nodes, schools, churches, or essential
services.
No one can predict if the City will continue to grow in this location or if it will
grow north toward the highway and west toward Four Corners. One might even
argue that the planned neighborhood nodes are not producing the desired
outcomes. Existing commercial zones sit undeveloped in some neighborhood
nodes such as the Stockyards, Canyon Gate, and Sundance Springs (30 years
undeveloped).
For the many reasons mentioned above, the BTC’s position is that this is not
the right housing in the right place.
Thank you for considering these recommendations.
Bozeman Tree Coalition Cofounders
Marcia Kaveney, Daniel Carty, April Craighead, Angie Kociolek, Laura Schulz,
Chris McCreary