HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - City Commission July 8 meeting, Application #24570From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Douglas Fischer; Joey Morrison; Emma Bode
Subject:[EXTERNAL]City Commission July 8 meeting, Application #24570
Date:Monday, July 7, 2025 11:26:29 PM
Attachments:2025.7.8.#24570, 5211 Baxter Annexation.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.
Please include the attached letter in the City Commission's folder and that of
application #24570- 5211 Baxter Annexation.
Thank you,Marcia Kaveney
July 8, 2025
City Commission Action Item I.1.
Application #24-570, 5211 Baxter Lane, ZMA
Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Commissioners-
I am writing to you to ask you to VOTE NO on the Zone Map Amendment, Annexation
request, and Zoning request of application #24-570 for the reasons stated below.
1.There is no longer a dire need for dense residential housing. According to the Bozeman
Daily Chronicle’s June 24th article on approximately June 24th” Negotiate Your Rent”, there is
a vacancy rate between 12 and 20% in apartment rentals and a healthy rate (according to
the article) is between 5 and 10%.
2.A large property of 164 acres filled with medium (R3) and high density (R5) does not
support the growth policy of incremental growth near the perimeter of town. It creates
undesirable sprawl. High density on the very edge of town, farthest on the property from
any job, school, or commercial site will obviously tie everyone to their cars for the
foreseeable future. Several Community Development Board (CDB) members also
commented on the negative eaects of commuter traaic and general car-centricity of this
proposal.
3. The CDB board held lengthy conversations at their June 16th meeting and did not pass the
motion to approve the ZMA demonstrating its controversial nature. Please follow their lead.
Some of their reasons that I agree with are the following:
•It fails to pass Criteria A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. While it passes some
things, it fails to pass many of the goals of our community driven growth policy as
brought up by both the public and CDB members.
•It is not incremental as desired on the edge of city boundaries, it’s not walkable, it
doesn’t reduce car use.
•There is no guarantee that a future commercial node will be developed due to the
activity along N. 19th and lack of B1 zoning nearby.
•R3 promotes a diversity of housing but R5 promotes more apartment buildings. And as
mentioned, many of those are sitting empty and many more are currently being built or
in the pipeline. More apartments are not in demand.
4.The proposed location of R5 in the northwest and northeast corners of the property are
illogical. B1 or REMU would be more suitable. R5 in these corners does not support the
goal of DCD-2.2 Support higher density development along main corridors and at high
visibility street corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses. Each
of these corner locations are bordered by either protected wetlands or agricultural land. R1
or R2 would be better suited to these corners for being adjacent to county land, water
quality (runoa), and for wildlife compatibility.
5. When Rob Pertzborn was asked at the CDB meeting, “What is the justification for this
zoning and annexation?” and “Sell it (the annexation and zoning) to me”, his answer was
inadequate. He stated that it’s not about making more apartments; it’s about supporting
the future commercial. Then why not propose REMU or B1 which also allow a mix of
housing and true neighborhood commercial?
6. This type of annexation promotes sprawl and will not prevent wealthy people from
building large homes on ranchettes in the county contrary to CDB Chairman Happel’s
argument that annexing this land will protect county ag land from development.
Respectfully, I disagree with his analysis and oaer the following. People who can aaord to
buy 2 or 3 acres in the county and build a large home will continue to do so. They are not
the people looking to rent an apartment in a residential neighborhood.
7. High density should not be located near important sensitive lands such as this one.
Medium or low density would have fewer negative impacts on the wetlands and forest.
On a side note, I think this ZMA application and the controversy it has created is a clear
example of the need for the community and commission to come together soon and review
the growth policy and find a way to balance how it’s used. I find it very concerning when the
staa find no “no identified conflicts” while both CDB members and community members
can find numerous problems with the application and whether it meets the review criteria
including whether it fits the growth policy. There is a problem with the growth policy and
how it is being interpreted when planners, advisory board members, and community
members can have such vastly diaerent interpretations.
In conclusion, please vote no on application #24570. The commission can demand better
proposals, especially in this uniquely sensitive wildlife corridor.
Thank you for considering my comments,
Marcia Kaveney