HomeMy WebLinkAboutCampus Crest Zone Map Amendment Public Comment combined to 2-25-14 at 5 p.m.From:Robert Hawks
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest
Date:Monday, February 10, 2014 2:07:44 PM
Dear Commissioners:
I write as a interested party holding property adjacent to the area of Figgins. Theproposed Campus Crest development and requested zone change will provide noprotection from the probable adverse impacts well described by area residents in theprevious public hearing.
I personally attended the neighborhood discussion with the developers and voicedwhat I thought to be an obvious question. I asked the representatives of thePlanning Department in attendance why given the circumstances, was the projectnot reviewed as a PUD. They responded that it was because the applicant had notasked for it. Then I asked the question of the developer and after pushing on thequestion, their response was that they did not want to deal with all the conditionsthat might be placed on the development.
I personally feel that even if the project were to proceed under the PUD guidelines,that it is likely the project could not be made to adequately address the adverseimpacts on the adjacent single family dwellings and school facility.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob Hawks703 W Koch StreetBozeman, MT 59715
406-570-1199
From:Mary Vant Hull
To:Agenda
Subject:Fw: R1 ti R4, including Public Comment remarks
Date:Monday, February 10, 2014 8:06:17 PM
Dear Commissioners,
You might like to see my written-out notes that specify examples I used during Public
Comments Monday at 4 p.m. I was taken aback to see how hugely the process of zone code amendments has
changed over the years. We used to have Conditional Use Permits whereby we
could set up conditions that actually protected neighborhoods. I'd go so far as to say
that one of the big reasons Bozeman is as liveable as it is, is because commissions in
the past usually listened to neighbors' objections & acted accordingly. Here is an example in my own neighborhood: At the south end of Dell Place there
used to be 2 large tracts of undeveloped land. They both came up numerous times
between 1982 & 1990 for very dense housing, something on the order of nearly 200
units on each. Each time, neighbors on Dell, S. Bozeman & E. Story turned out in
droves to object. Each time we turned down the dense proposals, agreeing with the
neighbors that it was too dense & would damage the neighborhood. Each time the
properties were sold to a new developer who would lower the density slightly & come
back to the commission, face refusal, & the cycle would start again. It happened so
often that Dell resident Kay Peden complained to me, "How many times do we have
to come here & complain about another too-dense plan?!" I said, "As often as a
developer keeps on making proposals that are too dense."
Finally, Scott Heck bought the SE portion & built only 2 homes on it; the
neighbors were so happy: No complaints. Another person bought the SW portion &
built a tasteful lower density development of, maybe 10 duplexes. Again, the
neighbors were happy, with no complaints. You can walk through it today, & see the
kind of development that made Bozeman so liveable.
Having read the staff report on Campus Crest, I was appalled to see how unhelpful
the language is. The staff report doesn't give you any guidance at all. They use trite,
bland, boilerplate language that shows no degree of high or low value in the
proposal.
The report more or less says, "Anything goes." But if you are serious about
retaining "Bozeman Most Liveable City", you, the Commission, have to decide if
Liveability is a higher value than those trite, bland, boilerplate words in the report. Here are some examples where the language is meaningless, or downright contrary
to commonsense : p. 7: "Be in accordance with a growth policy": "In accordance" is the lowest common
denominator, & doesn't really address liveability or neighborhood protection.
p. 11: "may facilitate the extensive improvements necessary . . ." It can just as
easily NOT facilitate; in fact, in practice & experience, we all know that our street
budgets, even with impact fees, are severely inadequate. So how could it facilitate?
Inadequate impact fees? A higher street maintenance fee on everyone? p. 16: "will encourage the most appropriate use . . ." it can just as easily be said, will
"discourage": Any planner or keen observer knows that developers always develop
the least dense part of a new development first, & only later, add dense housing?
Why? Because no one builds an individual residence after dense housing is in place.
"There goes the neighborhood." Also, p. 16: "compatibility is not as clear as . . ." . "Not as clear" actually means "is
diametrically opposed," as the neighbors so vigorously told the Zoning Commission.
Et cetera . . .
Finally, note that the land use principles described starting on page 41, give top
precedence to "Neighborhoods" and then "Sense of Place" which also doubles down
in stressing the importance of neighborhoods.
A topic for another day is how to do Infill without destroying neighborhoods. Just
approving anything & everything could easily destroy our Liveability. Thank you for listening, usually with patience. I very much appreciate your hard
work.
From:Mary Vant Hull
To:Agenda
Subject:Fw: R1 to R4
Date:Monday, February 10, 2014 8:16:25 PM
Again, for distribution to commissioners. Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mary Vant Hull
To: mary VantHull
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 12:25 PM
Subject: R1 to R4
While it's true we need more rentals, there are also good reasons to vote against
changing the present R1 to R4. Included are: 1. If you are committed to keeping Bozeman "a most livable city," you will not
change R1 to R4.
2. In the 35-plus years I have followed Bozeman city government closely, I can't
recall any time when we changed an R1 designation to R4.
3. When I & 2 other challengers swept 3 incumbent city commissioners out of office
in 1982, it was largely because of huge voter dissatisfaction with the previous
commissions (including Jimmy Vollmer, Keith Swanson & Mayor Duncan MacNab),
all of whom had approved a lot of the uglifications that we still are cursed with. Too
numerous to mention, but one prime example is the out-of-joint E. Olive Warehouses
immediately adjoining Bogart Park on its north.
4. A short-lived backlash developed for 4 years, including 1996 -- when Mayor Don
Stueck, Al Stiff & Joan Rudberg bowed to Graf/Jarrett & changed some of their R1 to
R2 & R3, now part of the Campus Crest application, along with the same R1 that
Graf/Jarrett are now asking you to change to R4. Even Stueck/Stiff/Rudberg didn't
like R1 to R4 at that time.
5. Graf/Jarrett built Figgins & Alder Creek, an area of nice R1 homes; now it seems
they are kinda stabbing those residents in the back by asking R1 be changed to R4.
6. This land is owned by Graf/Jarrett, not by Campus Crest.
7. If you really want to keep Bozeman liveable, it makes sense, too, to keep that R1
land for future homeowners who want to live close to their employer, MSU.
8. Bozeman has about 900 acres of R4 in the same general vicinity as this R1 land.
This is more than enough for all dense housing needs there.
9. So it seems like the push to change from R1 to R4 could be considered
a kindness for Graf/Jarrett than because there's a shortage of R4 land there.
Campus Crest does not need R1 land changed to R4: They can buy other R4 land
there.
10. If you want to keep Bozeman liveable, how can R1 be changed so drastically to
R4?
11. MSU also has plenty of land left for dense student housing.
12. Neighborhoods are delicate creatures. They shdn't be tampered with without
good reason.
(In my own home ownership experiences in the nearly 52 years I've lived here, I
resided at 1115 S. Grand (1/2 block off W. Garfield), 416 E. Story now, & 1014 S. 6th
(directly across the street behind Hannon Hall). Over the years, these areas, &
nearly everywhere in traditional Bozeman, moved from nearly 100% owner-occupied
to half or more rental. I used to take cookies to new neighbors when they moved in;
now they move in & out so fast, that's not possible. The neighborhoods need all the
stability you can give them in order to maintain Bozeman as a Most Liveable City.)
13. If this Commission changes this R1 land to R4 -- & if it continues such a policy --
-- & if it infills so ruthlessly that the City becomes a City of Rentals primarily, say
goodbye to Neighborhoods and Liveability. Of course, I'm glad I'm not in the hot seat anymore and wish you well in your
deliberations.
From:Marina Krob
To:Agenda
Subject:FW: Contact Us City Website
Date:Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:27:01 PM
Marina Gilkey Krob
Web Developer/ Database Administrator
City of Bozeman
www.bozeman.net
406-582-2338
From: mkoscinski@bresnan.net [mailto:mkoscinski@bresnan.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:49 AMTo: Marina KrobSubject: Contact Us City Website Web_AdministratorID: 118
Form inserted: 2/11/2014 9:49:28 AM
Form updated: 2/11/2014 9:49:28 AM
First Name: Mark & Martha
Last name:: Koscinski
Email: mkoscinski@bresnan.net
Phone: (406) 587-2205
Message: RE: Zoning/Campus Crest The recent Planning Board meeting regarding the re-
zoning of the property on S. 11th to accommodate high density college housing was eyeopening! The public turnout expressing opposition to this zoning change was impressive. The
vote outcome—with two board members in favor of the zoning change—was shocking. Asthe zoning decision for this property now rests with the City Commission, we ask that you
vote against this proposed zoning change.
Would you like a return response?: no
What is the best way to contact you?: Phone|Email
From:Wendy
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:34:00 PM
To Whom it may concern,
I live in the Alder Creek Subdivision, close to the proposed R4 zoning change.
I implore you to reconsider this change in zoning, these are family oriented neighborhoods
and a top elementary school that is within throwing distance of this proposed change. This
change will effect the area in a negative way, through traffic, crime and real-estate values.
We have lived in other areas of Bozeman and have seen it happen first hand, we chose this
area to avoid these issues.
The people that live in these neighborhoods bought here to be in a family oriented
environment, most looked at other neighborhoods before settling on the ones located near
the proposed R4 zoning. We ourselves went to the city and looked at maps to see what the
city had planned before we decided to buy, where is the value of having this info if it is not
at all reliable?
There are better locations to put the proposed Campus Crest Community/R4 zoning, rather
then next to Morningstar Elementary School which is ranked one of the top 10 in the state.
This change will surely effect the school and the individuals who attend. The people and
neighborhoods are in large part of what makes Bozeman such a fantastic place to live, MSU
is a great part of the community as well, but is it a good idea to trade one for the other?
I won't site all the regulations that may or may not have been met as I am sure you have
received them in abundance, ultimately the decision is in your hands. These are my personal
feelings of a community member that lives by this proposal.
Please do not make this Zoning change, keep established neighborhoods like these a great
part of Bozeman.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Wendy Welsh
1374 Alder Creek Drive
From:Tyler Doshier
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:02:06 PM
Commissioners - I urge you to decline the proposed zoning change to R4.
Decline it because it is across the street from an elementary school.
Decline it because it sets a precedent that existing zoning can be easily changed.
Decline it because there is already ample property zoned to allow this type of development across 11th,which is sufficiently distant from Morning Star Elementary School.
Decline it because the axioms of real estate dictate that this will decrease desirability of the establishedsurrounding neighborhood.
Decline it because it will make Arnold street a collector street which it is not designed to be.
Decline it because there is already 149 acres of suitable land for a development like this that would notrequire a zoning change and is just as close if not closer to MSU.
Tyler Doshier
3212 Summerset Drive
From:Tory Katz
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 16, 2014 11:04:40 PM
Dear City Commissioners,
I am writing you about the proposal to rezone land near Morning Star elementary to
high density student housing for MSU students. As a resident of Bozeman and parent
of Morning Star students I am opposed to the rezoning. I have the following
objections:
1. Not needed. It is my understanding that there is already plenty of space for high
density housing (eg REMU area) that would not be close to an elementary school or
impact the family friendly neighborhoods near the school.
2. Low quality. I have been reading about the complaints and issues that the
Developer has had with its other Grove developments it sounds like they are not a
high quality organization (delays, balcony collapses, mold issues, electrical issues). I
think we should look out for our college students by allowing a company with a better
track record to build housing (preferably one with close ties/located in the Bozeman
area).
3. Safety of students. The website for the Grove emphasizes a focus on partying and
underage drinking in addition to increasing traffic there will be an increase in
impaired driving--- to put that in place 100 yards from an Elementary School
increases risk to elementary students and the families living near the school
particularly as Arnold St would become an access point. If you have ever driven
Arnold street as school is starting or letting out you would know there is already a lot
of congestion. Also a -- but it is parents of kids who are unlikely to be impaired and
who are attentive. Also as you are likely aware there are statistics showing higher
crime rates with high density housing. As recently came to light with the escape of
Kevin Briggs MSU does allow students who are known felons/sexual predators to
enroll as students this proposal would put them very close to a vulnerable population.
Please don't allow this.
I appreciate that MSU is growing and am well aware of the housing shortage in the
area. I hope we can move forward using land already zoned for this purpose ideally
with a developer with a better track record who has ties to the community.
Respectfully yours,
Tory Katz Kelly
7011 Bristol Lane
Bozeman 59715
re Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Bozeman Zoning Commission driley@bozeman.net
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
3258 Hillcrest Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59715
25 January 2014
Dear Bozeman Commission Members:
The proposed Zone Map Amendment Z13268 to shift from R1 to R4 next to Morning Star
Elementary School and adjacent to a large R1 single-family home neighborhood is a radical change
that does not accord with the spirit or the letter of Bozeman’s growth policy. Please reject Z13268.
The streets in this R1 single-family residential neighborhood such as Arnold were not
designed to handle the huge volume of traffic that high-density apartments in an R4 zone would
cause. This would increase danger from fire, crime, and other hazards near Morning Star School.
Rezoning to R4 would not promote health and the general welfare, but instead increase
traffic and noise and air pollution next to the elementary school and the single-family residential
neighborhood. Results would include lowered property values and reduced property tax revenue.
Rezoning to R4 would radically increase the driver demographic of college-age renters
into what has heretofore been a solidly R1 single-family home neighborhood. The influx of
higher-speed auto traffic would endanger pedestrians and bicyclists and lead to more auto
driving and less bicycling or walking. Congestion would be alarming at 7th Ave., Arnold St., and
others.
Rezoning to R4 would also undermine the Montana Code’s requirement for compatible
urban growth, since R4 high-density housing is incompatible for placement next to an
elementary school in what has heretofore been an overwhelmingly R1 single-family home
neighborhood. There are many better alternatives for high-density student-age housing, such as
the new 400-student dormitory that has been approved for construction within the MSU campus.
Rezoning to R4 would furthermore degrade the character of the R1 single-family
residential neighborhood around Morning Star Elementary School, which currently is quiet
instead of blaring with loud drumbeat stereos, lets residents breathe fresh air instead of choking
on the exhaust fumes of several hundred student-age renters’ cars, and provides a safe and
virtually crime-free environment for residents’ children and pets. Moreover, the proposed zoning
to R4 is totally at loggerheads with the City Commission’s 2007 zoning and development plan.
Finally, the proposed rezoning to R4 would disrupt the neighborhood’s currently healthy
ratio of owners to renters and cause the former to plummet, thereby decreasing the value of
existing property and buildings of local Bozeman residents merely for the sake of enriching the
out-of-state developer Campus Crest. This North Carolina-based developer has a poor track
record in other high-density student apartment projects such as one near the University of Maine
campus, where a riotous drinking party thrown by Campus Crest renters last year required the
response of six different police units and thirty summons during the following weekend as well.
Please protect the long-term viability of the R1 neighborhood and primary school and
vote against Amendment Z13268. Let the developer build more single-family homes instead.
Sincerely,
Tianyu Zhang and Weichuan Dong
From:Thomas Kelly
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 16, 2014 11:33:20 PM
Dear Commissioners,
As a Bozeman resident and parent of Morning Star students, I'm writing to voice my objection to theproposed zoning change referenced above.
Building a college housing complex 100 yards from an elementary school makes no sense. There wouldbe an increase in traffic on Arnold and Westridge Streets, which are already congested around the timeschool starts and later when it lets out. The current traffic consists of parents picking up their kids --responsible, attentive, slow drivers. The college students going in and out of the housing complex wouldlikely not drive slowly, attentively, or responsibly. We've all seen their driving habits in other parts oftown. Let's not put that driving near our grade-school kids.
I also worry about the proximity to an elementary school of college housing. I used to live close to themain campus and walked or rode my bike there frequently. And frequently I witnessed students openlysmoking marijuana. I don't want my children near that sort of behavior. Nor would you.
There are other sites in Bozeman suitable for high-density housing that aren't near elementary schools.What about REMU?
I've read the dismal track record of the North Carolina company wanting to build the complex. Withdocumented shoddy construction and a lack of concern for housing residents, they don't seem like agood choice for building in Bozeman. At a different building location, let's use local, reliable builders. Ourstudent citizens deserve safe construction.
In summary, there is no need to rezone -- Bozeman has other sites suitable for high-density studenthousing; the out-of-town developer who wants this zoning change has no interest in our communityother than to make a profit; the complex would bring increased traffic to a neighborhood that can illafford it; the complex would put our kids at risk in many ways; we don't need this.
Respectfully,
Thomas Kelly7011 Bristol LaneBozeman
Stacy Lunden 517 W. Arnold St Bozeman, MT 59715 February 18, 2014 Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268 Dear City Commissioners, I live in the Figgins neighborhood and am writing to oppose the application for a zoning change for 16 acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision from mostly R1 and some R3 to R4 high-density housing. We bought our house in the Figgins Neighborhood 3.5 years ago because of word of mouth and most houses in this neighborhood are situated on nice size lots in comparison to more recent housing developments in Bozeman. It is in walking distance to Morning Star, downtown, museum, and both our places of employment. The neighborhood is quiet, safe, affordable, close to schools, the university, and downtown, and represents Bozeman’s unique residential neighborhood climate. Please preserve the general welfare of this neighborhood and its benefits for current residents and those to come. Don’t destroy our dream and my family’s life. Changing the zoning to R4 would rob Bozeman residents of much needed single-family housing that is centrally located and biker and pedestrian friendly to downtown, museum, and school. It would also destroy the current neighborhoods of Figgins, Alder Creek, and Allison. Many neighbors in the Figgins neighborhood suggest if the zoning is changed to R4 they would move. The R4 zoning would change the quiet neighborhood into a very loud busy neighborhood and therefore, less desirable place to live for current residents. Kids that used to walk and live close to school will now move away from the high-density zone and their parents will now drive them. Keep the proposed zoning single family for current and future children to be able to walk to their neighborhood school of Morning Star and downtown. Changing the zoning to R4 would change the character of the surrounding neighborhoods, and does not make sense for the safety of the children. Common sense says college students do not belong next to an elementary school. Instead of having our kids attending school in a predominately family friendly neighborhood you will have them surrounded by college students and renter population. Renters in general attend to attract more crime and are more transient in nature. As well as tend to be less attentive to clearing snow, and caring for property than homeowners. We expect for the safety of our children to have attentive and observant homeowners surrounding our school. Ignoring these issues and going ahead with R4 zoning does not promote general welfare, health, and safety of the children and families of Morning Star. Yes Bozeman is growing, but we can maintain the quality, character and value of our established neighborhoods and still accommodate high-density growth in areas that are already zoned for that use. There are many of these high-density zones close to MSU for students, but the Allison II is really the last R1 close to downtown, school, and MSU. Please keep Bozeman a nice place to live and provide the much-needed single-family homes so they too can enjoy walking and biking to parks, downtown, school, museum, and work. Please don’t destroy it! I urge you to not recommend this inappropriate zoning change. Sincerely,
Stacy Lunden
From:Sherri Pearson
To:Agenda
Subject:Opposition to Z-13268 Zone Map Amendment
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:12:46 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing in opposition to the Z-13268 Zone Map Amendment. I know that you know the
facts related to this amendment, as there has been much debate regarding this zoning
change in the last 2 months. Because you know the facts, I am hoping that you will vote NO
on the zoning amendment on Feb. 24th. I live on the corner of Westridge and Arnold. I
bought my house with my husband 7 years ago with the belief that this would stay a
primarily single family neighborhood, even if growth occurred in the field. I am asking you
to do your job and keep our neighborhood the way it was intended. If Bozeman keeps
changing the zoning laws around the city, to foster the business and money side of things,
how I can I believe in my city anymore? Bozeman is a town of honest, hard working
people. Please keep it that way by showing the people that are in Bozeman now that you
care about its residents and not just the money. We are paying taxes in this city now, not
the people that may move here or the company in North Carolina that wants to build here.
Please show us that you are working for us. Vote NO on Feb. 24th.
Sherri Pearson
2810 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:President’s Office
To:Scott Haugan; Agenda
Cc:Lashaway, Robert
Subject:RE: Opposition: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:11:57 AM
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Haugan,
Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion about the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
with me; I sincerely appreciate it.
I am sharing your email with Robert Lashaway, Associate Vice President of University and Facility
Services.
Sincerely,
Waded Cruzado
From: Scott Haugan [mailto:scottwhaugan@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:02 PM
To: agenda@bozeman.net; President’s Office
Subject: Opposition: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Bozeman Mayor and Commissioners and Ms. Cruzado,
My wife and I are writing to deeply oppose the rezoning of the land west of Morning StarElementary school to R4 from R1.
We are primarily concerned this will impact the safety of our three children that attend that
school. In addition, I strongly believe it will have a detrimental impact to single family homevalues around the Morning Star school zone.
Please work with MSU to devise a better student housing option closer to campus or west of
campus near their old family housing that they just tore down.
Thanks,
Scott W. Haugan, MSU '98 Business, Shelby L. Haugan, MD, MSU '98 Biology48 E Fieldview Circle
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:Scott Haugan
To:Agenda; president@montana.edu
Subject:Opposition: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:01:34 PM
Bozeman Mayor and Commissioners and Ms. Cruzado,
My wife and I are writing to deeply oppose the rezoning of the land west of MorningStar Elementary school to R4 from R1.
We are primarily concerned this will impact the safety of our three children thatattend that school. In addition, I strongly believe it will have a detrimental impactto single family home values around the Morning Star school zone.
Please work with MSU to devise a better student housing option closer to campus orwest of campus near their old family housing that they just tore down.
Thanks,
Scott W. Haugan, MSU '98 Business, Shelby L. Haugan, MD, MSU '98 Biology48 E Fieldview CircleBozeman, MT 59715
From:Ryan Smith
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:18:08 AM
To all Bozeman City Commissioners,
This letter is to express my concern with the proposed R4 zoning for the Campus Crest
Project. I am strongly opposed to this rezoning and hope the city commission considers and
values its residents objections. The following points support my objections to this project:
Zoning must be a tool for long term planning and not for short term gains, the change
to R4 does not fit with a fundamentally well planned zoning map.
The change to R4 zoning will decrease the value of my home.
Having this R4 zone change will result in an elementary school being only a few
hundred feet from a high density student housing development; this seems absurd
from a city planning perspective!
The report produced by the city zoning staff was grossly slanted, only focusing on the
needs of MSU and not the needs of the community as a whole. You can not ignore
MCA 76-2-304 when making your decision.
There is currently no shortage of appropriate sites for developments like Campus
Crest.
Please do NOT allow this zoning change!
Regards,
Ryan Smith
3156 Hillcrest Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Alder Creek Subdivision
From:Priscilla Westesen
To:Agenda
Subject:Re-zoning next to elementary school
Date:Monday, February 17, 2014 1:42:36 PM
I'll keep this simple as you should have a flood of letters.
I, and many others, can see no feasible reason why the commission would re-zone the area nearMorningstar elementary from zone 1 to high density zone 4.
- There is already nearly a thousand additional units in the works to be built for students. - It is a given fact that college enrollments on campuses are declining as online classes increase. Montana State University enrollment may level off or even decline in the next few years. - Former commissioners recognized that land around an elementary school should remain zone 1.
Our community can find no reason to justify changing the zoning. None.
Please listen to your constituents and say No to high density development of this parcel west of theelementary school.
Thank you for listening.Priscilla Westesen3114 Madrona LaneBozeman, MT 59715
From:Pierce Mullen
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA -Z13268
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:03:59 PM
Dear Commissioners:
Margie and I write in support of theneighborhood group protesting the zonechange to R4 souight by the Campus Crestdeveloper. We watched the Zoning Boarddiscussions on the local TV channel andfollowed that discussion through to itsconclusion. The split vote thereindicated to us that considerabledisagreement exists and that those votingin the negative had done a great deal morehomework than the positive voters.
We do not represent SENA, but having livedthrough another situation similar to this,we do think most of us in our neighboroodwould object to an R4 zone in that area.The two schools which will be heavilyimpacted by this development are two ofthe best in Bozeman and given the scarcityof R1 housing areas in this part of town,would be a good anchor for more familyhousing in that area.
We support our position by pointing outthe volume of traffic which would beproduced in an already heavily impactedsouth 3rd street and which would transitFiggins neighborhood streets. As one ofthe zoning board members pointed out, thetraffic study supporting the applicant wasdone precisely when there was a minimum oftraffic. That was nearly identical tostudies done in support of Town andCountry when we objected to that
commercial development.
We follow the progress of MSU prettyclosely. With new construction in trainfor the area northwest of the campusrecreational equipment building and withthe approval recently of a majordevelopment near Kagy and 19th, there isno good economic reason to assume that MSUwould need this proposed Campus Crestdevelopment now or in the foreseeablefuture. It is obvious that Campus Crestsees this area as a good investment, butit is equally obvious that it wouldseriously affect the quality of life in awell established and desireableneighborhood. When we lived in rentalhousing in other parts of town we did havestudents living in the same houses with usand we found them, most of the time,excellent neighbors. But a housingdevelopment of the type proposed here willbe far more likely to attract transientsand non-students looking for a place tostay on an occasional basis. This city iswell aware of areas such as certain placeson Hunter's Way where problems often arisewith this group of younger people.
Bozeman thrives when neighborhoodsthrive. We urge each of you to considerthe negative aspects of this proposal andto conclude with us that it should not beapproved.
Pierce and Margie Mullen11 Hill Street59715406 587 3455
From:Patrick E Penberthy
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Monday, February 17, 2014 6:38:47 AM
February 17, 20143126 Spring Ridge DriveBozeman, MT 59715-8254
City of BozemanMayor and City CommissionersBozeman, MT 59771-1230
RE: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Mayor Krauss and City Commissioners:
We are residents of Alder Creek Subdivision and are contacting you in regardto the zoning change requested by Campus Crest Development, LLC; Chris Russfor property owned by Bon Ton Inc.; Gene Graf (Campus Crest Zone Map AmendmentZ13268).
Although we do not live immediately adjacent to the aforementioned property wedo reside in close proximity. We strongly recommend the requested change inzoning to R-4 be disallowed for all of the properties requested. R-4 zoningof the 16 acres under consideration would allow for the construction ofhigh-density housing in an area immediately adjacent to both an elementaryschool and several single family subdivisions zoned R-1 and R-2. As proposed,the construction of a large unsupervised student housing project would takeplace thereafter. If this zoning change were to be approved we are convincedthat it will have a detrimental impact on both.
1) We already witness such problems in the area as extraordinary heavy trafficand parking problems on the arterials. We have been forced to wait over 10minutes to get onto South 3rd Ave from Brookdale at times when the twoelementary schools begin and adjourn. We question the results of the trafficstudy preformed for the area. Converting Arnold Street to an arterial willnot solve the problem. It will only cause greater traffic problems on Arnoldfor the children and residents. Also, parking problems will unquestionablyresult from higher density structures.2) High-density housing will also negatively affect the value of currenthouses in the area. We have already seen a slow down in house salesimmediately adjacent to the proposed zoning change area.3) There is an abundance of property already zoned for higher-density housingjust to the West of the MSU campus. As you are aware, the city recentlyapproved a zoning change for 127 acres.4) A cushion should be established between R-1 and R-4 areas.5) On and near the MSU campus, a number of serious crimes have occurred inrecent years. High-density housing will bring the crime related problemscloser to single family housing areas and elementary school children.
For these reasons and many others, we do not think the zoning change would bein the best interest of the elementary school, the children, the residents inthe area or the City of Bozeman as a whole. Again, we strongly recommend theZONING CHANGE NOT BE PERMITTED. Please vote against approval of the proposedzoning change.
Patrick E. Penberthy and Mary Penberthy3126 Spring Ridge DriveBozeman, MT 59715
From:nancy holloway
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Monday, February 17, 2014 11:14:25 AM
Dear City and Zoning Commissioners,We are writing to you again regarding the proposed zoning change for the areabehind Morning Star School. Once more we would like to strongly urge you voteagainst this inane and uneeded change. There are already multiple acres availablein far more suitable places. And it is discouraging that our own Bozemanrepresentatives could be so swayed by outside interests (Campus Crest et al) thatyou would fail to listen to and heed the concerns of your friends and neighbors!Please do not be blinded by the "need" for this change. Do the right thing andVOTE NO!Nancy and Jeff Holloway 2616 Langohr Ave.
From:Carignan, Michael
To:Agenda
Subject:Re: Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:48:58 PM
Attachments:ZoningChangeALERT.doc
February 16, 2014
Dear City Commission,
I have lived at 2407 Westridge Dr. for 10 years, and lived in Bozeman 35 years. My wife and I own
our home and have invested in a number of improvements. I attended the meeting in January at
the Middle School, and the recent Zone Committee hearing at City Hall. I have listened carefully and
followed through on what I have heard with some research. At first I was more curious than
anything, and I admit that I felt that the rezoning might be necessary. But I have come to the
conclusion that it is not necessary and a bad idea.
I have read the attached brief on the proposal and agree with the concerns and logic that it
presents. It does seem that rezoning this property is being considered as necessary to push through
a big business deal, perhaps to the detriment of those who live in the area, and without regard for
previous established guidelines. The Bozeman Community Plan in the Neighborhood Section,
Objective C-3.3 supports minimum residential density in new and redeveloping residential areas.
My point is do we follow our plan according to guidelines or not? If not, why not?
My wife and I expected to live in an area of single family homes. We believed in the zoning process.
This property is ideal for families with children walking to school. It is ideal for faculty and staff who
work at MSU. If this property becomes R-4 the lots around it will likely follow. Property values will
fall. Families will move. Is this necessary?
What will Arnold Street be like as traffic significantly increases during the same times children are
trying to get into and out of school. I listened carefully to a representative of Campus Crest reassure
us that a traffic study had been done to assess the effects. Then I learned that the data was taken
the day before Thanksgiving when things were pretty quiet. This could be a blunder or an attempt
to deceive. Do we need this approach to business in our community? Are we that desperate?
I was disappointed to see that Campus Crest has a red solo cup as a mascot. It suggests that The
Grove is party central. If that’s the idea then that’s what we are going to get, and not just from the
residents but other students drawn there. They say they can manage it but there is evidence they
can’t, especially with that attitude. And the lack of ethics behind the traffic study is not reassuring.
A project of that size should connect to 19th.
So we must have growth and a wheat field is not great for the economy. But is Campus Crest
better? There will be some stimulation at first; it’s a big project. At capacity The Grove could easily
draw $100,000,000 out of Bozeman for investors over 25-30 years. How much of that money will
be used in Bozeman, or even Montana? I don’t think turning housing over to Campus Crest is good
economics, except for a small group in the short term.
If it isn’t broken, don’t break it. Please leave the zoning as it stands so we can continue with normal
lives. That property can develop gradually with local investment, and good will. Students will move
into a new dorm, or the Stadium View project, basements and rental homes as usual. I’m not
against development. It’s not like I got mine and everyone else can just go somewhere else. It’s like
we have a good system founded on good sense, something people can trust and build on.
Mike Carignan
2407 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-580-2285
Regarding Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Bozeman Mayor and City Commissioners;
I am a parent of elementary aged children and a Bozeman resident, voter, and a faculty member at Montana
State University. My view on the proposed re-zoning from a current mixture of R1-R3 to entirely R4 to
accommodate Campus Crest’s proposed student housing development is informed by all of these roles. I do
not support the proposed re-zoning, but I do support the commission's decision to create the REMU area, and
I do not feel that this is a contradiction.
The REMU area provides a nice mixture of parkland, businesses, and residential areas suitable for students.
The capacity this land (127 acres) could support is sufficient to accommodate at least 3000 beds. This area is
currently buffered by the associated businesses, office buildings, and collector roads. Conversely, the
proposed rezoning area is adjacent to previously established family oriented neighborhoods (Figgins and
Alder Creek) and one of the largest Bozeman elementary schools! There is no buffer nor is there a proposed
buffer to transition from R4 to R1, which is not adhering to thoughtful planning principles. This fact was
pointed out by the zoning commission and one of the reasons why they did not support the plan. The proposed
plan will impact the character of the district, decrease the value of buildings, and lead to an increased demand
on motorized transportation systems. Residents have provided clear testimony on record to support all of
these claims for potential litigation against the city of Bozeman. The claim in the city’s staff report is that this
proposal will have a “neutral effect” on these criteria. I strongly disagree with this conclusion.
Additionally, my concern as a voter is that the commission is establishing a precedent that their focus is not
on “development without impacting quality of life.” Recent positive national press about Bozeman is an
outcome of our wonderful quality of life here. The university adds to this by providing richer cultural and
athletic events, but it also can be difficult for middle class professionals to find affordable housing in quality
neighborhoods. The quality of life is a huge attractor to get faculty and professionals to take jobs on a
campus where salaries are lower and cost of living is higher than other places. One of the attractors of
working at MSU for these potential employees who value quality of life is being able to live close enough that
they can walk, bike, or ski to work, and enjoy their walk to work. Where are these newcomers seeking this
quality of life going to want to live? I know the answer is not next door to a privately run party dorm with
absentee landlords. So when hiring, Montana’s universities stress quality of life, of which a main component
is ease of commute (candidates love the idea of walking to campus and thus are attracted to Figgins and
nearby subdivisions). Having been on multiple search committees for the university, I assure you Figgins and
Alder Creek are the first places we show prospective faculty because it is possibly affordable and within easy
walking distance of campus. This selling point for hiring will vanish with the disappearance of highly
valuable R1 near campus. The Campus Crest development will surely decrease the desirability of this
neighborhood and thus lead to more congestion and less desirability in terms of quality of commuting life in
Bozeman. There are plenty of alternatives for high density developments both owned privately and by the
University. Save precious R1 south of Bozeman!
I urge the commissioners to consider all future housing needs stemming from MSU in addition to the
potential influx of non-university affiliated residents. Commissioners must view zoning as a tool for long
term planning. This proposal, if approved, would create a mockery of zoning and suggests there is no vision
for sustainable and sensible growth by the current commission. I have confidence that the Bozeman city
commissioners, whom I voted for in good faith, will be forward thinking and realize that to maintain a vibrant
community and healthy economy we need affordable single family housing near schools and local businesses
(Town and Country Grocery, Sola, and others). Other towns that value quality of life have not let Campus
Crest into their subdivisions – let's follow suit and live up to our quality of life reputation.
Sincerely,
Megan D. Higgs (Mom, Voter, MSU Professor)
February 16, 2014
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Bozeman Mayor and City Commissioners:
I am a parent of a Sacajawea Middle School student and also a Bozeman homeowner and
voter. I oppose the rezoning from a current mixture of R1-R3 to entirely R4 that would
allow for Campus Crest’s proposed student housing development close to Morningstar Elementary School. In my opinion, placing a large, privately owned (by an out-of-state
corporation) dorm-type complex so close to family neighborhoods, an elementary school
and a middle school is a terrible idea. It seems shortsighted with regard to city planning.
As I understand it, the land in question is currently slated for future development of single-family homes, which makes perfect sense for the area. Also, that coincides with
the expectations of those taxpaying voters who’ve already invested in nearby homes.
In terms of having a large population of unsupervised college kids living and partying
close to two neighborhood schools, as well as driving through those streets off of S. 3rd Avenue, safety becomes an issue. Lots of children play in those neighborhoods - as they should - and many walk or ride bikes along those roads to the two area schools. To have
several hundred college kids, many of whom will be drinking, sharing roads with these
children greatly increases the potential for tragic accidents. Since the bars on Main Street
are a good distance from this proposed student housing complex, there would likely be a fair amount of alcohol-impaired driving through family neighborhoods. This would both disturb the peace of these quiet streets as well as add danger for all those sharing the
roads. I’m sure that’s not what area homeowners had in mind when they purchased there,
and it would be a negative factor for those considering buying a home there in the future.
Concern for the safety of the children and the integrity of the neighborhoods near the proposed development are my main reasons for opposing the re-zoning request. Please
take this into consideration when making your decision on this matter.
Sincerely, Lisa Pocock
From:Lisa Marr
To:Agenda
Cc:capmagpie@gmail.com; keith marr
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Monday, February 17, 2014 11:30:33 AM
Hello,
I am writing because of my concern regarding the proposed zoning change for the Campus Crest
project. This development, while necessary for the anticipated growth of and demand for college
housing, is too close to Morningstar Elementary School, is out of character for the neighborhood and
should be relocated to other more suitable locations that are already zoned for this type of use and
are no farther from the MSU Campus. We have a 2 year old son and live in the Figgins Subdivision
on Westridge Drive. This neighborhood is a great place to raise a family. We love the character of our
family friendly neighborhood,and have lived at this address since 1990. I think the City making these
changes to suit corporate development is just plain wrong. Hundreds of families homes will be worth
less, traffic issues will occur in and around the School Zone and we will see numerous other
unforeseen issues such as crime, litter etc. related to high-density housing "inserted" into a single
family residential neighborhood. This development simply DOES NOT BELONG on this parcel. We
need a government for the people, not corporations. Please put a stop to the zoning change.
Sincerely,
Lisa Marr
Lisa A. Marr
Bozeman, MT
(406) 223-4716
Leila Bost and Greg Awe
3152 Gardenbrook Lane
Bozeman, MT 59715
February 18, 2014
Mayor and Commissioners
City of Bozeman
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
RE: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Mayor Jeff Krauss, Deputy Mayor Carson Taylor, and Comissioners Chris Mehl, Cynthia
Andrus and I-Ho Pomeroy,
My husband and I live in the Alder Creek neighborhood and are writing because we strongly
oppose the application for a zoning change for almost 16 acres of the Allison Phase II
Subdivision from mostly R1 single family housing to R4 high density housing.
We have lived in Alder Creek since 2006 and moved here specifically because of the south-side
area’s character and tranquility. We were also led to believe that the area would accommodate
growth through mostly more of the same R1 single family housing. The neighborhoods here
consist of a mix of families with children and young professionals to solid, working class
residents and retired people. The neighborhoods are quiet, safe, affordable, close to schools and
represent Bozeman’s unique residential neighborhood climate. There is an elementary school
adjacent to this property, as well as a middle school just down the road. The proposed change
is totally inappropriate for this area.
All of the reasons we moved here would be seriously compromised if you allow the zoning of
the area in question to change to R4:
Safety: the safety of the neighborhood would change on many levels. Putting high-density
dormitory style housing (and the lifestyle that comes with that demographic group) right
next to an elementary school is a terrible idea and seriously compromises the safety we all
expect for our children and families.
Quiet: the quiet nature of the area would significantly change with noise, loud music and
traffic from campus resident parties.
Property values: the prospect of our homes seeing an increase in property values will be a
thing of the past as new prospective buyers will not look favorably on a neighborhood right
next to areas zoned for high-density housing and whatever else that may become. Recent
offers have already been rescinded in the area because of the uncertainty of the zoning.
Traffic: there are already serious traffic jams on South 3rd and on Arnold streets from parents
taking their children to Morning Star and Sacajawea schools. This would only be
exacerbated with a change in the type of drivers and significant increase in the numbers of
drivers on the streets from predominantly family-oriented homeowners to include young,
college-aged renters (as wells as other non-residents that are associated with these renters)
We understand that Bozeman is growing and we recognize that these fields will not lay vacant
for much longer, but we purchased our home with the understanding that mostly R1 single-
family homes will eventually be built there, NOT R4 high density housing, much less non-
University affiliated campus dormitory-style rental complexes. There is currently plenty of other
property zoned for high density housing that would accommodate a development such as has
been proposed. Don’t ruin Bozeman’s Southside neighborhoods.
Furthermore, here are other points to consider:
The change of demographics that an R4 zone represents is significant. A shift will occur
from primarily family-oriented homeowners to transient college age renters. Statistics
suggest that higher density zoned areas have higher crime rates. Having elementary schools
next door to high density developments is far from ideal.
By the axioms of real estate, the R4 zoning would decrease the desirability of the
surrounding area. Decreased desirability leads to decreased demand and lower home values.
This would also translate to a decrease in property tax income for the city.
If approved, this zone change would set a precedent for a domino effect for rezoning the rest
of the field. Zoning Commissioner McSpadden all but promised that we could further
expect the rest of the zoned R1 to be eventually rezoned to higher density.
The Zoning Commission ignored most of the required criteria (MCA 76-2-304) and focused
myopically on MSU and the theoretical shortage of high density land. There is no shortage
as clearly seen on the color zoning map.
MSU’s document on the Long Range Campus Development Plan shows all future growth
occurring to the West and North of the University, not to the South.
Changing the zoning of this 16 acre parcel constitutes spot zoning. Spot Zoning consists of
the illegal singling out of a small parcel of land within the limits of an area zoned for
particular uses and permitting other uses for that parcel for the special benefit of its owners
and to the detriment of the other owners in the area and not as a part of a scheme to benefit
the entire area. Spot zoning is not favored since it smacks of favoritism and is usually
detrimental to neighboring homeowners.
As our (mostly) newly elected city officials whom we recently voted into office to represent us
and our interests, we strongly urge you to reject this request for inappropriate zoning
change. Frankly, we are appalled that the City would even consider this particular zoning
change, and even more disturbing, for catering to the requests of a wealthy local landowner as
well as an out-of-state developer. Changing zoning to suit corporate interests reduces the
livability of our community and makes a mockery of one of the fundamental purposes of zoning
– to provide citizens with reliable and predictable land use planning.
Money is cheap, home-grown community is priceless.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Leila Bost and Greg Awe
From:Kirsten Smith
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:34:49 AM
To Bozeman City Officials,
This letter is to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the Campus Crestdevelopment. This proposed rezoning is bad for Bozeman. Here are some points toconsider prior to making any decision on this matter:
Zoning must be a tool for long term planning and not for short term gains, thechange to R4 does not fit with a fundamentally well planned zoning map.Having this R4 zone change will result in an elementary school being only afew hundred feet from a high density student housing development; thisseems absurd from a city planning perspective!The report produced by the city zoning staff was grossly slanted, only focusingon the needs of MSU and not the needs of the community as a whole. You cannot ignore MCA 76-2-304 when making your decision.There is currently no shortage of appropriate sites for developments likeCampus Crest.
Please do NOT allow this land to be zoned R4.
Regards,
Kirsten Smith3156 Hillcrest DriveBozeman, MT 59715
-- Kirsten Smith(406) 570-0058kirsten.avelyn.smith@gmail.com
From:Kevin Pearson
To:Agenda
Subject:Opposition to Z-13268 Zone Map Amendment
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:21:43 AM
Bozeman Commission,
You are being asked by the citizens of Bozeman to do your job, serve the people in your
community and their best interests. Rezoning in the above referenced amendment would
be a clear cut failure of that job. The reasons should have been made clear many times
over by those residents who will be negatively influenced should this pass. Those residents,
myself included, certainly carry a bias in our opinions but have still taken time from our lives
to thoughtfully research this issue and provide valid reasons to oppose this amendment.
The Montana Code relating to rezoning can be interpreted in different ways, as the applicant
has tried to show for each of the guidelines. It is obvious to me and should be to you as
well that some of those opinions are based on flawed data (ie when the traffic study was
done) and are a very loose interpretation of the guidelines. You are hearing via letters such
as this multiple valid points why each of the guidelines are NOT being met. The decision
should weight the validity of these various opinions and the facts to come to an obvious
conclusion- rezoning in this instance cannot occur. I will not list all the reasons, because if
you are doing your job you should already be aware of them. There is very little benefit to
Bozeman, the community opposes this. A vote in favor of the ammendment would only
frustrate the people of Bozeman as an obvious case of those with money benefiting over
what the people want. Vote NO on February 24.
Thank you,
Kevin Pearson DDS
2810 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-585-1753
From:Chuck Winn
To:Agenda
Subject:Fwd: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:58:44 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: K & A Rossmeier <rossme1@msn.com>Date: February 18, 2014 at 9:32:04 AM MSTTo: <ckukulski@bozeman.net>, <cwinn@bozeman.net>Subject: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
February 16, 2014
Subject: Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed zoning change and high
density development outlined in the above stated subject matter. My concerns
are as follows:
1. As I understand it, this land was zoned R1 not all that long ago. Obviously at
that time the area was suited to residential zoning in the overall city plan.
Now that a developer wants to build a large rental complex geared toward
student housing is not a good reason to make such a change. There is
already an approved apartment complex closer to campus (Stadium View
Apartments) and I understand there is no shortage of other land as close or
closer to campus that would be more suitable for such high density housing
as well. Also, as I understand it, there is a plan by MSU to build at least 1
and maybe more student residence halls for on campus student housing
that would alleviate some of the need for housing off campus.
2. Allowing this zoning change would affect so many things. Property values
would most certainly decrease over time and there would be decreased
desire to develop the land that would still be left zoned R1 close by. Traffic
flow would be greatly increased in the area and what about parking for the
proposed 600 rental residents? As I understand it, Arnold Street (which goes
right past Morning Star Elementary) would be extended to allow access to
the area and the overall apartment complex itself would not be that far
from the school. That area now is a nice quiet place for the school and the
current residential zoning would allow for a more suitable environment for
the school and would have far less effect on that area as a whole.
3. Along with the above stated concerns, to me, it is just plain common sense
to not allow such a development where it is proposed. So I am asking all
Commissioners to vote NO to allowing this zoning change from R1 to R4.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ken Rossmeier
411 W. Spring Creek Drive (Figgins Subdivision)
Bozeman, MT 59715
Kathy
Crawford
1300 Dry
Creek School Rd Belgrade, Montana 59714
Bozeman City Commissioners
Bozeman, Montana February 18, 2014
Re: Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Dear City Commissioners,
I urge you to not change the zoning of the land parcel of interest to Campus Crest (ZMA
Z13268), from a R-1 to a R-4. The proposed zoning change is totally incompatible with the existing neighborhoods and Morning Star Elementary School.
As a home owner in the nearby Figgins Subdivision, and as a concerned citizen, I
consider the proposed zoning change as being completely opposite to what zoning is
for. By definition, zoning is for "segregating incompatible uses", it is for "preventing new developments from interfering with pre-existing developments", and it is for "preserving the character or neighborhood of a community".
I purchased my house (2525 Landoe), in 1984, confident that the zoning in the nearby
lands would guarantee single-family home developments. My continued investment and maintenance of my property has been in-step with a sustaining, quiet, single-residence, family-oriented neighborhood.
My house is the "Better Homes and Gardens" Energy Efficient Award winner in 1984,
partially due to its extensive passive solar windows facing south onto the City's neighborhood Jarrett Park . This park has been developed, through funding at least partially raised residents, as primarily a play area for children.
A nearby zoning change and development such as that proposed by Campus Crest,
would undoubtedly change the clientele using this park. Most likely children would not as freely or comfortably utilize the park if it also had a number of college students utilizing it at various times of the day.
Additionally, my solar-collecting windows would be exposed to a much different park
population should more university students wandered over to the park. No longer would my house have the visual security and comfort it now has, while simultaneously
collecting solar energy.
The safety concerns for the Elementary school nearby are huge. There will be increased automobile traffic and noise as well as increased foot traffic. The possibility that the safety of the young school children could be jeopardized by this zoning
change is real and horrific.
There is an aparrent shortage of undeveloped R-1 zoned land near the university that also has good foot and bike access both to the schools and to downtown Bozeman. Removing land from a R-1 zoning only exacerbates this shortage. In the 30 years that
I have owned my house in Figgins, I know many homeowners are MSU employees.
This adds to a local sense of a university neighborhood and part of Bozeman's
university community. If this neighborhood becomes less desirable due to nearby zoning changes, future homeowners (some which may be university-related) may choose to live elsewhere. The sense of neighborhood and community will be lost
forever.
According to the Montana 406 Real Estate guidelines, there will be an inevitable loss of value to the surrounding single family homes if the R-1 zoning is changed to a R-4. Once zoning begins to change, many parcels may be subject to re-zoning and a
"domino effect" could transform the neighborhoods into very undesirable blocks.
Finally, if there are available, perhaps university-owned, properly-zoned, alternate parcels of land for such R-4 developments, why not seriously consider placing high-density developments on these properties? MSU certainly could contribute
professionals to the task.
Thank you for you attention,
Katherine Hansen Crawford
1300 Dry Creek School Rd Belgrade, Montana 59714 388-8313
Regarding Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Bozeman Mayor and City Commissioners;
I am a parent at Morning Star Elementary, Bozeman resident, voter, and affiliated with Montana State University. My view on the
proposed re-zoning from a current mixture of R1-R3 to entirely R4 to accommodate Campus Crest’s proposed student housing
development is informed by all of these roles. I do not support the proposed re-zoning. I do, however, applaud the commission’s
decision to create the REMU area. How are these different? VERY!
The REMU area provides a nice mixture of parkland, businesses, and residential areas suitable for students. The capacity that this
land (127 acres) could support is sufficient to accommodate at least 3000 beds. This area is currently buffered by the associated
businesses, office buildings (one of which is where I work), and collector roads. Conversely, the proposed rezoning area is
adjacent to previously established family oriented neighborhoods (Figgins and Alder Creek) and one of the largest Bozeman
elementary schools! There is no buffer nor is there a proposed buffer to transition from R4 to R1. This is not adhering to
thoughtful planning principles. This fact was pointed out by the zoning commission and one of the reasons why they did not
support the plan. The proposed plan will impact the character of the district, decrease the value of buildings, and lead to an
increased demand on motorized transportation systems. Residents have provided clear testimony on record to support all of these
claims for potential litigation against the city of Bozeman. The claim in the city’s staff report is that this proposal will have a
“neutral effect” on these criteria. This is a ludicrous conclusion!
Further my concern as a voter is that the commission is establishing a precedent that their focus is not on “development without
impacting quality of life.” Bozeman was written up as “the best place to reboot your life” in the February 2014 issue of Sunset
magazine. This positive press is an outcome of our wonderful quality of life here in Bozeman. Yes, the university adds to that by
providing richer cultural and athletic events. BUT an unspoken issue is that finding affordable housing in quality neighborhoods is
a challenge for professionals with or without families. Where are these new re-booters going to want to live? Not next door to a
privately run party dorm with absentee landlords! Our town and economy will not thrive if these potential resident professionals
cannot find suitable places to live. This likely loss to the tax base could be avoided. I have confidence that the Bozeman city
commissioners, whom I voted for in good faith, will be forward thinking and realize that to maintain a vibrant community and
healthy economy we need affordable single family housing near schools and local businesses (Town and Country Grocery, Sola,
and others).
Planning decisions should be based on the facts. The facts are that Bozeman’s population growth is 31% and MSU’s student
increase is 21% between 2000 and 2012 (annual increases between 199 and 795 students since 2008). With an advertised 19 to 1
student-teacher ratio at MSU this translates to between 10 to 41 new adjuncts or faculty to accommodate the increase in
undergraduates for a given year. Increasing classroom enrollment caps is not sufficient to accommodate the influx. The current
R1-R3 zoned area would be highly valuable and sought after for housing of new MSU staff. Housing costs are an issue for new
faculty hires and retention. I quote the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on June 16, 2013 from their article entitled MSU, UM struggle to
compete when salaries rank near bottom nationally: “Pretty much anywhere in the nation pays more than we do,” McRae said.
“It’s very difficult to preserve an excellent quality of education – which we think we’ve managed to do – when our salaries are as
uncompetitive as they are.” So when hiring, Montana’s universities stress quality of life and the chance to have a big impact on
the state, McRae said. “Thank goodness we’re able to offer amenities – a good quality of life, good schools, a good place to raise
families, scenic splendor.” This wildcard for hiring will vanish with the disappearance of highly valuable R1 near campus. There
are plenty of alternatives for high density developments both owned privately and by the University. Save precious R1 south of
Bozeman!
I urge the commissioners to consider all future housing needs stemming from MSU in addition to the potential influx of non-
university affiliated residents. Commissioners MUST view zoning as a tool for LONG TERM PLANNING. This proposal, if
approved, would create a mockery of zoning and suggests there is NO vision for sustainable and sensible growth by the current
commission. Do the right thing and show that you support maintaining a healthy thriving community consisting of diverse
demographics and NOT solely the interests of the few (out-of-state developers) by voting against the proposal.
Sincerely, Kathryn M. Irvine
(Mom, Voter, and PhD)
From:Honora Ganey
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMAZ13268
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:49:35 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to go down on the record as opposing this rezoning of this
area to R4, and the eventual construction of apartments for students.
We were all students once, and we know how we behaved. When I
think of those poor residents and their children who live on Arnold
Street having to suffer a thoroughfare of student drivers, it gives me a
chill.
The reduction of property values in general in those communities on the
east side of this proposed development is a betrayal of trust between
the city, the county and those homeowners. Development in this field
is inevitable; it should be appropriate development of single family
housing or university expansion, not a private development that will only
cause conflict and drama for years to come, and possibly cause the loss
of children's lives as they come and go from Morningstar School. This
rezoning comes attached with more jeopardy than I would think the city
would want to take on.
There is plenty of land available for this kind of construction in close to
MSU; to choose this relatively small site close to residential
developments doesn't make sense. It smells of backroom deals.
Please restore our faith in our relationship with the city and county, and
don't permit this rezoning.
Thank you,
Honora Ganey
1205 Brookdale Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:Wilson
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:30:30 PM
To: The elected City Comiaaioners
Subject: Denial of zoning change and deviation from the City MasterPlan for Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
My name is Daniel Wilson and I live near the proposed development andzoning change application described above.
I believe there would be a huge impact on the surrounding neighborhoodsby this high density residential development. This impact would be asignificant change to the quality, character, and negatively affect thevalue of the neighborhoods nearby.
More importantly, the nearness to Morning Star elementary brings concernto the safety of the children attending there. Bozeman has sufferedmany rapes and stalking instances as of late. Parties and drinking nearthe elementary school raises the possibility of encounters withelementary students by those partying. Dense apartment residences areoften homes for known sex offenders.
Allowing this zoning change and the subsequent development would make itdifficult for me to vote for any Commissioner that would vote for shucha zoning change against strong neighborhood objections. There is noexcuse for taking the side of a big out of state developer over theresident objections.
MSU could donate land off of Lincon, near 19th St. if a development ofthis size is truly needed. That location would be far from schools andsingle family residences and would be a more appropriate location of adevelopment of this size. This location would also be nearer the campusand MSU could oversee the development.
Please do not allow the proposed zoning change from R-1 to R-4 detailedin the Campus Crest ZMA Z13268 request.
Daniel Wilson2202 Highland Ct.586-0259
From:Christy Huddleston
To:Agenda
Subject:Opposition to Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:57:37 PM
Dear City Commissioners,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the application for zoning change on 15+ acres of
the Allison Phase II Subdivision. I strongly oppose the recommendation to change the zoning
to R4 high-density housing.
I live on Brookdale Drive, in the Alder Creek sub division. My backyard currently faces MSU and
the stadium. We purchased our house on this particular lot after quite a bit of contemplation. I
personally was very concerned about building here, not having the open space filled behind us,
and not knowing that would be put in the area. However, we viewed the plans and knew that the
zoning was slated for mainly R1, with some R2 and R3. With this new information and because we
loved the neighborhood and land, we build our house here. If we’d have known that this land was
going to be zoned R4, we would NOT have purchased a lot here.
Zoning R4 does not make sense for this area. While the north side does back to the stadium and
some businesses, the other side surrounding it will be single-family homes, duplexes, and
townhomes. There should be a gradual decrease in people and housing before going into R1. R4
should not be right next to R1 or R2. A different suggestion is that perhaps a small section of this
area, right behind the stadium, could be R4, and then change to R3, then R2, to ease into R1.
I realize that your hearing is only to address the zoning issue, however we all know that if the
zoning does go through that most likely this parcel will be used to build the Campus Crest
development. I do hope you have done your research on the company, such as reading the article
in the Chronicle showing a laundry list of complaints they have received from their other
developments around the United States. If Campus Crest’s proposal is not accepted and you agree
to R4 zoning, whatever goes into this area will more than likely end up being student housing.
Even if an apartment complex is put up in this area, the people that end up renting will more than
likely be college students.
MSU owns a large area of land west of 19th and south of College, in sections 14, 15, T2S, and R5E.
Most of this land is no further from campus than the land you are considering for rezoning. The
area MSU owns off of 19th, makes perfect sense for student living as most of the area already
surrounding that section of town is already apartments rented by students. Also, this area is not
close to any single-family homes and would bring in costumers to the businesses in that area.
Because the area is so large, there is great potential to bring in more business and build a nice
shopping center.
The other section of land that would be better off R4, is near the other student housing
development that was just approved. A few other suggestions to rezone R4 that are not directly
next to R1, are near the corner of Kagy and 19th and the corner of Kagy and Willson.
Thank you very much for reading this email. I appreciate all the work you do for the city and hope
that my request, and the request of so many of my neighbors to not approve this zoning change,
does not fall onto deaf ears. The flood of neighbors and people coming together to show that they
do not support this zoning change has amazed me. Please listen to us! We elected you to represent
our city and to stand up for the people of Bozeman’s wants and desires. We are telling you this
zoning change is NOT right for us, please show us you are listening.
Sincerely,
Christy Huddleston
From:Carolyn Plumb
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMAZ13268
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:23:53 AM
Dear Bozeman City Commission,
I am writing to express my opposition to the rezoning: Campus Crest MapAmendment Z13268. I live in the nearby Alder Creek subdivision, and I would besorely disappointed in the City Commission if they allowed a private developer fromoutside of Bozeman to dictate my neighborhood, a neighborhood I moved tobecause of the residential quality and current zoning.
Every morning on my way to work, I see young children walking and riding theirbikes to Morning Star school on one side and Sacajawea on the other. Thesechildren can travel safely to school by themselves because of the neighborhood. Itwould be sad beyond belief if 600 to 1,000 college students were housed so close toMorning Star school.
This particular developer and the resulting campus housing projects do not have agood track record in regard to management of noise, partying and other activitiesthat come naturally with college life. If we let this happen so close to Morning Starschool, it would be a travesty.
Additional student housing is planned farther away from the proposed rezoning area
—closer to 19th and blocks from Morning Star. We don’t need Campus Crest’s unitsin this particular area.
Thank you for your consideration. I will be attending the public meeting.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Plumb
3114 Summerset Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:Daswingle
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:21:28 PM
Members of the Commission:
We, David and Carolyn Swingle of 2508 Spring Creek Road, oppose rezoning property described in Z-
13268 to R4 status because:
1. R4 density is too high for that region.
2. Heavy traffic will endanger school children having to use Arnold Street (and eventually there will a
fatality and/or serious injury).
3. South 3rd Avenue is already heavily travelled and several hundred more car trips per day on 3rd will
occur despite availability of South 11th. The intersection of 3rd, Kagy, and Willson is already
bottlenecked by 8:00 AM and again at 3:30 with parental traffic for both neighborhood schools.
4. Student behavioral issues notorious in other apartment areas of Bozeman should not be spread into
this R1 and R2 area.
5. A better solution would be a MSU / developer partnership for west of the campus and would help
MSU's balance sheet. Note that when Town and Country chose to build near MSU rather than at Kagy
and Willson, they achieved a much more favorable business climate. The same is likely if dense
housing were developed more adjacent to the campus on campus property, allowing MSU Security to
govern student behavior directly.
Thank you for all the work you do for the betterment of all our lives in Bozeman.
With grave concern,
Carolyn and David Swingle
2508 Spring Creek Drive
Bozeman, 59715
email: daswingle@aol.com
From:Andy Sherman
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z-13268
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:10:58 AM
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Andy Sherman and I am writing you in regards to the proposed CampusCrest Zoning Map Amendment Z-13268 on your 2/24/14 agenda. I have written youpreviously regarding this proposed zoning change, but am writing you a second timeas many new things have come to light in the past couple of weeks regarding thisre-zoning process that I find very disturbing.
+I find it disturbing that the traffic study upon which city planners and engineersbased their "objective" approval for the Campus Crest re-zoning request wasconducted on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. This study was cited todescribe the impact on traffic as "neutral." I guarantee that the traffic caused by are-zoning of the wheat field in question will immediately impact not only the qualityof my life, but also the value of my 3006 Westridge Dr. home if Arnold (aneighborhood street) is turned into a collector street to accommodate this proposedre-zoning. I guess a better day for a more normal traffic count just wasn't available. In a court of law, such a "smoking gun" piece of prejudicial evidence would result ina whole case being thrown out, but I guess zoning amendments have a differentstandard when it comes to a "sniff test." What a perfect example of the endsjustifying the means.
+I find it disturbing that at the Campus Crest/Community meeting at SacajaweaMiddle School, Eugene Graf started the meeting by saying that the city approachedhim about changing the current zoning of his section of the wheat field inquestion to R-4 zoning. When Doug Riley walked in during Mr. Graf's preamble, themantra changed very quickly (after Mr. Graf and the Campus Crestentourage backpedaled at warp speed) to one in which Mr. Graf and Campus Crestindeed requested the zoning change. I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but thiswhole scene has me feeling very uneasy in terms of my trust in the motivations andactions of my local government.
+I find it disturbing that the public was admonished multiple times at the zoninghearing regarding their rather broad, sometimes negative characterizations of collegestudents in and around MSU with the statement, "This is not R-1 Bozemanville"being made by a power-that-be. We were also instructed to only address theproposed zoning change issue without including the Campus Crest development inour discussions. Meanwhile, Mr. Hartnett (a Campus Crest co-founder) put onnothing short of a marketing show, without any restrictions to discuss onlythe zoning issue. While the public was supposed to be "inclusive," CampusCrest marketed their "Clubhouse," their "resort-style swimming pool," and their"security gate." Sounds very inclusive, eh? Mr. Hartnett has certainly openedthe door to the examination of his company with his inability to stray fromhis rehearsed marketing presentation. With this door open, I urge you to check outtheir website gogrove.com to see why neighbors might be so upset with 600Campus Crest Grove residents living next door. With "bar crawls" being marketed as"activities" and a red SOLO cup named "Flip" as a mascot, I think that a tragedyinvolving an impaired Campus Crest resident is reasonably foreseeable. Peopleconcerned about safety in terms of the proximity of this development to Morning
Star elementary school and residential neighborhoods are not just being"melodramatic." There are very real threats to residents living near any high densitydevelopment. My grandfather had a saying: "When you are buying a used car, youare really buying the reputation of the person selling you the car." Although thisproposed development is far more serious and permanent than a car purchase, theadvice is certainly still sound. Please do your diligence and check out the reputationsof the Campus Crest co-founders.
+ While Mr. Hartnett actually bragged about visiting Bozeman 20 times in the pastfive years (a figure I have surpassed every 3 weeks of residency since first movingto Bozeman to attend MSU in 1992) he, apparently, has the expertise of knowingexactly what Bozeman needs in terms of housing. When you do a "CampusCrest" search online, it isn't hard to find hits that start with "Controversial Developercomes to _________." (Bozeman now fills in the blank.) In addition, you will findmultiple stories about problems at their Grove developments with their recentlycompleted Orono, Maine Grove complex being a particularly problem property. During this process, do not forget that Bozeman residents are your constituents, notthe Campus Crest developers from North Carolina. I voted for you to look out forthe best interests of ALL Bozeman residents (not just the temporary MSU studentswho seem to have taken center stage as of late,) and you, quite frankly, need tolisten to the salt-of-the-earth residents who truly make Bozeman what it is. The in-house architects, builders, and pre-fab suppliers of Campus Crest (they boast aboutthese developmental subgroups on their website in terms of keeping their costs ofdevelopment down and profits up for potential investors) will bring absolutelynothing to Bozeman, other than their once per year tax payment. +I find it disturbing that the proposed development is planning a "cash in lieu"option in dealing with plans for open space. You would think that during his 20 visitsover the past 5 years, Mr. Hartnett would pick up on the value that Bozeman's full-time residents place on open space. What a sickening mockery of ourzoning/planning process.
+Did you know that several Figgins neighbors actually discussed having someoneplaced on the zoning board to replace the outgoing Mr. McSpadden, thereby givingus at least one vote for the affected neighborhoods? In the end, we thought suchan action would be a "dirty trick" and opted to pass on the idea due to the obviousconflict of interest issue. I find it disturbing that Mayor Krauss is in a position tomake a major (permanent) decision regarding student-oriented, dormitory-style housing while acting on behalf of a growing MSU as a member of the Board ofRegents. Which hat is Mayor/Regent Krauss wearing during this process? I find itodd that this conflict of interest isn't more of an issue and wonder if Mr. Krauss hasconsidered recusing himself from this re-zoning discussion and subsequent vote.
I am disturbed at every turn by this re-zoning application. From the day the PublicNotice signs were posted, this whole process and project is coated with a definite"ick" factor. I talked with a former Bozeman zoning board member who saidthat the previous zoning board who placed the existing zoning on the wheatfield "agonized" over the step-down design in densities of the current zoning. Hewas angry when he watched the zoning meeting and heard the flippant commentsmade by some current zoning board members and city workers regarding R-1 zoningand neighborhood character. He recognized the appropriateness and value of the127 acres of REMU zoned land just west of the Campus Crest ZMA and noted thedifference between the REMU land (separated from existing neighborhoods by
collector streets) and the blatant encroachment of high density housing into plannedlow density housing neighborhoods with the proposed Campus Crest ZMA. In theend, the previous zoning board and city officials had it right with the blend of zoningcurrently in place. Keep the zoning as is. There is ample land for the expansion ofhousing projects measured by the "bed," without taking away existing zoning for theexpansion of neighborhood developments measured by the "family."
Sincerely,Andy Sherman3006 Westridge Dr.
February 16, 2014
City Clerk's Office
Suite 201, City Hall 121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Attn: Mayor and Bozeman City Commissioners
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Mayor and Bozeman City Commissioners,
I am a resident of Figgins and am writing to strongly oppose the application for a zoning
change for 15+ acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision from mostly R1 and some R3 to
R4 high density housing. I purchased a home and moved to this neighborhood because it
is quiet, safe, affordable, and close to schools, the university, and downtown.
The area of land proposed for rezoning to high density complexes is part of a
neighborhood comprised largely of single family homes (Figgins), with the property in
question directly adjacent to Morning Star Elementary School. The proposed change is
inappropriate for this area. If zoning was allowed to be dramatically changed to
principally R4, the character of the community would be drastically altered by changing the demographics from predominately family-oriented homeowners to a community
comprised largely of college student rentals. This goes directly against section (2)(d) of
the code by significantly altering the character of the district and changing its suitability
as a single family neighborhood. As such, the Bozeman City Commission should reject
amendment Z13268.
If the zoning change is approved to R4, the value of surrounding properties will be
reduced, which is not in compliance with section (2)(e). As such, the Bozeman City
Commission should reject amendment Z13268.
The addition of 600 bedrooms slated for Campus Crest, in addition to the 500 planned
bedrooms in the nearby Stadium View apartment complex places a massive vehicle load
on South 11th Avenue, Kagy Boulevard, and Arnold Street. Without a collector road to
South 19th, excessive vehicular traffic will occur next to Morning Star Elementary School
and through a family neighborhood. This raises major safety issues. As such, the Bozeman City Commission should reject amendment Z13268.
I understand that Bozeman is growing and I recognize the need for more housing of all
density types, however there is currently plenty of property zoned for high density
housing (e.g., Stadium View, properties between Kagy and Lincoln) with adequate access to major streets. I am sure that we can maintain the quality, character and value of our
established neighborhoods and still accommodate high-density growth in areas that have
the infrastructure and are zoned for that use.
Zoning should provide citizens with reliable and predictable land-use planning. Changing zoning to suit corporate interests reduces the livability of our wonderful
community.
I strongly urge the Bozeman City Commission to vote against this inappropriate zoning
change.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrea Litt
510 Westridge Drive
February 16, 2014
Dan Stevenson
3009 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT
406.570.3621
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
I urge you to deny the proposed Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment (Z-13268). Zoning is
supposed to protect our City and its citizens from unplanned changes to the character of
neighborhoods that can compromise quality of life, property value, and safety. The Figgins and
Alder Creek neighborhoods have invested our lives into this place under the pretense that
someday, R-1, R-2 and a little R-3 would infill the “field” to the east and north of our respective
homes, thus completing our neighborhood in the manner in which it was planned. Our
neighborhoods are great family neighborhoods. This zone change would dramatically change
their character by introducing the equivalent of a student dormitory, destroying the very
character zoning is intended to protect. This dramatic departure from the character of the
neighborhood would have been brought about by no other reason than the financial gain of the
land owner and the (North Carolina) based developer of future student-ghettos. Take a look at
Campus Crest’s development history and it’s reflection on their stock value (as low as it’s been
since 2010). How long before Campus Crest sells or goes defunct, leaving the purportedly
“supervised student housing” a shambles – the equivalent of a ghetto in the back yard of what
was once a peaceful, family neighborhood? This possibility isn’t far-fetched and there isn’t a
thing that any of us can do about it if you let this zone change go ahead. Are you willing to take
this chance? Is this development worth the betrayal of tax-paying citizens of Bozeman who
have been ardent supporters of planning, zoning, and this City Commission?
I am very much in favor of well thought out, high density, residential development in the
proximity of MSU. I commend the City for zoning almost 127 acres of REMU directly west of
the “Campus Crest” parcel. This parcel represents a very substantial opportunity for high
density residential development. We do not need more R-4 zoned land in this area and the
REMU is well defined and separated at 11th Avenue. This REMU is required by the UDO
(Subsection 38.09.020-C.3) to have no more than 30% of the gross square footage allocated to
non-residential use. This zoning district, combined with at least four additional, undeveloped
R-3 and R-4 tracts southwest of MSU comprise 217 acres of “higher and high” density
development potential. Given the restriction that 70% of the REMU be high density housing
and research into similar zoning districts near universities in Provo, UT and Austin, TX; I would
estimate that there are presently between 6,000 and 8,300 potential beds to be developed.
This doesn’t count what MSU is developing today and may develop in the future. Presently, I
believe MSU houses over 3,000 students on campus – soon to be near 4,000. Some of the free
market is responding responsibly to the rental shortage by initiating development within these
existing areas zoned for it. Let that happen. Promote it. Don’t trample on the existing Figgins
and Alder Creek neighborhoods by acting in haste and permitting this zone change.
The University “district” desperately needs a thoughtful mix of residential opportunities. The
present zoning delivers this very nicely. Not only students need to live within a walkable
February 16, 2014
Dan Stevenson
3009 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT
406.570.3621
distance of MSU in reasonably priced housing. Leave the presently zoned R-1, R-2, and R-3
alone so families can also enjoy a well planned life style.
Two members of the zoning commission (who were under-informed about the very zoning
districts they were there to make very important decisions on) continually questioned why 11th
Avenue is an acceptable separation between R-1 and REMU when a wider section of trail space
is not acceptable to the neighborhood. Well, here are just a few reasons why 11th Avenue is a
separator and a short section of open land isn’t:
1. 11th Avenue is a connector street – not only is it a wide street with boulevards,
sidewalks, and street lighting; but when set backs are factored in the street will provide
a very clear definition between neighborhoods. A clear neighborhood definition doesn’t
just come down to how much distance exists – good design expresses this separation.
2. The R-1 east of 11th has yet to be developed and can be designed to account for, and
complement, the REMU. The important transition between student focused high
density and family neighborhoods can be thought through and the new design can
make the experience for all residence a positive one.
3. 11th Avenue is the separator between high density/mixed use and a single family
neighborhood as defined in the 2006 planning work. It’s the promise that was made to
the neighborhoods around this area. R-4 is a HUGE departure from R-1. Don’t betray
the trust that we placed in the planning process and our elected officials.
This proposed Zone Map Amendment does harm to the existing neighborhood by devaluing
properties purchased under the existing zoning. The existing neighborhoods’ character would
be significantly compromised if this parcel is zoned R-4. The neighborhood will be further
harmed by intensified traffic not appropriately studied. The traffic study is flawed and was
performed on an off-peak day. It doesn’t consider the short circuit traffic that will certainly
happen every time that Kagy backs up, sending commuters south on 11th , past Morning Star,
and through the neighborhood streets of Arnold and Westridge.
I implore you to leave this parcel zoned R-1, R-2, and R-3. This complements the REMU west of
11th and retains the character of our neighborhoods and keeps our kids safe. We support the
City of Bozeman and the City Commission, we ask that you support us in this issue.
Regards,
Dan, Lisa, Riley, Ty, and Kate Stevenson
From:Denise Wiedenheft
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:51:58 AM
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the "zoning change". I have a number ofconcerns.
First, is the proximity to Morning Star Elementary School. These children would beat risk of increased exposure to foul language, litter from parties, poor rolemodeling, etc. I am not saying all college students are going to act out but it isfairly common for students to do things that we would not necessarily want ourchildren exposed to on a routine basis.
Second, if this were "campus housing", MSU would be overseeing the area to insureit was maintained, clean, and secure. We have increased incidence with collegestudents bad behavior the last couple of years and would not like to see that movedeven closer to elementary school children. Many areas are already in the pipeline toprovide housing.
Finally, traffic. South 3rd already experiences long delays and traffic back up. IfArnold were one of the major traffic flow areas it would contribute greatly to furtherdelays and increased speed. South 3rd is 25 mph, however, you are hard pressed tofind traffic moving at 25 ...majority of traffic is 35 mph. South 3rd is congested nowand increase traffic would cause more issues.
Thank You For Your Time,
Denise Wiedenheft
February 19, 2014
Dear City Commissioners,
I am writing to you regarding the monumental importance of the proposed Campus
Crest Zone Map Amendment (ZMA 13268). This has been a topic of great discussion, not only for the surrounding neighborhoods directly affected by the potential of this
proposed zone change, but for the city as a whole as is exemplified by the numerous
front page articles and OP/ED letters of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Commissioners,
Mehl, Pomeroy, Taylor and Andrus, I ask each of you to vote against this proposal for
the reasons stated below. Mayor Krauss, I respectfully ask that you recuse yourself from this vote since your position on the MSU Board of Regents appears to me to be of
significant conflict of interest in this matter.
To allow a zone change like this for a special interest puts the rest of the residents of
Bozeman on notice. If passed, the precedent would be set and the ensuing message to all would be that of "nothing is sacred." Anyone, anywhere in Bozeman could expect to
see zoning changes in or near their long-standing neighborhoods to accommodate a
special interest. Please view zoning as a tool for long-term planning. Changing zoning
to suit special interests reduces the livability of our community and makes a mockery of
one of the fundamental purposes of zoning -- to provide citizens with reliable and predictable land use planning.
I would like to mention several points that are paramount to your decision making
process as they relate to the state zoning criteria and guidelines which must be taken
into account in considering this proposal. The proposed zone change does NOT satisfy all of the criteria and guidelines for zoning regulations under MCA 76-2-304.
1. "promote public safety, public health and the general welfare..." Statistics show that
higher-density zoned areas have higher crime rates. Building a high density college-aged apartment complex next to an elementary school and existing R1 neighborhoods does not promote public safety, health and general welfare.
2. "facilitate the adequate provision of transportation..." & consider "the effect on
motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems" Developing Arnold St. through to 11th would turn Arnold into a collector street which then runs right through the middle of Figgins subdivision. This would undoubtedly negatively affect the character and safety
currently enjoyed by those in the subdivision, as well as the numerous children and
parents that walk or bike to Morning Star Elementary School.
3. Consider "conserving the value of buildings..." Rezoning to R4 would decrease the desirability of the surrounding area. Decreased desirability leads to decreased demand
and lower home values.
Furthermore, currently in the pipeline and on already suitably zoned land are the 500-bed Stadium View Apartments and MSU is said to be planning on breaking ground on
campus for a 400-bed dorm within the next 12-24 months. Also, consider that there are 127 acres of REMU approved and ready to build on. This property has direct access to
collectors and arterials unlike the area proposed for this zoning change. There are
several other parcels of R4 and un-zoned land nearby, including 22 acres between
Kagy and Lincoln. There is no shortage of appropriate sites to develop for high density
housing.
The university owns significant acreage south of College Ave and west of S. 19th Ave.
This land is no further from central campus than the land being proposed for rezoning.
The university lands abut the MSU Advanced Technology Park. It would be in keeping
with the Advanced Technology Park, an MSU/private joint venture, to develop a similar MSU/private joint venture housing complex on that land.
Lastly -- and this has nothing to do with zoning, but it is worth mentioning -- MSU may
need additional high density housing at some point in the future, but would the city of
Bozeman really be proud to lay claim to having the next Campus Crest "Grove?" If you don't already know about the incredibly negative track record of this company, there is
plenty of press about it online.
Again, please reject proposed ZMA 13268.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Howe, Jr.
Alder Creek Subdivision
From:Anne Banks
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:23:00 AM
To: Bozeman City Commission
From: Anne Banks
7 Hill St., Bozeman 59715
Subject: Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Dear Commissioners:
I respectfully request you to reject the zoning amendment proposed by Campus Crest Communities.
There are reasons to reject it related to the general purposes of zoning and reasons related to this
project in particular.
Zoning’s general purpose is to provide predictable land use parameters for both citizens and
developers, so people know what to expect when they but a home or homesite, start a business or
develop land. It also assures that adjoining uses are compatible with each other and with available
services.
The area proposed for development by Campus Crest is currently mostly zoned R1. Homeowners in
the adjacent subdivisions bought their houses with the expectation that any development
immediately to the west of them would also be R1, single family dwellings. Instead, the Campus
Crest development would be R4, the densest residential zoning, with a 600 bedroom student rental
complex. This is clearly not what the neighbors expected, nor is it a compatible use. Dumping 600
plus college students next door will increase noise, traffic, police calls, trash, and demands on other
city services, as well as deterioration of adjacent property values. Campus Crest does not have a
good performance record in its other similar developments, with all of the above results and a list of
broken promises for improvement.
Furthermore, there is not a shortage of R4 zoned and other unzoned land close to MSU with better
connections to arterial streets, land that could be developed with high-density housing without the
pernicious effects on a neighborhood with many small children and an elementary school next door.
For these reasons I urge you to reject this zone amendment proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Anne Banks
From:Jessica Merkel
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:40:39 AM
City Commissioners
I am writing to voice my opposition to the rezoning of the field next to
Morning Star Elementary for the 600 bedroom student residence. As a
parent of children who attend Morning Star Elementary and a residence of
Bozeman, I believe that this rezoning issue will greatly impact the futureof our community in a negative way.
I feel that the city should not rezone an area that was intended to be R1
to R4. There are many families and homeowners that built and
purchased homes in this area with the knowledge that future growth
would be in accordance with the R1guidelines set forth. What kind ofmessage does it send to the community that the City of Bozeman can
and will change zoning issues based on what they best see fit… not the
actual people and families impacted and living in the area.
I also would like to state my concern for the safety of our children. I
don’t believe that bringing a 600 student housing complex will providesafety and family friendly atmosphere to the area. With adjoining high
density neighborhoods and the Morning Star Elementary school – I feel
that SAFETY is a major concern. I don’t believe that the North Carolina
developers have any real concern for the impact that this developmentwill make on our community. But the people and families of Bozeman
that live and work here, contributing all of their time and resources to
our city, that’s who I think you all, should be concerned about.
Please listen to the people that are the heart of Bozeman, the people that
really care about the city and the impact that this will have on our “LastBest Place”.
Vote No to rezone.
Respectfully,
Jessica Merkel
From:Michael Mason
To:Agenda
Cc:Michael Mason
Subject:Proposed Campus Crest Student Residential development - Bozeman, MT
Date:Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:42:20 AM
To: Bozeman City Commission
Dear Sirs:
I am writing you regarding the proposed Campus Crest Project, named "TheGrove". From 2009 to 2013, I was the Deputy Director of the Development ServicesDepartment and the Engineering Development Review Division Manager for thatdepartment for the City of Stillwater, Stillwater, OK. In the early part of my tenurethere, the City was involved with reviewing a similar Campus Crest Proposal to bebuilt in Stillwater. That project was similar to the one being proposed for theBozeman site and their approach appears to be much the same., i.e, propose a sitein an area close to campus and vie for a change in zoning to accommodate theproposed facility - venue being very much the same. At the time, being a memberof the City staff I was not able to comment or give opinion regarding thedevelopment, which was appropriate.
This facility appears to be very much the same as the one proposed for Stillwater,with many of the same venues, such as pool and sand lot volly ball as well aspromoting a constant party atmosphere.
When many of the residents in Stillwater researched the proposed project and whenthe City researched the project and past projects that the Campus Crest Developerhad installed in other cities, many of the same problems came up. I noted in theChronicle article that there were concerns about cost and management aspects, butlittle discussion that many of the Campus Crest developments have been cited asnuisance facilities where anything goes. Unfortunately this appears to be the casewhere a level of free living and partying and open access to fun and games isencouraged by the very nature of the development and its venue. Alcohol andpotentially drugs can be a problem when such a venue is encouraged. In addition,this does not allow the students to focus on why they are going to school!
The residents in the area where the facility is being proposed in Bozemen is next tothe campus and that land was set aside by zoning to provide residential one andtwo family dwelling units, I believe. The imposition of a large, boisterous, and manytimes noisy facility, next to a serious residential neighborhood is asking for trouble. I know what I am talking about, since I was involved in the review and constructionof several large facilities within the City of Stillwater, where student housing andapartments were involved and where large collections of students andconcentrations of students and student parking as involved. Traffic will seriouslyincrease along the streets accessing the proposed Campus Crest "Grove " facility;alcohol will be a problem; partying and all that goes with it can and will be aproblem.
As I indicated, I was involved with reviewing many student housing projects andapartment complexes in a community where a university of even greater size wassituated (Oklahoma State University) and part of the problem appears to beassociated with the venue and the serious traffic problems as well as the party
atmosphere. Several student housing proposals were approved, with differenthistories and different venues, but there always was the technical concernsregarding a concentration of a large body of students, primarily transient, and theimpact that this large facility and its tenants would have on the local community andthe infrastructure .
It is my understanding that the City of Fayettesville, Arkansas, where the Universityof Arkansas is located, also rejected Campus Crest's proposal to locate a similar"Grove" complex. This facility was near the U of A campus but in a blighted arenear the National Cemetery, yet the city rejected that proposal.
There appears to be a body of evidence that the Campus Crest Student HousingFacilities have some serious problems. I would suggest that you seriously considerthe impact to the community and recognize that there may be problems associatedwith the type of facility.
I would not recommend the facility to the City of Bozeman, from my own knowledgeof the past histories of the various facilities located elsewhere.
Thank you for hearing me out. As a resident of Belgrade, of course, I do not have avote, but I do shop in Bozeman and I have two sons and a daughter-in-law whowent to school at Montana State University. I also have retired to the Bozeman areaand so I do have a concern and a vested interest in the well being of Bozeman andthe impact of what could potentially be a negative development in the area.
Thank you for your time. If you would like to discuss the proposed developmentfurther, please fell free to call.
Michael R. MasonMichael R. Mason ConsultingCertified Flood Plains Manager Certified Plans ExaminerPE, CA, CORetired PE, WA, OR, AKFormer OK PE2003 Sturnella Lane,Belgrade, MT 59714(503) 302-1927
From:tanya@naavastudio.com
To:Agenda
Subject:Opposition to the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:29:44 PM
Attachments:sigimg0
Bozeman City Commissioners:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Z13268.
I am very concerned about the potential negative effects that an R4 zone change would
have on our neighborhood and community. My husband and I chose to build our home in
Allison Phase 1 five years ago because we desired a family-oriented neighborhood in
which we could raise our children. A radical zoning change will bring transient college age
renters and high-density population into our neighborhood. We chose our current
property to move our family away from a high-density area and we based much of our
decision on the zoning and city planning that was presented for the area extending from
our neighborhood.
I was disappointed to see that most of the criteria (MCA 76-2-304) was ignored by the
Zoning Commission. The commission primarily focused on the supposed shortage of high-
density land in proximity to MSU. However, there assumptions were not based in
accuracy. There are several alternatives to the Campus Crest rezoning proposal. The
Stadium View apartments provide 500 beds and MSU itself will be breaking ground on
campus on a 400 bed dorm this next year. There are also 127 acres of REMU approved
and ready to build on. This property has direct access to collectors and arterials unlike the
area proposed for this zoning change. There are several other parcels of R4 and un-
zoned land nearby, including 22 acres between Kagy and Lincoln. There is also a
significant acreage of land owned by MSU south of College Ave. and west of South 19th
Ave. This property neighbors the MSU Advanced Technology Park and is in similar
proximity to central campus as the proposed rezoned property.
The reality is that there is no shortage of appropriate properties to develop high density
housing near MSU. Clearly, choosing an R-1 designated area next to previously-
established single family homes and an elementary school is not the most logical and
sensible location for such development considering the alternatives.
Higher density zoned areas are consistent with higher crime rates. A decision to approve
the proposed amendment will surely bring an increase of crime into our neighborhood.
Our children attend Morning Star Elementary School and we have significant safety
concerns for the students of Morning Star. The idea of planting high-density, high-crime,
college transient renters next to an elementary school is foolish. The contrast between
the lifestyle of these two demographics goes without saying. There will be compromises
made at the expense of Bozeman's youth. Our priority as a community should be the
protection of our children above all else.
In addition, the R4 zoning would, without a doubt, decrease the desirability and value of
surrounding properties. The negative impact will have a ripple effect into the additional
future property sites that will be developed in the coming years. This will encroach onto
neighboring properties to Allison Phase 1 and Alder Creek subdivisions. It is not in the
best interest of our community members to burden homeowners with a sudden and
unexpected decrease in property value. After all, the purpose of zoning is to provide
citizens with reliable and predictable land use planning. The community members of
Bozeman trust that our city government will protect our best interests and will advocate
for the value of Bozeman properties. My hope is that the trust we have placed in you will
be honored.
I believe that a solution can be found for our university students that do not compromise
the livelihood of our elementary students. As a long-time member of the Bozeman
community, a city-property owner, local business owner, and a mother, I am asking you
to please hold the interests of our children and Bozeman families above that of corporate
interest and say "no" to the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268.
Sincerely,
Tanya Cotterell
3035 Teslow Dr.
Bozeman, MT
Tanya Cotterell
Visit my website to learn how to use essential oils to meet your health needs.... naturally!
www.naturalsolutions.eoinfo.com
From:Sierra Harris
To:Agenda
Subject:Comment on Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:57:14 AM
Dear City Commissioners,
Hello! My name is Sierra Harris and I am currently the Watershed Coordinator for the
Greater Gallatin Watershed Council. I have met most of you at various functions and
events in Bozeman and I am writing to ask you all for a moment of your time and
consideration.
Today, I am writing to all of you as a concerned neighbor and parent of two school
children living near Morning Star Elementary school. We live on Westridge Drive near
the intersection of Arnold Street. I am asking all of you to please consider the
adverse effects of the proposed zoning change from R1 to R4 in the field adjacent to
the elementary school.
I understand that Bozeman is a growing city and that development is a necessary part
of growth in our community. I firmly believe that this is NOT the best location for
Campus Crest to consider building a 600 + college student housing complex. I
sincerely worry about the safety of my son (8) and daughter (5) walking to school
each morning or playing on their playground with that type of notoriously unregulated
student housing 250 feet from the school's property.
There are other potential building sites throughout town that would be more
ideally suited for student housing. Plus, MSU is already building a large student
apartment complex in our area and I do not believe it is necessary for another one to
be built so close to it. Especially by a private, out-of-state developer who has a
reputation for building student housing that then becomes a nuisance within their
communities.
Please take the highest consideration about this specific location, the neighborhood
and the school that will all be adversely effected by the proposed zoning change.
Please leave this location as it's original designation of R1 and allow for additional
single-family homes to be added into our neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sierra Harris
3002 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 459-2585
From:bsgavica@optimum.net
To:Agenda
Subject:City Commision Meeting
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:50:17 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
Due to a schedule conflict I am unable to attending the City Commission meeting onFebruary 24th. However, I did want to voice my opinion on the request of a changein the zoning near Morning Star elementary school. I do not think this is in the bestinterest of the students, neighborhood or the community in general for manyreasons. I truly hope that the change does not get approved. Thank you for yourtime.
Sincerely,
Sasha Gavica
From:Patbschmidt
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:17:36 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Patrick Schmidt, I am 19 years old, and I live at 815 Arnold St., very close to the proposed zone change for the Campus Crest development.
I would like to make clear that I am very much against the change in zoning in this particular area. I am not opposed because it is R4, but because of what R4 and this particular development could do to the surrounding neighborhood.
There is nothing inherently wrong with R4, however it does not belong in the middle of a family neighborhood. The Campus Crest apartments are marketed as a party paradise for college students and that attitude is not conducive to the existing neighborhood that surrounds. If you have not taken a look at the website, I would encourage you to do so (www.gogrove.com). I spent a fabulous childhood in a practically crime-free area and I want that for future generations of kids.
The proposed R4 threatens to bring with it not only a higher crime rate and a more unsafe neighborhood, but will also lower property values for many hardworking families whose lives depend on their achievement of the most basic part of the American Dream.
The bottom line is that the proposed development will completely change the character of the Allison neighborhood for the worse. I urge you to act and not pass this proposal. I beg you to allow future parents and children to enjoy what I have been so fortunate to have.
Respectfully yours,
-Patrick Schmidt, 19815 W. Arnold St. Bozeman539-7327
February
19,
2014
From:
Overbrook
Condos
Home
Owner’s
Association
Board
of
Directors
%
Management
Associates
682
S
Ferguson
Ave
Ste
6,
Bozeman
MT
59715
406-‐586-‐6500
TO:
City
of
Bozeman
Commissions
Mayor
Krauss
Deputy
Mayor
Taylor
Commissioners
Mehl,
Andrus
&
Pomeroy
RE:
Campus
Crest
Zone
Map
Amendment
Z13268
Dear
Mayor
Krauss
and
City
Commissioners:
Overbrook
Condos
are
located
just
north
of
Westridge
Dr.
and
southeast
of
the
Museum
of
the
Rockies
(MOR).
Many
Overbrook
units
have
sump
pumps
that
operate
periodically
due
to
our
already
high
groundwater
level.
Additionally,
a
stream
runs
through
the
property
and
into
the
field
east
of
MOR.
The
Overbrook
Board
of
Directors
is
concerned
about
the
proposed
zoning
change
west/southwest
of
Overbrook.
Going
from
R1
&
R3
to
R4
is
a
substantial
increase
in
population
density
that
may
increase
impermeable
surfaces
(roads,
parking,
roofs,
driveways)
resulting
in
increased
run-‐off.
Since
water
tends
to
move
northeast
in
this
area,
additional
run-‐off
would
be
a
significant
problem
for
Overbrook.
The
Board
of
Directors
wishes
to
avoid
any
damages,
and
subsequent
litigation,
should
a
significant
weather
or
water
line
event
cause
harm
exacerbated
by
an
increase
in
impermeable
surfaces
resulting
from
re-‐zoning.
We
urge
you,
in
weighing
the
proposed
zoning
request
by
Campus
Crest
or
any
use
that
could
be
allowed
in
R4,
to
evaluate
how
R4
increased
density
will
impact
groundwater
and
increase
run-‐off
into
Overbrook
and
neighboring
areas.
Sincerely,
Don Greer
Don
Greer,
President
Kathy
Powell,
Secretary
Jean
Brown,
Treasurer
Jill
Bedessem,
Member-‐At-‐Large
City of Bozeman Commissioners
Regarding: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13269.
Dear Commissioners,
We are residents of Alder Creek and are writing to oppose the application for a zoning change from mostly
R1 and some R3 to R4 high density housing for the 15+ acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision. I wrote to the
Zoning Commission, I have attached a copy of that letter, but I wanted to emphasize a couple points.
Half the Zoning Commission simply ignored most of the criteria listed on MCA 76-2-304, and focused voted
solely on what they felt is a need for high density student housing. I have addressed some of these points on
the attached letter. However with the recently approved REMU (of which 70% must be high density housing),
the Stadium View complex to be built, along with several other currently R4 zones that can be built, that are
much more suitable for high density housing, I argue that there is not a lack of R4 already available that is
close to MSU. When I look at the zoning map, what I see is what will be a lack of R1 that has good bike and
walkabilty to MSU and downtown if this change made.
Making the proposed Campus Crest Zone Map amendment will undeniably affect the values, character and
safety of current neighborhoods, both by proximity to an R4 development, but also, significantly by the
proposed hooking up of Arnold Street to 11th Ave. Arnold and Westridge Streets will essentially become
collector streets that will be highly utilized by students, and to probably to a larger degree non students
coming to a from the south side of Bozeman. These streets were not designed for this, they are small, they
have driveways, it will be an extremely unsafe situation.
I urge the Commissioners not to approve this zone map amendment and by doing so encouraging
development of the multiple currently R4 zoned areas that are not going to significantly alter the character,
safety and value of the surrounding developments.
Although I oppose the zoning change, regardless of the proposed development, I do take particular issue
with the Campus Crest's and their proposal for "Fully Loaded" living...being that the mascot is a solo cup...it is
a pretty clear message, that they are marketing to prospective tenants - this place is about partying. Not the
type of environment MSU is cultivating and definitely not a suitable neighbor to an Elementary School.
We strongly urge the Commissioners to not this inappropriate zoning change. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Laura & Josh Merante
1377 Brookdale Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Julier & Jim Cerenzia .229 Silver Cloud Circle. Bozeman MT (406)624-6972
Frebruary 18, i1014
Dear Mr. lvlayor and City Cornmissioners,
As homecwrlefs of 735 West Arnold Street, and as parents of children attending Morning Star Elementary, and ar;
citizens who support smart growth that meets the objectives of Bozeman's Growth Plan, we urge the City
Commission to neiect the Carmpus Crest Zone Map Amendment 213268.
Here's th,e take-away: As currently zoned, development of this parcel will provide additional medium-
density, family"oriented housing that wlll perfectly meet the needs of MSU's growing number of faculty and
staff (as identified in the Long Range Campus Plan). Parents will walldbike to their MSU jobs. Their children
will walklbike t,o school. A tsuccessful family-oriented neighborhood will continue to thrive while it grows.
The goals; of our Growth Plan ("2009 Bozeman Community Plan")- strong neighborhoods, less
transportation - will be realized. Rezoning this parcel to R4 will nof further the goals of our growth plan and,
in fact, wiill undermine them by placing incompatible development in the very heart of an elementary
attendantle zone and displacing medium-density family-oriented housing close to MSU.
When you are trying to pull growth to a city, you have to make concessions. When growth is coming on its owfl, !rQt1
have the luxury of setting the rules of growth - and the duty to do so. Bozeman's Gro'wth Plan provides a well-
consicjered groMn poiicy tnat seeks ro the optimai iorrg rurrg benefits ior our ciiy. Tire iand which is ihe subject of the
proposed Campus Crest rezoning is a pedect example of the decisions that Bozeman will face in the coming yeals -
let's make sure'we get it righll.
Curn2glz1@ruith the groMh plan and should not be changed in a way that sacrifices the qrowth plan
qoa|s tojtre immediate interests of an out-of-state developer.
Less than 10 years ago the Commission examined this area and zoned it R3 where it abuts the existing business
park and tl1/ Ril next to the existing Figgins neighborhood of single family homes. This zoning still best meets ther
needs of lJozeman - even when one considers the parcel's close proximity to MSU. Under current zoning, this parcel
will grow to provide additional family-oriented housing. Parents can walk or bike to MSU jobs while their kids walk or
bike to school and a successful neighborhood will continue to grow and thrive.
Rezoning to R4 is designed fbr and suited to one specific tvpe of development, larqe scale student housing,
The decision to rezone from ia mix of medium-density residential (including R3) to high-density R4 is ostensibly to be
taken without regard to any specific proposal for development. But it is undeniable that this rezoning is requested for
the express Durpose of developing student housing. This is apparent not only in the concurrent submission of a Site
Plan for "l-he Grove" student housing complex but also in the specific student-housing focus of the staff report to the
Zoning Commission, the conrments of the Zoning Commission during its deliberations, and the comments of May,or
Krauss, who attended the Zoning Commission meeting. We must ask whether R4 student housing on this parcel
meets the needs of the Univelrsity and serves the goals of the Growth Plan befferthan the current medium-densitl
zoning. The answer is no.
The larqe REMU parcel is perfectly suited and sufficiently larqe to meet the needs of MSU's qrowing student
pqzulatiorr while serving the ooals of Bozeman's qrowth plan.
As MSU grows, it will have rnore students and, presumably, more faculty and staff. lts influence will certainly externd
to the south, as this is where there is available space. Zoning, Planning, and the City Commission have done an
excellent job of ;zoning to datra to address this likely trend. The 126 acres of REMU land ("South University District")
um View") will
accommodate 499 students, the entirety of the 126 acres of REMU development should e ample space for a
growing student population. And the "mixed use" development can produce an area that a higher quality ol'life
for the student community anrd meets the Bozeman Growth Plan by reducing the use of tran ,ion and creatinrg a
"neighborhood center". Because it is so well suited to meeting the needs of MSU, the de ment of the REMU
parcel is erxplicitly included in the University's Long Range Campus Development Plan (LRC
The subiect narcel as currerrfly zoned will producglLe_mqst c_q1oalibJe {euqlgp_qrglt ![ i;
ne€ds ofIulSU as a maior ernployer and can do so while servinq the ooals of the Bozeman q
Cam ment Plan of the e
oriented neiqhborhood.
south of K,agy are perfectly placed to allow for the development of student housing as well
services that students need and want. Given that the first 9.8 acres under development ("S
The proposed silte for the Campus Crest development may be proximate to MSU, but it has
character from the REMU larrd due to its even closer proximrfy to the Figgins neighborhood
university students in the heevt of an elementary attendance zone, practically within
elementaty school. That is not compatible planning.
It is also nrot the optimal use for this land, As currently zoned, this land will be developed
units. That means apaftments or townhouses closer to the University and business park,
and single family homes as one moves closer to the existing, successful, family-oriented
the amenities and
distance of the
much different
Morning Star
Elementaly School. Between the entrance to Morning Star and the proposed development li only the Gallagator
Trail and about one residential lot. lt takes 16 minutes to walk from the nearest corner of the
development to the nearest c;orner of the MSU academic area (at the corner of 11th and Gra
Grove
, approximately 0.8
miles)...at the same pace, it ltakes less than 60 seconds to walk from the nearest corner of proposed Grove
developm,ent to the entrance to Morning Star school (approximately 250 feet). The Grove to put 600
R1 to R3 residential
ning to townhou,ses
neighborhood and
the Mornimg Star elementary school. As noted by the Zoning staff - this is an effective transi space between the
existing developments. Rezoning it to R4 would eliminate this transitional nature, replacing i with high-density,
student-oriented residential dlevelopment separated from an established family-oriented ne by only a
it with student-creek and a trail. That is abrupt, not transitional. Furthermore inq this land to R4
of medi residences that would inq with the
character of the -oriented n more com with the
is in l'erv close serve the need for mo
MSU facultv and staff. A grolving student population will drive growth in faculty and staff.'s Long Range
Campus Development Plan recognizes the need for housing to serve its employees. The ium density
development of this parcel - as currently zoned - will offer housing that allows them to walk bike to their jobs vrrhile
their kids 'walk or bike to school. This is an ideal realization of what n's Growth Plan sto
We urge you to oppose the "t3ampus Crest zMA213268" as current zoning is more with Bozeman's
growth policy, the needs of the University, and the needs of the affected neighborhood.
Johnna Hall
1003 Brookdale Dr
Bozeman, MT 59715
January 28, 2014
City of Bozeman City Commissioners
Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear City Commissioners,
My name is Johnna Hall and I live in the Alder Creek subdivision and am writing to oppose the application for
a zoning change for 15+ acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision from mostly R1 and some R3 to R4 high-
density housing.
We built our house in Alder Creek and moved in last March. One of the main reasons we bought the lot we
did was because of the neighborhood character and its proximity to Morning Star Elementary School. I am
also a Kindergarten teacher at Morning Star and we wanted our kids (ages 6, 3, and 18 months) to be able to
attend my school. I knew Alder Creek was a family oriented neighborhood before we moved in, however, I
could have never imagined it was to the extent it is. Every house up and down the block is filled with hard-
working, young families who enjoy their time together playing and recreating in the unique residential
neighborhood climate we are lucky enough to have in Bozeman.
The proposed zoning change is inappropriate for this area. With this change, you will significantly alter the
character of the existing R1 neighborhood from predominately family-oriented homeowners to college age
renters. I am also very concerned about the safety of the children at Morning Star Elementary, which will be
on the back steps of this housing unit. Nowhere else in the community is a high-density college rental unit
adjacent to an elementary school. The 500 plus students and staff members of Morning Star School will be
negatively impacted through this zoning change. As a teacher, I spend many nights and weekends at an
empty school. I have always felt safe being there after hours knowing I am surround by a family oriented
neighborhood. However, if this zoning change is passed it is highly unlikely I will be spending any time in an
empty building with 600 college students out the front door. As a parent I am even more concerned about
the safety of the kids at school. Horrible thoughts have been running through my head as to what could and
may happen with 600 college-age renters within yards of an amazing elementary school. Please remember
the children of Bozeman and what this zoning change could do to them.
This zoning change seems to be above and beyond what Bozeman needs. There is a surplus of existing and
approved high-density housing developments near and on the university including the proposed Stadium
View apartments and the additional student housing planned on the MSU campus for 2015. However, there
is a significant need for centrally located single-family housing.
I understand that Bozeman is growing and I recognize the need for more housing of all density types but I am
sure that we can maintain the quality, character and value of our established neighborhoods and still
accommodate high-density growth in areas that have the infrastructure and are zoned for that use.
I urge you to not recommend or vote for this inappropriate zoning change and housing development. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Johnna Hall
From:Jeff Batton
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:44:09 AM
Dear Bozeman City Commission -
I am Jeff Batton, a homeowner at 107 Silverwood Drive in Bozeman, a location that would NOT be directly impacted by this proposed change. I am in opposition to the proposed change for the following reasons:
1) I attended the recent zoning commission meeting and was fairly disheartened to see the "logic" being used by two of the members of this board of volunteers. As I am sure Mayor Krauss will acknowledge (he was in attendance as an observer), the arguments made by City staff and two of the commission members were pretty flimsy when it came to addressing Montana code...in particular the issue of whether such a development would have a detrimental effect on the economic value of neighboring properties. The biggest argument being made in this regard did not focus at all on an assessment of property values, but instead was various dialogue that could be paraphrased as "we have done this before, so how bad can this turn out?" The examples given for "we have done this before" were locations at BUSY intersections in densely developed areas of town...prime example being an apartment complex located at the corner of Durston and 19th...easily one of the absolute busiest traffic locations in the entire city! Given the fact that this apartment complex was likely developed BEFORE many of the single family homes were built in that area...and the fact that that intersection has been one of the busiest for decades...I don't see how that development can be used as a justification for rezoning the location in question. In the case in question, comparisons are trying to be drawn between small, residential Arnold Street to either Durston or 19th...take your pick, neither of those have traffic numbers anything close to Arnold Street, I am sure. Also in the case in question, this rezoning is being suggested for a neighborhood that has already experienced high levels of development of single family homes...not the reverse. To allow an apartment complex of this nature in this area is blatantly unfair to property owners in the area, and is a clear violation of Montana code. In fact, the violation is so clear, I would not be surprised to see the City taken to court over a decision in favor of this amendment. Common sense tells me that there are just too many factors pointing against this zoning change...and it seems to me that the City would be better served by pursuing developments like these in alternate locations.
2) My second issue is actually a set of questions, and they are NOT intended as rhetorical questions. I hope you will read and consider your own frank responses to each. As a property taxpaying citizen of this City, I have come to expect that the City's leaders will follow long term goals and objectives when setting development and zoning policy. My primary question is...are we as a City in such dire financial straits that we really NEED to propose this zoning amendment in order to increase our property tax income from the ensuing development? Or would we be better to "stick to our guns" when it comes to the long term vision that has been ratified into the current zoning scheme for the area in question? If we are in such dire financial straits...then why hasn't the electorate been made aware of such problems? And if we are willing to abandon long-held planning and zoning when the first developer for a parcel shows up in town, then why were property taxpayers paying for City staff and Commissioners to develop and ratify such long term plans? Why bother?
I hope that you will ratify the recommendation (even if it was a split decision) from the zoning commission to decline this amendment request.
Jeff Batton
Jeff Batton
jeff@greenstonegrowth.com
406.579.8284
Greg D. Adams, PhD
1014 Brookdale Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59715
February 19, 2014
Bozeman Mayor and Commissioners
City of Bozeman
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268, Impact on Property Values
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
For many years my company, Nth-Degree Analytics, consulted for the parent company of
Realtor.com, for whom I have built advanced statistical models to estimate housing values, akin
to those used for property tax appraisals or seen on websites sites such as Zillow.com. Every
month for approximately five years I estimated the property values for 20 million residential
single family homes (RSFR) and 5 million condos, based on each property’s physical and
neighborhood characteristics.
It is in this professional capacity that I wish to testify on the impact of the proposed rezoning
and Campus Crest development on home prices near Morning Star Elementary School.
In short, while “estimates may vary” from one statistical model to another, the proposed
Campus Crest development can be expected to lower housing values in the Figgins, Allison,
and Alder Creek subdivisions by approximately seven percent. A map showing the impact on
affected properties is attached with my letter.
Before explaining how I arrived at this estimate, I should note that my professional work is
covered by a non-disclosure agreement and that my claims here are my own, not those of any
of my current or past clients, including Move.com or its subsidiary Realtor.com.
Characteristics that impact a home’s value – be it the home’s square footage, an extra
bathroom, or proximity to positive features (e.g., parks and schools) or negative features (e.g.,
an industrial plant) – are estimated using a technique known as “hedonic pricing models.” I and
other economists and statisticians estimate these models by running statistical regressions of
sale prices for a large number of homes, simultaneously controlling for home and
neighborhood characteristics as well as sale date. While estimates for any single property can
be off considerably – the models are unable to observe, for instance, whether a particular
Greg D. Adams Letter on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Feb. 18, 2014
Page 2
home has new carpet, appliances, paint, siding, etc. – the estimates of the impact for each
feature in the model are quite robust. Hence, without going inside a house I may not be able to
accurately assess the price of that house within 10% of its sales price, but I would be able to say
with great confidence the value of an extra bedroom, all else being equal, or in this case, the
impact of a nearby large apartment complex on the average home’s value.
I am unaware of any hedonic models that look specifically at the impact of student housing
complexes, but many scholars have looked at the impact of large private apartment complexes
and of public housing complexes on nearby home values. In the case of private apartment
complexes recent research estimates that being within 0.5 miles to a large apartment complex
reduces the value of single family homes by between 4.2% [1] and 5.7% [2].
There is, of course, a large literature on public housing’s impacts on neighboring home values.
The consensus is that when done carefully, with small-sized projects that are similar to
neighboring homes, publicly subsidized housing can have minimal negative impacts on nearby
homes. However, a typical medium or large public family complex (> 200 units) will decrease
the value of neighboring homes by an estimated 9.1%.[3]
Because student housing complexes are largely unexplored by the hedonic modeling literature,
one must resort to assuming the impacts would lie somewhere between standard apartments
and publicly subsidized apartments. Averaging these two types of housing, the impact from a
student housing complex on nearby single family homes would be a loss of roughly 7% in
value. Of course, the actual impact would vary, depending on the extent to which noise,
alcohol, and similar student-housing related problems are controlled; if these issues were not
controlled the impacts could be much greater. In this context it should be added that the
hedonic models assume “all else being equal.” If an apartment complex also brings with it any
level of increased crime, for instance, that impact is estimated separately. In other words, the
total negative impact of a student housing complex is potentially much greater than the
ballpark 7% estimate, which assumes crime rates are unaffected.
1 Cebula, Richard J. (2009), “The Hedonic Pricing Model Applied to the Housing Market of the City of
Savannah and Its Savannah Historic Landmark District,” The Review of Regional Studies, 2009, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 9–
22. [http://journal.srsa.org/ojs/index.php/RRS/article/download/182/137]
2 Yinger, John (2012), “Hedonic Markets and Explicit Demands: Bid-Function Envelopes for
Public Services and Neighborhood Amenities,” Working Paper for Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University.
[http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Hedonic_Markets.pdf]
3 Yinger, John (2012), “Hedonic Markets and Explicit Demands: Bid-Function Envelopes for
Public Services and Neighborhood Amenities,” Working Paper for Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University.
[http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Hedonic_Markets.pdf]
Greg D. Adams Letter on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Feb. 18, 2014
Page 3
With regards to student housing in particular, the City of St. Paul recently released a study on
student housing.[4] The problems faced by St. Paul are slightly different than Bozeman’s, but the
report has an excellent literature review describing studies of student housing impacts in
college towns across the country. One of the key conclusions from the literature is that a
“tipping point” occurs when a neighborhood’s composition of students exceeds 10-15%.
When the tipping point is crossed, families move out of the neighborhood in substantial
numbers, and the neighborhood quickly becomes converted to predominately rental units,
often devolving into “student slums.” For this reason, many communities are restricting how
much property in a neighborhood can be used for student housing, and college towns like
Iowa City have recently imposed a moratorium on large student housing complexes.[5]
To give a better sense of the financial impact of the proposed rezoning, I’m including two maps.
The first map shows the impact on properties for a 5% average depreciation of value, and the
second shows a 7% average depreciation. In both cases, the average impact was modeled using
a non-linear decay function, allowing for higher impacts closer to the rezoned parcel and lower
impacts with increased distance. Note that this approach slightly widens the impact zone
beyond the 0.5 mile range, but the overall estimated impact is actually lower within the 0.5
mile range than if the impact were applied at a constant to all properties in the 0.5 mile area
(see table below). Property values used in these calculations come from the Montana
Department of Revenue, as reported on the website cadastral.mt.gov.
Number of Homes by Size of Property Value Loss from Rezoning
Property Value Loss
5% Avg.
Depreciation
7% Avg.
Depreciation
$0 - $500 14 7
$500 - $1,000 19 14
$1,000 - $5,000 113 81
$5,000 - $15,000 203 146
$15,000 - $25,000 137 157
$25,000+ 22 103
Total Loss Inside 0.5 Miles (constant impact) $6,479,450 $9,071,230
Total Loss Inside 0.5 Miles
(non-linear impact) $5,752,208 $8,053,092
4 Saint Paul Planning Commission (May 2012), “Student Housing Zoning Study: Report and Recommendations”
[http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/20436]
5 February 23, 2012. “Iowa City Council Gives Green Light to Construction Moratorium,” Iowa City Patch.
[http://iowacity.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/iowa-city-council-gives-green-light-to-construction-
moratorium]
Greg D. Adams Letter on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Feb. 18, 2014
Page 4
A major take-away from the table on the previous page is that the cumulative property value
loss is substantial, with estimates ranging between $5.7 and $9.1 million. The obvious reason
for this is the large number of homes in the impact zone with values exceeding $300,000 and in
several cases home values exceeding $500,000. With so many high-value homes in the impact
zone, even modest depreciation effects are apt to produce sizable cumulative negative impacts.
The interactive maps on the following pages are available on the web at http://bit.ly/1nOt4Dy
(5% depreciation impacts) and http://bit.ly/1bMBrQt (7% depreciation impacts). Using the
maps in your browser, you can click on any given property and see the property’s assessed
value (provided by cadastral.mt.gov), as well as the estimated negative impact to the property.
The analyses employed for hedonic pricing models and for the impacts described in this letter
are quite complex, but there is no “statistical voodoo” going on. The methods are standard and
the results quoted here are an honest presentation of the most applicable research available,
providing the best estimates available. However, I can appreciate that you may have questions
about the methodology or the results presented, and I would welcome the opportunity to
explain them to you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Greg D. Adams, PhD
adamsg@nth-degree.com
ph: (406) 581-9256
gda
Greg D. Adams Letter on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Feb. 18, 2014
Page 5
Negative Impact on Property Values with 5% Average Depreciation
Source: Property values from cadastral.mt.gov. Depreciation modeled by author with non-linear
decay as function of distance.
Greg D. Adams Letter on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Feb. 18, 2014
Page 6
Negative Impact on Property Values with 7% Average Depreciation
Source: Property values from cadastral.mt.gov. Depreciation modeled by author with non-linear
decay as function of distance.
February 20, 2014
City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Chairman and Members of the Zoning Commission,
We are writing this letter to express the strong opposition that our family shares regarding the Campus
Crest Zone Map Amendment (Z-13268).
We purchased our home on West Arnold Street seven years ago because of its proximity to quality
schools, excellent parks, and overall family oriented atmosphere. We made our real estate investment
confident that the neighborhood was right for us and that the R-1 zoning of the nearby field would
protect our investment when it came time to develop that vacant property. Since we bought our home,
we have invested a substantial amount of money into improving this residence. We are MSU Alumni,
professionals, voters, and stewards of the Gallatin Valley. We believe that the R1 zoning of the field
nearby protects the investment in our home and the safety of the children attending the nearby schools.
We are confident that the Bozeman City Commission will give a fair assessment of this zoning request
and have outlined our justification to deny the zoning request in this letter. We can form smarter
options that will support the needs of Bozeman families and Montana State University Students alike.
The Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Application submitted by Madison Engineering does not meet
the Zoning Provisioning Criteria, contrary to the Application’s statements. Please consider the following.
A1. Is the new Zoning designed in accordance with the comprehensive plan?
No. the property is currently designated at: R1 (~10.6 acres), and R3 (~5 acres). The majority of
this property borders existing, developed R1 zoning. The proposed zoning is dropping in an R4
designation where there is no R4 within about a half mile. When viewing the zone amendment
on a color map (Exhibit A), the amendment is clearly illegal spot zoning. Spot zoning is invalid
because it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable treatment of a limited area
within a particular district and is, therefore, a deviation from the city’s comprehensive plan.
The proposed rezoning of this land meets all three factors that a MT Supreme Court ruling used
to determine spot zoning:
1. is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area;
2. is concerned more with the number of separate landowners benefited by the
requested change than it is with the actual size of the area benefited;
3. is designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of the
surrounding landowners or the general public.
When we purchased our property we had the right to rely on the city’s comprehensive plan,
which heavily influenced our investment decision. If this rezoning occurs, our investment may
be significantly impacted by this spot zoning.
A2. Is the zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
No. The proposed zoning would require an extension of Arnold Street, which is the only street to
Morning Star Elementary School (over 500 students). This street is already heavily congested
with traffic to and from the school. An R4 zoning could be developed at up to 32 units per acre,
introducing a density four times the current zoning. If Arnold Street is expanded, the increased
traffic will certainly be an ongoing safety issue for the students, staff and families who walk, bike
and drive to Morning Star Elementary.
A3. Will the new zoning promote health and general welfare?
The Zoning Amendment Application openly states that the land, if rezoned, will be used for high
density student housing. Student housing services transitory type residents rather than true
Bozeman residents. This is more of a commercial operation than a true residential use. "Group"
living requires a conditional use permit, even in an R4 designation.
Furthermore, the type of student housing that is being proposed is not promoting the welfare of
the students enrolled in the nearby Morning Star Elementary School and Sacajawea Middle
School. I offer articles in Exhibit B, ““The Grove at Orono opens to raucous weekend party”, The
Maine Campus, Sep 10, 2102, and Exhibit C, “Flagstaff police cracking down on loud parties,”
Arizona Daily Sun, October 10, 2012 as evidence. The facilities proposed are clearly not
promoting health and general welfare in these existing communities and they have not offered
any evidence that they would do otherwise in ours. The negative impact that this presents to
the nearby schools is substantial.
There are other locations that are more appropriate for this type of residence that will better
promote the health and general welfare of our children, the Bozeman community, and the
single families that currently reside in the adjacent subdivisions.
A6. Will the zoning prevent overcrowding of the land?
Again, an R4 zoning could be developed at up to 32 units per acre, introducing a density four
times the current zoning. The current proposal indicates that the land would be used to build a
student housing facility with 600 bedrooms and possibly more residents. Adding this population
next to an elementary school that currently services over 500 students certainly does not prevent “overcrowding of the land.”
A7. Will the new zoning avoid undue concentration of population?
The concentration of a population that is supported by R4 zoning is not suited for this area, per
the arguments addressing criteria A1, A2, A3 and A6 above.
A8. Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer,
schools, parks, fire, police, and other public requirements?
This proposed zone change increases the risk due to fire and other dangers. There is not
adequate emergency street access and outlets to such a dense population of people. Access is limited by surrounding wetlands, Morning Star Elementary School, R-1 neighborhoods with
winding residential roads and lack of collector streets. Arnold Street would have to be used as a
main access and is the only access street to Morning Star Elementary. This, again, would compromise the safety of the children, teachers, and parents traveling to and from that school,
and nearby Sacajawea Middle School.
Additionally, as is evident in Exhibits B and C, the Campus Crest developments place undue
burden on the emergency services and threaten community safety.
A9. Does the new zoning give consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for
particular uses?
and
A10. Does the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district?
The proposed zone change, and specifically the stated purpose (high density University student
housing) of the zoning change, substantially conflicts with the character of the surrounding elementary and middle schools, as well as the single family housing and surrounding parks and
wetlands. The character of this district is family and public school oriented. Creating the high density residential area if rezoned to R4 does not give reasonable consideration to the existing
character of the district.
A12. Will the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout such
county or municipal area?
The Zone Map Amendment proposal states that the new zoning will encourage the most
appropriate of use of the land because the development will help provide much needed student housing close to the University. There are already many plans in place that address the student
housing shortage. Stadium View is 500 beds, and MSU is breaking ground on a 400 bed residence hall. That's 900 bedrooms already due to come on line. MSU is already at capacity, so
demand won't be increasing beyond what it is. Additionally, demographics of the state suggest within a decade there'll be fewer students overall (Exhibit D). It is not the city’s responsibility to
address MSU’s housing shortage, this task belongs to MSU. Even if it was, it is clear that the shortage is being addressed and housing beyond this will be fueling a volatile housing bubble.
In summary, the homeowners in Alder Creek, Figgins and neighboring subdivisions have relied
on the city’s comprehensive plan to influence their housing and investment decisions. If this zoning change is approved, it will be an arbitrary and unreasonable deviation from the city’s
comprehensive plan. Property values will be affected. The safety of the children attending the nearby schools will be compromised. There is sufficient and appropriately zoned land that can
accommodate the builder’s goals (for example, west of Allison II or on the MSU campus). This is not smart growth for Bozeman and we do not support the zone change.
Thank you for your consideration,
Gene and Jennifer King
515 West Arnold St
Bozeman, MT 59715 (406)581-9379
Exhibit A – Color Zoning Map
Exhibit B: The Grove at Orono Opens to Raucous Weekend Party, Mainecampus.com
By Jesse Scardina Posted on Sept. 10, 2012, at 3:17 a.m.
Construction on The Grove housing complex, off of Main Street in Orono, has been in the works
since early fall of 2011.
While the development of the complex came down to the wire, The Grove was open and ready for 620 University of Maine students to move in on Saturday, Sept. 1. Third year mechanical
engineering student Chandler Smith was one of the hundreds of students. According to him, the
move-in was easier for some than for others.
“Check-in: As long as you had first and last months’ rent, you basically walked in, got keys — it
was a quick process,” Smith said. “Some people were backed up, I think just because of the volume of people that were moving in.”
According to a prepared statement by Campus Crest Communities director of Marketing Emily
Rend, things went smooth in the opening weekend.
“We are incredibly excited to have opened the property and are thrilled to be part of the local community,” Rend wrote in an email. “Last week’s move-in went very well, and I am happy to report that The Grove at Orono is 100 percent occupied.”
Campus Crest Communities is the parent company in charge of The Grove developments.
On its first weekend, The Grove was at more than maximum occupancy, as a party of over 300
broke out in the complex, complete with students skateboarding off rooftops. Police from six
different units were dispatched, as officers wanted to diffuse the group before riot conditions ensued.
“The officers were there mainly to get the crowd to disperse,” said Orono Police Chief Josh
Ewing. “There was only one arrest, and I believe it was just for failure to disperse.”
The party broke out hours after move in, and noise complaints soon began coming in from other
Grove occupants or residents on Park Street.
The following Sunday, a similar crowd arrived and police had to again disperse the large
gathering. Management of the 21-building apartment complex was unable to break up the horde,
according to the Bangor Daily News, and that’s when authorities were called.
“Our goal here is to ensure people’s safety,” Ewing told the BDN. “When we see that many people together and some jumping off roofs, we need to mitigate that.”
Public Relations spokeman Jason Chudoba told the BDN that increased security has been added
at The Grove.
“The safety and well-being of our residents is our top priority and concern,” he said. “We have
increased security presence, implemented stricter facility access controls and are coordinating
with the Orono police and residents in order to maintain an extraordinary student lifestyle
experience.”
In the wake of the opening weekend of The Grove, the on-site management cooperated with Orono police and raised the level of security at the apartment complex, featuring a number of
undercover police, according to the BDN. According to the article, at least 28 summonses were
issued, the majority of which were for possession of alcohol by a minor.
In addition to the summonses, four arrests were made — two for criminal trespassing, one for disorderly conduct and one for failing to provide correct identity and refusing to submit to arrest.
This entry was posted on Monday, September 10th, 2012, 3:17 am.
Exhibit B: Flagstaff police cracking down on loud parties, Arizona Daily Sun
October 10, 2012 5:05 am • ERIC BETZ Sun Staff Reporter
Flagstaff police are fed up with partiers and hope to put college students on notice: If you attend
an underage drinking party, don't be surprised if you end up in jail.
"The residents in this city are done being up all night," said Sgt. James Jackson of the Flagstaff
Police Department. "There's gonna be strict enforcement on these violations of the quiet and
peacefulness of a neighborhood."
Sixteen students drinking at The Grove apartments off Lonetree Road received that message first-hand from their new neighbors just after midnight on Saturday when they were all booked into the Coconino County Detention Facility.
Police had received calls that an entire building of the new student housing complex was having
a party. Officers arrived, picked the loudest apartment, and asked to speak to a resident. When it
was found that none of them lived in the apartment, police told the students to sit on the ground
and began processing arrests for underage drinking and contributing to the delinquency of minors.
Officers returned to the building with a paddy wagon and continued busting up other parties.
Eventually, they arrested 16 people between the ages of 18 and 21. Another recent weekend saw
11 people from one party at The Grove arrested.
But the complex is far from the only place police are finding college students partying.
"The last couple years we've seen an increase in party disturbances and it's gotten to the point it's
out of control," Jackson said. "It's an increasing problem on the Southside that we want to get a
handle on."
Although many students at parties and their hosts might expect to get only a warning to turn off their music and send people home, Jackson says that has never necessarily been police policy. The decision to issue citations and make arrests is done at an officer's discretion, but police
regularly chose last week not to give a warning.
Jackson says the department takes parties seriously because they are often also linked to sexual
and physical assaults, as well as general noise disturbances that affect quality of life in a
neighborhood. The parties are also often associated with underage consumption of alcohol.
If police show up at a party, they can cite the residents for disorderly conduct, providing alcohol to minors, allowing minors to consume alcohol on an unlicensed premise, and other related charges.
Additionally, police will issue a civil notice that if officers have to come back to the home in the
next 90 days, the residents will have to pay for each officer who arrives in addition to any fines.
Eric Betz can be reached at 556-2250 or ebetz@azdailysun.com.
Exhibit D: Montana Public School Enrollment Data Fall 2011-12, page 3
From:Gary
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:50:13 AM
To the Bozeman City Commission:
The zoning change proposed under Z13268 should NOT be approved!
The current R1 zoning is appropriate and in the face of neighborhood opposition should
remain R1.
If municipal zoning is to have any meaning and credence, this proposed change must NOT
be approved.
- Gary Peterson
422 Cutting Street Bozeman
February 19, 2014
Craig Brawner
703 W. Arnold St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Bozeman City Commission
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Honorable Chairman & City Commissioners:
I previously provided a detailed comment letter addressing cut-through traffic. This letter focuses
on zoning issues and so I would request you please read this letter.
PROCESS ISSUE
The 2006 preliminary platting subdivision process for development of the subject site
afforded, and resulted in, significant City and Public opportunity for review, including
required public hearing. This process was extremely beneficial in shaping the character of
the previously proposed development.
The Site Plan Review process recently conducted for the significant development of this
property was strictly an administrative staff plan review process. The Site Plan review
process 1) did not provide for meaningful public notice such as newspaper publication, 2) as
a two week (3 DRC meetings) did not provide the City Staff or the Citizens with the same
profundity or quality of project review, 3) did not require or afford any meaningful forum
for public review or input, and 4) simply requires only Administrative, Planning Director,
final site plan approval for the project to proceed.
The major Site Plan for R-4 density on the subject site was reviewed and processed by
the City, prior to the ZMA being considered and acted upon by the City Commission.
The Final Site Plan currently requires only Planning Director approval pending the
outcome of the Commission's action on the requested ZMA. While a ZMA is normally a
Legislative issue, this ZMA, reviewed by the Zoning Commission and currently being
considered by the City Commission concurrent with a pending Final Site Plan approval
for the property, involves consideration of the specific development of the property;
and, is therefore a quasi-judicial process. Therefore, inclusion of project specific details
needs to be included in the ZMA deliberations.
ZONING ISSUES
The Allison properties were Zoned in 1980 as R-2 and re-zoned in 2004 as R-1. My wife and I
have owned and lived in our home in the Figgins Addition on W. Arnold Street, west of Westridge
Drive, for the past 24 years. We chose this home because of the unique single family residential
neighborhood character.
In 2006, after much deliberation, the City Re-Zoning the subject portion of the Allison property to
include R-3 and R-2 densities. The R-3 medium density being limited in size, abutted BP zoning
on the North and the R-3 and R-2 essentially provided buffering for the remaining R-1 properties.
We were very disappointed when the subject property was rezoned to include R-3 and R-2
development, and seriously considered moving. However, given the reasonable character and
conditions of the approved 2006 Preliminary Plat we were mollified and in 2010 we initiated a
>$100,000 major home improvement project predicated on the knowledge and understanding that
neighborhood and surrounding area was still master planned for R-1 residential development.
The above-referenced proposed ZMA would result in significant R-4 high density development
immediately adjacent to a currently developed and zoned R-1 single family residential
neighborhood, which is totally unacceptable and represents a significant break in public trust for the
area’s homeowners who relied on the City’s published growth and zoning plans for the area. We
did not invest in our property with any anticipation, understanding, or expectation that the area
would later become a “mixed use” district. Our property values and quality of life would certainly
be significantly negatively impacted.
The subject ZMA, not only provides absolutely no buffering from existing developed and
undeveloped properties zoned as R-1, but blatantly sets-up the remaining undeveloped R-1 portions
of the property for additional ZMA requests for higher densities. When recently asked about
density buffering, at a neighborhood meeting, the Planning Department Manager indicated they
like to have major changes in zoning densities be separated by Collector and Arterial streets.
This is exactly the case for the adjacent REMU zoning.
The proposed ZMA does not adequately consider the existing and previously published planned
future character of this area, and would continue to erode the Public’s trust and ability to rely on the
City’s master planning/zoning process. The Public must be able to rely on the long-term master
plans developed and approved by the Governing body.
The Planning staff recently pointed to the R-1 Brentwood property as an example zero buffering
from R-4 property as shown below. The high density R-4 property was built-out prior to the
Brentwood subdivision and is also buffered from the Brentwood development by the Emily
Dickenson School. Access into the Brentwood Subdivision is also very limited and the street
system is circuitous. There was no bait-and-switch by rezoning after homes had been built. Also,
Durston Road, a major street, buffers the R-2 to the south.
AVAILABILTY OF SUITABLY ZONED PROPERTY
There is currently no shortage of Medium and High density zoning in Bozeman. The following
data comes from the City’s GIS data.
Significant un-annexed property exists on the south side of Bozeman which can be annexed and
zoned in the future to further bolster high and mixed use densities.
Overall in Bozeman there is currently nearly 175% more acres of medium and high density zoned
property compared to R-1 density (3182 ac vs 1821 ac). South of Main Street there are 830 acre of
high/medium density compared to 1100 acres of R-1. Keep in mind that each acre of high and
medium density houses 3 to 5 times as many residents. In reality, R-1 single family residential
property is becoming more limited and in short supply in Bozeman than High and Medium density.
In the area immediately near MSU (S. 19th to S. 3rd and Lincoln to Graf) there is currently ample
property suitable for the proposed R-4 project. The attached map and summary table below shows
and quantifies currently Annexed/Zoned (in Red) properties and Un-Annexed (in Pink)
properties between Lincoln Street to Goldenstein Rd, and S. 3rd Avenue to Fowler Rd.
As shown there are 132 acres of Annexed/Zone (REMU & R-4) property and 36 acres of Un-
annexed property immediately near MSU (east of S.19th) available for development which could
house thousands of students. Another 265 acres of Annexed/Zoned (R-3, R-4) property and 1080
acres of Un-Annexed property is available west of 19th.
Therefore, there is no real exigency, or shortage of currently undeveloped annexed/zoned
property suitable and available high density development of student housing in the MSU area,
which would justify or compel approval of the proposed ZMA. The proposed rezoning would
intermix high density development with no buffering from the currently R-1 zones. As zoned
and developed the R-1 neighborhoods are absolutely not compatible with or suitable for the
proposed intermixed high density development.
ACRES OF EXISTING MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY VS R-1 ZONING
R-3 R-4 REMU TOTAL R-1
City Wide (Ac) 2122 933 127 3182 1821
South of Main Street (Ac) 454 249 127 830 1100
SUMMARY OF UNDEVELOPED LAND
BETWEEN LINCOLN TO GOLDENSTEIN
ACRES OF PROPERTY ANNEXED UN-ANNXED TOTAL
EAST OF S. 19TH 132 Ac 36 Ac 168 Ac
WEST OF S. 19TH 265 Ac 1044 Ac 1309 Ac
TOTAL 397 Ac 1080 Ac 1477 Ac
Furthermore, housing for nearly 900 students is currently underway in the MSU immediate vicinity
east of S. 19th Avenue. Bonds have been successfully sold and MSU is proceeding with its 400 bed
University Student Dormitory project. And, the 139 unit, 499 bedroom Stadium View Project is
scheduled to break-ground next Spring with completion slated for the 2015 Fall semester.
In Summary, the proposed ZMA for R-4 high density zoning and proposed development of the
subject property must not be approved because:
1. Is not compatible with the urban growth plan and current zoning for a single family
residential neighborhood character for the area; is not adequately buffered from the
currently zoned R-1 properties; and as proposed will result in future additional ZMA
proposals for increased high and mid density ZMAs to provide adequate buffering for the
existing R-1 districts.
2. Will significantly impact the public health, safety and general welfare because it does not
provide the necessary transportation network system; and as such, will encourage and result
in traffic impacts wherein;
a. Arnold Street and Westridge Drive will become default collector streets with cut-
through traffic using the local residential streets;
b. Traffic loads and traffic flow impacts on the already dysfunctional local street system
serving the elementary school will be exacerbated and access for emergency, municipal
and private services, as well as area residents will be further degraded; and
c. Pedestrian safety issues for the elementary school and other pedestrians will increase.
3. Absolutely does not conserve the value of buildings and property.
Thank you for your consideration.
Craig Brawner
February 19, 2014
Craig Brawner
703 W. Arnold St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Bozeman City Commission
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Traffic Study Review Comments
Honorable Chairman & City Commissioners:
I am a Montana Licensed Professional Engineer, and having served as Bozeman’s City Engineer for 12 years
beginning in 1990, during Bozeman’s record-setting growth period, I worked with Bob Marvin (Marvin &
Associates) on Bozeman traffic issues and reviewed many development-related traffic studies prepared by his
firm and others. While I respect his work, and though I am not a true traffic engineer, I want to point-out a
few of the most substantive short-comings in Campus Crest Traffic Impact Study (TIS) which relate to the
proposed Campus Crest project – specifically relating to the proposed extension and the proposed connection
of S. 11th and Arnold Street, and the TIS conclusion that said proposed street connection would not create a
desirable cut-through route whereby the local neighborhood streets would function as “default Collector
Streets”.
Please refer to the attached Figure 1 Cut-Through Route Comparison for a visual depiction of the various
travel routes referenced in the following discussion. There are four basic travel routes shown on the Figure
which are discussed. The master planned S. 11th & Graf Street Collectors are also shown. The four routes are
described as follows:
Route 1: Existing S. 3rd route from S. 11th/Kagy Blvd (map Point A) to S. 3rd/Arnold St. (map Point B).
Route 2: Proposed S. 11th/Arnold route from S. 11th/Kagy Blvd (Point A) to S. 3rd/Arnold St. (Point B).
Route 3: Existing S. 3rd route from S. 11th/Kagy Blvd (Point A) to Graf /Westridge Drive (Point C).
Route 4: Actual S. 11th/Arnold “cut-through” route from S. 11th/Kagy Blvd (Point A) to Graf /Westridge
Drive intersection (Point C) using the proposed S. 11th/ Arnold connection and Westridge Dr.
The TIS compares the existing Route 1 with Route 2 calculating that the travel time for origins and
destinations both west of 11th Avenue and also north of Kagy would be 17 and 40 seconds longer,
respectively. The study concludes the proposed S. 11th and Arnold extensions“…would not provide a travel
time advantage for traffic currently using S. 3rd Avenue”, and further that the “street extensions will not
substantially alter any existing traffic patterns.” I disagree.
The study does not adequately recognize and consider S. 3rd traffic with originations and destination south of
Graf St. and Westridge Drive (i.e., SE Bozeman City & County) to origins and destination generally north
of the MSU area from S. 11th and Kagy Boulevard. Route 4, depicted on the attached map, is the “actual”
most probable cut-through route for the above described S. 3rd traffic. The study did not recognize
this as a potential cut-through route and did not compare travel times.
The cut-through Route 4, at ~5465 ft, is ~2500 ft (nearly ½ mile) shorter than the existing S. 3rd Avenue
Route 2 which is ~7950 ft. As such, the cut-through Route 4 travel time would be estimated to be ~30 – 40
seconds shorter than the existing S.3rd Route 3. As such, if the local Arnold Street is connected to the S.
11th Collector, there will be a huge incentive for travelers to use this new Route 4 “cut-through”;
especially as the Kagy Boulevard corridor continues to see increasing traffic congestion and flow disruption
through the University area.
Therefore, if the S. 11th (Collector) is connected to Arnold Street (local neighborhood), without the
concurrent construction of the S. 11th and Graf Street Collector System Network; then Arnold Street and
Westridge Drive will become Default Collectors for significant cut-through of existing and future
traffic. This is an unacceptable Transportation Impact on the neighborhood and a serious health and
safety issues, intensified with the significant Morning Star Elementary School pedestrian and bicycle
traffic. This represents just cause to deny the subject ZMA request.
Additionally, I would note that the average daily traffic (ADT) counts, shown in the TIS Figures 2 and 7 (see
redlined attachment) also do not recognize and account-for the same S. 3rd traffic originations and destination
south of Graf St. and Westridge Drive. Westridge Drive and Arnold Street are both heavily used to access the
Morning Star School via Arnold Street west of Westridge Drive. The TIS did not conduct traffic counts at the
intersection of Arnold/Westridge; however, ADT loads to the School from Westridge and Arnold Street are
visually observed to be nearly equal. As such, the TIS Figures 2 and 7 depict significantly underestimated
existing and future ADTs on Arnold Street west of Westridge Drive. TIS Figure 7 for year 2015 projected
Traffic absurdly shows 300 ADT on Arnold Street west of Westridge Drive.
Lastly, please also consider the following points:
The 2006 conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval for the subject property astutely and appropriately
required that Graf and S. 11th be constructed and connected with the first phase of the subdivision.
The landowner intends to utilize a Common Boundary Line Adjust subdivision exemption to create a
transferrable lot, because the proposed project site is not currently a platted or transferrable lot.
The S. 11th/Graf Collector network offers the actual shortest, and so preferred, route to the referenced
areas south of Graf Street.
While the proposed Arnold Street and S. 11th connection would provide a long-needed secondary access
for the Morning Star Elementary School, the proper 11th/Graf Street Collector System connection would
provide the School with additional opportunity to significantly improve and properly coordinate routes for
bus, large service vehicle, and passenger traffic to and from the school.
On MSU home football game days, Kagy Boulevard is closed between S. 11th and S. 7th and is currently
detoured through the MSU Campus. Once constructed, S. 11th Avenue and Arnold Street will likely
become a very desirable detour for origins and destinations south of Kagy Boulevard further increasing
traffic impacts to the neighborhood.
Previous failures to require development to provide adequate and proper Arterial and Collector System
improvement created neighborhood cut-through traffic issue which necessitated the City’s development
and implement its Traffic Calming Policy. The after-the-fact traffic calming measures are never a good
substitute for the proper transportation system improvements.
The above described Transportation impacts are only one of the significant reasons that the Requested ZMA
is not appropriate and negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhood. Please deny the ZMA request.
Thank you for your attention.
Craig Brawner
Attachments: Figure 1, & TIS Figures 2 & 7 redlined
Dear City Commissioners,
I am writing in regards to the proposed zoning change involving Campus Crest ZMA
Z13268. I do appreciate your taking the time to consider the opinions and concerns of all parties affected. I would urge you to NOT rezone this area. I do not feel that any plausible argument has been presented to suggest that this area should be
rezoned, other than that from the representative from Campus Crest who feels that
Bozeman being a “college town” is justification enough for these changes; a label that I find erroneous and offensive. I sincerely hope that you and so many others see the Bozeman community as much more than just a college town.
Along with that, I am frustrated that the Zoning Commission had a split vote regarding this decision earlier this month. I am curious as to what reasoning Erik
Garberg and Trever McSpadden entertained when they voted for the rezoning,
because it seems to me that they were not considering the arguments from the
community members that showed up to fight this amendment. I do not feel that they are hearing what a good portion of our community is saying.
The argument, “for the greater good of the community,” (which I assume is the at the
heart of the in-favor votes) is weak and illogical. What kind of community would ignore the concerns of its own members, would choose to devalue the property of its
own neighbors, consciously allow a culture that has a history of questionable
behaviors by its tenants move in next to one of the community’s top elementary
schools? This is not smart growth. This is greedy, immediate growth. Ironically, the promised fortunes of allowing something like Campus Crest to build here would do
more to take money out of the pockets of locals and ship it out of state. I sincerely
hope that all of the City Commissioners have taken the time to review not only the
variety of articles in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle concerning this issue, but also the posts that have accompanied these articles. The posts echo a resounding “NO” to this amendment from the folks of Bozeman. Not quite the response that a “college
town” might have proclaimed so loudly.
Ultimately, I hope that the voices of those who will be asked to make the biggest
sacrifices in the ordeal will be heard. I hope that we can be seen as something much
more than just college football games and red plastic cups, but as a community that
raises children, that works hard day in and day out, that has careers and jobs not associated with MSU, that loves where they live, and doesn’t feel that selling out
their neighbor’s way of life is ever a good option. Especially when there are no good
reasons for doing it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cale VanVelkinburgh
3104 Spring Ridge Drive
From:Marti Elder
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 10:17:43 AM
City Commissioners:
Having previously owned a home in Figgins with the backyard bordering Allison Subdivision, I
performed extensive research before buying there in 1990. I received substantial assurances that
the city couldn’t just dump the zoning at will. The original owner and plotter of Allison made efforts
to break the zoning before, and this is a rerun of the issue. Allison has been essentially landlocked
all these years and MSU stridently opposed development as previously planned for single family
housing because they didn’t want a traffic outlet on 11th, flowing in the direction of the campus.
Now the developer plays to the campus perspective, and the neighboring property owners stand to
get shafted.
It is not a matter of whether or not this is a needed project in proximity to the campus. It’s about
rezoning a substantial chunk of property alongside of a very established neighborhood. If a decision
was made to do that to land by your home (that was zoned the same as your property for more than
30 years), would your voice in opposition be just about ‘NIMBY’ as being portrayed? Or does this
pose a breach of trust by the city?
I oppose this drastic zoning change. It creates the specter that the only safe zones in which to locate
a residence in Bozeman are very well-established and well-funded neighborhoods that can muster a
strong fight against zoning flips.
Marti Elder
Marti Elder
1708 S. Black Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph & Fax (406)586-7621
marti@martielder.com
From:Webmail jmking
To:Agenda
Subject:campus crest Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 1:41:43 PM
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map amendment Z13268
I am writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed Campus Crest Zone MapAmendment. The residential character of the area surrounding the subject propertyis strongly defined by extensive R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods to the east, south andsouthwest. I do not believe that the proposed R-4 zoning is appropriate in suchclose proximity to these established residential areas. The current BozemanCommunity Plan states that “All residential housing should be arranged withconsideration of compatibility with adjacent development.” An increase to R-4zoning would not be compatible with adjacent R-1/R-2 zoning.
The Bozeman Community Plan also states that “The purposes of zoning includeamong other things, the provision of adequate light and air, security from fire,protection from natural hazards, and the protection of property values.” The 2013Montana Code Annotated also cites “conserving the value of buildings” as a zoningconsideration. Since the proposed R-4 zoning would reduce the value of residentialproperties in the vicinity of the project site, such a zoning change would be counterto the Community Plan as well as the Montana Code.
We purchased out home in a thoughtful manner and have been comfortable with theR-1/R-2 status of “The Wheat Field.” It is only appropriate that we should be ableto count on the integrity and intent of City zoning as well as that of the CommunityPlan.
The City of Bozeman exists through the goodwill and hard work of its citizens; theCity of Bozeman exists for the collective benefit of its citizens. The proposed zoningchange would benefit the developer at the expense of the citizens. As a homeowneron Westridge Drive, I am opposed to the proposed Zone Map Amendment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marilyn H. King
2604 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-522-0694
From:Maria Holiday
To:Agenda
Subject:Zoning Amendement- Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 10:08:49 AM
Dear City Commissioners,It is vital to our community that you do not pass the Campus Crest ZMA Z13268 Zoning Proposal.Having a high density rental complex within the immediate vicinity of an Elementary school would bedetrimental to the neighborhood.
I went to school at Colorado State University where many of these off campus student housingcomplexes exist. These complexes are host to many students, parties, and fast drivers. It would not besafe environment so close to Morning Star Elementary school, which is also the elementary school Iattended when I was young.
I also think that one large complex will hurt people in the building industry in Bozeman. Sure, a largeproject will benefit one contractor, one electrician, one plumber, etc, but only one of each of these subcontractors will be involved. If the zoning remains R1, there will be opportunity for many subcontractorsin Bozeman and the surrounding areas to benefit.
Please, I urge you as someone who grew up in Figgins neighborhood, do not change the zoning.
Thank you.
Maria Holiday406-581-1484
From:leslie a Reardon
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 12:51:02 PM
Please count me as one citizen that firmly believes that building in the
residential area is a REAL BAD proposal. Leslie Reardon
From:Webmail lonepine
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 1:34:56 PM
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
As a small business owner in Bozeman and a homeowner on Westridge Drive I am
opposed to the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment.
The subject property currently includes areas of R-1 and R-3 zoning; the land
immediately to the east is zoned R-2. This zoning was adopted in 2007 following
lengthy and careful deliberation on the part of the City of Bozeman as well as
adjacent property owners. The current zoning pattern does an effective job of
addressing compatibility issues related to the proximity of R-1 and R-2 residential
areas to the east and south of the Campus Crest site. I endorse the existing zoning.
The proposed Zone Map Amendment is not suitable largely because R-4 zoning is
not compatible in such close proximity to established R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.
In addition, there are a number of issues/questions related to the Zone Map
Amendment that have not been adequately addressed:
1) The Staff Report suggests that the proposed zoning has a “neutral effect” on:
motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems; the character of the existing
area; the peculiar suitability of this property for the particular uses included in R-4
zoning and; conserving the value of buildings in the area. It is not reasonable or
logical to expect neutral effects for any of these issues.
2) Objective C-3.3 in the Neighborhood Design section of the Bozeman
Community Plan reads: “Establish minimum residential densities in new and
redeveloping residential areas.” The land in question is currently a wheat field;
any development must be considered new. Therefore, the proposed R-4 zoning
does not establish minimum residential densities.
3) Because the current zoning pattern at the subject property was established in
2007, the City of Bozeman has not addressed the issue of rapid zoning change.
What property in Bozeman is safe from similar rapid land use changes?
4) The Criteria and Guidelines for Zoning Regulations section of the 2013
Montana Code Annotated, states that “Zoning regulations must be made in
accordance with a growth policy.” The current adopted growth policy for
Bozeman is the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan. If the Bozeman Community
Plan is to be followed, then the Residential Land Use Category Description
indicates that “All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of
compatibility with adjacent development”. The Campus Crest zone amendment is
not compatible with adjacent R-1 zoning because the proposed R-4 zoning
provides for distinctly elevated building densities.
5) How will the City of Bozeman address large increases in surface water runoff
associated with R-4 land use? This issue will become even more critical in the
future if other R-4 sites are also established in the immediate area.
6) If the R-4 zoning is approved, how will the City of Bozeman compensate
adjacent home owners for losses in property value?
7) As commented on during the Feb 4, 2014 Public Hearing (Bozeman Zoning
Commission), there appear to be large irregularities/errors in the current Campus
Crest traffic study.
8) If the subject property is indeed the last good land available for MSU student
housing as suggested at the Feb 4, 2014 Public Hearing, then if it is used for
student housing, where will MSU employees find nearby affordable housing?
9) Why should the interests of one out-of-state developer take precedent over the
interests of more than 100 Bozeman residents that oppose the zoning change?
What does this situation say about our community?
Please do not approve the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment. Thank you for
your consideration.
John King
2604 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-579-8529
From:John Heilman
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 7:06:28 AM
Commissioners,
I have looked into this Campus Crest proposal.
It is simply the wrong thing in the wrong place. A high end living/
recreational (read "red cup") complex right next to a neighborhood school
in an area zoned residential is wrong in so many ways. I won't rehearse
them for you, since you have heard them before.
There are other properties available for this semi-resort.
John Heilman
Bozeman
From:Jennifer Smith
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 12:03:23 PM
February 21, 2014 Jim & Jennifer Smith
2514 Landoe Ave.Bozeman, MT 59715
RE: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268 Dear Bozeman City Commission, We are writing this letter to express concern and opposition to the proposed zoning change
for 16 acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision which is adjacent to our Figginsneighborhood. We understand that the developer has requested a zoning change for 11 acres
of R-1 and 5 acres of R-3 zoning to become R-4 high density housing. This proposalconcerns us for several reasons. Our Figgins neighborhood and the surrounding Alder Creek
and existing Allison subdivisions are all R-1 single family homes. These subdivisions aresafe, quiet, family and community-oriented neighborhoods. A zoning change on this 16 acres
to allow a R-4 high density rental complex will significantly alter the demographics of theneighborhood from family-oriented homeowners to college student renters. An R-4 zone that
is adjacent on two sides to R-1 and R-2 zoning is incompatible. If this zoning change isallowed, the remaining R-1 lots would become less desirable which would set a precedent for
additional zoning changes in the future for the remainder of the Allison Phase II subdivisionand adjoining land to the south and west. In turn, a zoning change to R-4 will undoubtedly
affect our home values. There is a very strong need for more developed R-1 single family homes in this area. Werecently talked with Joyce Miller, a Bozeman area realtor. She stated that there are only a
handful of R-1 single family lots available near our neighborhood. This area is desirable tofamilies because of its close proximity to Morning Star Elementary School and Sacajawea
Middle school. The adjoining trail system allows these children to safely walk and bike toschool and is also much used by families for recreational purposes. MSU employees can also
easily walk and bike to work from our neighborhoods. We are also close to downtownBozeman.
In contrast to this very real single family home shortage, there is a perceived need for morestudent housing. Statistics back up the fact that there is currently a surplus of existing and
also approved high density development land both near and on the university property. Therecently created REMU district which is north and to the west of 11th Ave. from this
proposal contains 127 acres, 70% of which is allocated for high density housing. This districthas adequate major street access to 19th Ave. and Kagy Blvd. The recently approved Stadium
View Apartment complex in the REMU district will provide 500 student rooms. MSU willsoon be building a new 400 room dormitory. There are also vacant parcels of R-3, R-4 and
unzoned land along and near Kagy Blvd. and N. 19th Ave. for future development if the needarises.
The university’s growth and need for student housing in the future is uncertain. Future
economic conditions, the prohibitive cost of higher education and the attractive future ofonline learning will certainly all play a factor. The Bozeman community will NOT be served
if very much needed and desirable R-1 lots are converted to inappropriately located andunneeded R-4 development. We are also concerned about the traffic congestion and safety issues that an R-4 development
would create in our neighborhood, especially being so close to Morning Star ElementarySchool. The streets in and around our neighborhood are very pedestrian and bike friendly.
Our residential streets are not made for the heavy traffic that would be generated by a highdensity development. In addition to increased traffic, we also worry about noise, the transient
population, and potential crime. All of these concerns are very real when crime reports areresearched for other locations where the developer of this project has built their high density
student housing. These police reports indicate continual problems with loud parties, theftsand burglaries, and even rapes.
We have lived in the Figgins subdivision for twenty-seven years and raised our children here.It is a quiet, family neighborhood. Please help preserve the quality and character of
established neighborhoods like ours in the Bozeman community by insisting that newdevelopment be compatible with existing neighborhoods and that high density housing be
built in areas that already have the infrastructure and the zoning in place for that use. Weurge you to vote no on this inappropriate zoning change.
Sincerely,
Jim & Jennifer Smith
From:Jackie Stanley
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 9:04:03 AM
I am strongly opposed to the new student housing development proposed near aresidential area. Please consider other locations for this project. Jacqueline Stanley, Bozeman resident
From:Emily Miller
To:Agenda
Subject:Zoning Amendement- Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 10:41:21 AM
Dear City Commissioners,
Changing the zoning of the area next to Morning Star School would have a hugenegative impact on the Bozeman Community. Allowing a large complex withstudents to be built next to an elementary school is unsafe and a largely ineffectiveuse of land. As a recent college graduate, I can attest to the carelessness andindecency of many college students. Having this population near young children willexpose them to parties, wreck less driving and a negative environment.
Furthermore, by building one complex instead of single lot homes, the local buildingindustry will suffer greatly. R1 zoning allows for many subcontractors to be used inone area instead of one (most likely foreign) company. As an employee of a longstanding local business and native to Bozeman, I and many of my family, friendsand colleagues will be greatly affected by this decision. This would be a hugewaste of a great building opportunity in Bozeman and I strongly urge the City ofBozeman to leave the zoning in this area as is.
Thank you.
Emily Miller
406.570.1524
February 21, 2014
City of Bozeman
City Commissioners
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
RE: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
I am writing to urge the City Commission to deny this proposal.
Under the guidelines for zoning regulations, 76-2-304., (1) (ii), it states that zoning regulations
must be
made in accordance with a growth policy; and among other things it must promote public health,
public
safety, and the general welfare. This proposal will not promote public safety, but will negatively
impact
public safety due to the increased volume of traffic through the Morning Star school zone and
onto
residential streets that were never intended to handle large volumes of traffic.
Under (2) (b), it states that the governing body shall consider, among other things, (b) the effect
on
motorized and non- motorized transportation systems; (c) promotion of compatible urban growth;
(d)
the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses; and (e) conserving the
value of
buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
If the Commissioners consider this proposal in light of the above considerations, it fails in all respects.
The effect on the transportation systems will be a disaster. There will be large volumes of traffic
through the Morning Star school zone at the height of the unloading of buses in the morning and
continuing all through the day since MSU students have classes all day that change on the
hour. Also, there will no doubt be those drivers who rather than proceed on Arnold to South 3rd,
will try to race through West ridge to beat the traffic to South 3rd, thereby making it more
dangerous for residents on Westridge.
The applicant provided a traffic study with their application that is seriously flawed. The traffic
count data was collected on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving when for all intents and
purposes, the campus was shut down and most all the students had left for the holiday.
After the zoning commission meeting on February 4, 2014; the applicant provided an
addendum to this already flawed study. If you attach an addendum to an already flawed study
and draw conclusions, these conclusions are still flawed and not representative of actual traffic
data.
This addendum seems to indicate that development of the property under the current zoning
would result in more traffic than the proposed Campus Crest development. If you start with
flawed data concerning what the actual traffic volume associated with MSU is, you can not
accurately compare any single family residential area traffic data and draw an honest
conclusion.
This proposal is not compatible with the urban growth of the area. The development in this area
is consistent with single family residential, not high volume rentals. The character of this
neighborhood will be damaged by this apartment development. The character of the district
(neighborhood) is single family residential, not suitable for this apartment development.
This proposal will not conserve the value of buildings or encourage the most appropriate use of
the land. All property values on single family residences in the neighborhood will be reduced
drastically if this proposal is approved. The most appropriate use of the land is as previously
zoned.
This zoning should not be changed to accommodate this proposal.
There is no shortage of property zoned high density in the immediate vicinity of MSU.
There is, however, a serious shortage of new R-1 property that is immediately adjacent to
MSU and within comfortable walking or biking distance to the core of downtown
Bozeman.
This amendment should be denied because there is no shortage of high density zoning in the
MSU area.
The owner and the developer of this property should comply with the current zoning.
Please, for the sake of public safety and the integrity of the neighborhood; I again urge the
Commissioners to deny this proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Doug Hanson
2501 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Dear Jeff, Carson, I-Ho, Cyndy and Chris:
You all know me and know that I have lived and worked in Bozeman for over 25 years. We own a house
at 3001 Westridge Drive, which is an R-1 zoned neighborhood near the field being considered for R-4
zoning.
I am not against growth. I work at the Library and I see the changes that come with growth every day,
and I embrace change. I understand the value of a thriving community. I also know that open fields will
be developed as Bozeman continues to grow.
I am also not against college students. Two of our daughters graduated from MSU. I understand the
need for affordable and convenient housing for MSU students.
However, this zoning change from R-1 to R-4 in this location is not the right decision at this time. Dozens
of people have spoken out at the zoning commission meeting and through letters to you opposed to the
Bon Ton Development Review Application. They have legitimate concerns about the zoning criteria
spelled out in the application. There are a handful of men who think it’s a good idea to suddenly create
lots of R-4 zoning. This project is not the time to debate a larger zoning issue.
This is the time to carefully consider the character of the area and the needs of the families who are
already committed to living and working here. You have heard from them. Listening to your
constituency—the folks who have spoken--on this project should take priority over the wishes of the
university or a developer.
If it is your desire to establish citizen trust in their local government and the process, it’s important that
you deny this application.
Thank you all for your time studying this issue, and listening to our concerns.
Cindy Christin
From:Chris Fellows
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Re-zoning (ZMA Z13268)
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 9:11:09 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
Dear Mayor and City Commissioners,
I am writing this email to voice my objections to the re-zoning proposal for Campus Crest (ZMA
Z13268). I urge you to consider the following items when reviewing this re-zoning proposal.
1) The re-zoning from R1 to R4 is a major change (extreme) and will drastically alter the
character of the neighborhood. This by definition is spot zoning and will have ongoing
affects if it goes forward. This type of spot zoning defeats the original purpose of why
zoning is done and makes no sense in city planning.
2) Part of this proposal is to connect Arnold through to 11th street and ultimately make it an
arterial street. Arnold was never designed to be an arterial street and will not handle the
extra traffic. A simple drive down this street during the morning when parents are dropping
off kids at Morningstar will show you how narrow this street is and what it was designed for.
3) There is already land near MSU that has been zoned for this type of construction. Some of
which has already been approved for the Stadium View Apartments. Combined with the
new dorms planned, there will be plenty of student housing available. There is also 127
acres of REMU approved and ready to build on, which would have access to existing
collector streets and arterials. In short, it makes zero sense to go out and re-zone R1 land
when there is already properly zoned land available just as near to campus.
To summarize this rezoning proposal is bad idea and will only benefit the property’s current
landowner and an out of state developer with a spotty construction and property management
record, all at the expense of the family’s living in the area. I urge you to do the right thing and deny
this re-zoning request. Thanks for your time and your service to the City and the people of
Bozeman.
Chris
Chris Fellows | Senior Manager – North America Solutions Consulting
Office: 406.414.8774 Mobile: 406.223.2979
Oracle NA Sales Consulting
136 Enterprise Blvd. | Bozeman, MT 59718-9300
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
From:Charlie Hallau
To:Agenda
Subject:Please vote NO to zoning changes; Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 9:53:04 AM
City of Bozeman Zoning Commission,
As a longtime member of the Bozeman community, I felt compelled to reach out and share my
viewpoint on the changing landscape of our little town. Yes, this has become a popular place to live.
Yes, we need to address many areas of concern including housing and traffic on small neighborhood
roads. But it needs to be done in a smart and proactive way. Adding a large, residential complex for
college housing next to an elementary school and multiple family neighborhoods is neither smart nor
proactive and is counterproductive in growing a healthy community.
Please stand-up for what’s right for our community and do not change current zoning designation.
Sincerely,
Charlie Hallau
Montana Reclaimed Lumber Co
office: 406.763.9102
mobile: 406.539.5489
www.mtreclaimed.com
City of Bozeman
Department of Community Development
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, Mt 59771
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Zoning Commission Members:
I, together with my neighbors in the Figgins subdivision of Bozeman, object to the change in zoning
proposed by the above referenced Amendment.
It was apparently clear to the drafters of the City Plan previously approved, that this parcel of land is an
extension of the existing, adjoining neighborhoods. They zoned it R-1, like the neighborhoods it is a part
of. Those of us who bought property and began raising children here made our decision with confidence
in that City Plan. We knew - or thought we knew - that Bozeman set a high value on quality of life and
understood that well planned urban development is basic to that quality. Development of the parcel in
question as R-4 effectively undermines and degrades the adjoining neighborhoods. Such action is surely
contrary to your mandate, a government representatives of the people, to protect and safeguard the interests
of your constituents. As voters we elect those who act in our best interests - this change of zoning is very
clearly NOT in our best interest.
I do not object to increasing student housing. I am convinced, however, that it must be built in
appropriate locations. I, of course, support the health and prosperity of the University, but for the
University to grow properly, it must also be concerned about the city where it is located…it should not
consume its host, so to speak. Nourishment must be reciprocal for both city and University to prosper.
I encourage you to realize that a good developer, with appropriate plans for this R-1 zone will come
along; the need for student housing can be met in areas far more appropriate than the one under
consideration. Please don’t destroy our neighborhoods for this ill advised and short sighted plan.
Sincerely,
Carole Newman
420 W. Arnold St.
Bozeman, MT
From:Amy Cory
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 10:39:01 AM
Dear City Commissioners,
I am writing to express my sincere concern with the proposed rezoning (Amendment Z13268) of landnear Morning Star School from R1 to R4. My children attend Morning Star and the rezoning to R4 toallow Campus Crest to build a 600 bedroom student complex there is unsafe and unwelcome. Hardworking families who strive to build good, safe lives for their kids are the foundation of ourBozeman community. This land is too close to Morning Star Elementary School for a large collegestudent complex, especially one promoting "Flip" the party cup as a symbol of residential life.
Allowing for this rezoning near Morning Star would send a clear message to our community that thedesires of a large corporation and opportunities for college students to party hard are more importantthan the safety and well-being of our community's children. Please vote NO to the rezoning of thisland, and show our community that you care about the welfare of our kids and families.
Thank you,Amy Cory, Bozeman resident
2-17-14 Dear City Commissioners, I am writing as a teacher, a parent of a child at Morning Star, and an Alder Creek land owner, to urge you to vote no on the rezoning of the land to the northwest of Morning Star School. First of all, I’d like to address the zoning commission meeting. The comments and condescending tones used by Mayor Kraus and the two commissioners who voted yes for the proposal were upsetting. I believe the Mayor’s comment was, “This isn’t single family-ville.” If a property is zoned R1 and families specifically buy in that area to be in family neighborhoods, then they should expect it to be single family-vile. One commissioner gleefully reported that he resides with and plays beach volleyball with college students. Great for him, but that is not what the neighbors around Morning Star choose, as I’m sure you realize after seeing the reaction of its residents. As a teacher at Morning Star and a resident of Alder Creek, I know and interact with a large population of this area. What you have heard in letters and seen at the last meeting are just the tip of the iceberg. People are absolutely sick to their stomachs over the prospect of this zoning change. You are City Commissioners. Elected officials working for the people of Bozeman. I hope you are listening to us. The amendment will drastically change a family neighborhood to an area that will be filled with transient college students. The families residing around Morning Star are tax paying, family oriented people who actively vote in elections. It is your job to put your personal opinions aside, look at the criteria, and consider our legitimate concerns. One of the commissioners mentioned that other elementary schools in Bozeman are near high-density zoning. I’m curious about this, as I can’t think of one. The bottom line is the lot by Morning Star has been zoned as mostly R1. Family homes. It is why our family and countless others purchased houses in this area. We have always known that field would some day be built upon, but never in our wildest dreams could we imagine our city would allow it to jump from R1 to R4. We purposely looked at the zoning in this area before we purchased our house 9 years ago. We moved from the north side of town because of the high-density construction going on there. We wanted to be surrounded by family-oriented people. I must argue, too, that no other elementary school in Bozeman sits right next to a 600 bed “fully
loaded” college housing site, where a party lifestyle is promoted. It has come to light that the University owns property off of 19th, which would be perfect for this type of development. Why on Earth would you allow it to happen right next to an elementary school and family neighborhoods, some of which have been developed for decades? In addition, MSU already has plans to build student housing to address the student population.
My family, and many others in this neighborhood, scrimped and saved and made multiple budget cuts to move to this neighborhood. There is no question that changing the zoning of that lot will decrease the value of our home. We are not wealthy. We are middle class people who work hard for every penny we have and want to live in a quiet family neighborhood. I urge you to conduct your duties by looking at the criteria for a zoning change. It should be very clear that the only honest, common sense choice is to deny the change. Leave the lot as is. Personal biases and relationships with the university, the developer, and the land seller need to be put aside. Instead, the voices of the families who will be affected by this need to be listened to and heard. Truly this change would negatively alter the character of our neighborhood, lower property values, and create traffic congestion and safety issues. Vote NO on the Campus Crest ZMA Z13268. Thank you for your consideration. Ami Lakatos 3118 Gardenbrook Lane Bozeman, MT 59715
February 20, 2014
Bozeman City Mayor and Commissioners:
My career has taken me across the lower forty eight states from the northeast to the mid-west,
the rock mountains to the northwest. In Alaska I worked all over the state except on the Aleutian
Islands. I've spent time in mega-communities (Washington D.C.) to remote villages of less than a
hundred people (Metlakatla, Alaska).
In all cases where the citizens were content and trusting, the stability and predictability of their
local government was paramount. When local governments were changing the rules to meet short term
interests or personal goals, without recognizing viable options, the results were instability in the
communities, fostering serious and disruptive mindsets, creating residents who were deprived of a
sense of place and a stake in their community.
The arbitrary rezoning of Allison II to meet the needs of a North Carolina developer who has no
community interest in Bozeman Montana, except to make money at the cost of local home owners life-
long investments in their homes, is a prime example of the negative impacts local governments can
mistakenly implement.
I urge you to vote with your fellow permanent Bozeman residents rather than the short term
interests of a non-resident developer, especially since Montana State University already has ample land
on which to add student housing.
Alan C. Epps
Montana State University alum and
Professor of Natural Resources Emeritus
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Adam Sepulveda and Shannon McCarthy
415 Henderson St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
January 28, 2014
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Bozeman City Commission,
My wife, son and I live in Figgins and I work at the Transportation and System Engineering Building
behind the football stadium. We are writing to oppose the application for a zoning change for 15+
acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision from mostly R1 and some R3 to R4 high density housing.
We purchased our house in May 2012, only after investigating the future plans for the Allison Phase
II Subdivision. We were comfortable with the plans, which were for mainly R1 and some R3
housing. If the plans were for R4 high density housing, we would have looked elsewhere. This
proposed zoning change and development as proposed will triple the density originally agreed upon
by the City Commission for the entire parcel after the last zoning proposal which received significant
scrutiny and significant public input. Moreover, the recent addendum to the original traffic study
states that there would be an increase in traffic on Arnold St., thereby endangering the kids (and
parents) who walk to Morningstar Elementary School.
The neighborhood is made up of a mix of families with children, including our 3.5 month son, and
young professionals to solid, working class residents and retired people, amongst others. The
neighborhood is quiet, safe, affordable, close to schools, the university, and downtown, and
represents Bozeman’s unique residential neighborhood climate.
The proposed change is inappropriate for this area. There is an elementary school adjacent to this
property. The streets in and around the neighborhood carry traffic associated with many families
driving their children to and from school. The streets in the neighborhood are currently very
pedestrian and bicycle friendly. To change the type of driver on the streets from predominately
family-oriented homeowners to include young, college age renters compromises the safety we expect.
There is currently plenty of property zoned for high density housing (Stadium View) with adequate
major street access of 19th and Kagy and additional student housing planned on the MSU campus for
2015.
We understand that Bozeman is growing and I recognize the need for more housing of all density
types but we are sure that we can maintain the quality, character and value of our established
neighborhoods and still accommodate high density growth in areas that have the infrastructure and
are zoned for that use.
We urge you to not vote for this inappropriate zoning change. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adam Sepulveda and Shannon McCarthy
From:Mary Sadowski
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zpone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 6:44:54 AM
Dear City Commissioners and Mayor of Bozeman,
In regards to Action Item #3, Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268, I amhighly opposed to this zoning change and ask you to oppose this item on youragenda.
There are alternative areas for high zoning (REMU area of 127 acres) that would not adversely impactthe neighborhoods, traffic and the safety of students at Morning Star School. Our community is insupport of MSU -- but this project is not necessary nor is it in the best interest of our Bozemancommunity. As a near-by property owner, owner of 2 parcels in the City and 2 additional parcels in theCounty, a mother of a 2nd grade student at Morning Star and 30 year resident of Bozeman, I truly urgeyou to oppose this matter.
Higher density will adversely impact our property values, is likely to increase crime rates, and it willcertainly increase traffic in an already congested area. Have you ever seen S. 3rd on a busy morningaround 8-8:30 AM backed up well past the stop sign by Wagonewheel? It can take 5-6 light changesat Kagy Blvd. to get through that intersection already!!!! The proposed area is zoned for single familyhomes -- maintain the wise foresight or our previous planners and commissions and maintain theintegrity of this crucial south side area by not altering this zoning.
Having asked you this recently regarding a zone change on Good Medicine Road/ S 3rd -- you deniedthat zone change. Please, again, vote to protect the integrity and continuity of our neighborhood.
Sincerely, Mary Ann Sadowski
3414 Wagonwheel Road, Bozeman321 S. Bozeman, Bozeman2422 Northview, Bozeman2000 West Cameron Bridge Road, Bozeman208 Bozeman, Gallatin Gateway
marsadowski@aol.com
___________________ Rick Meis & Susan Bolgiano __________________
704 W. Arnold Bozeman MT 59715 _________________ 406-586-1999 * rmeis@centurylink.net
February 20, 2014
Bozeman City Commission
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Mayor Krauss and Commissioners Taylor, Mehl, Andrus and Pomeroy
We live in Figgins, by Morning Star Elementary School. This proposed zoning change will have
significant impacts on not only us but our whole neighborhood and the expectations we as residents
and taxpayers have for a livable Bozeman. The zone map amendment should be killed.
Do understand we recognize that the field, as folks in the neighborhood call it, will be developed at
some point. We, like many of our neighbors, checked out the City planning documents before buying
and moving into this neighborhood, and because it was zoned R-1, we bought and moved here. We
now must fight for that very lifestyle we chose and expected.
If this zoning change is approved, the change in density, demographic and property values will all
negatively impact existing adjacent neighborhood residents. The various guidelines associated with
MCA and the City Zoning Provision Criteria indicate that the parcel proposed for R-4 does not
qualify. This is fairly well born out by, first, the fact that the City Staff report has holes and
unsubstantiated assumptions about meeting zoning criteria, and second, that the Zoning Commission
hearing degraded into a discussion of MSU’s need for housing, not zoning criteria and the City of
Bozeman.
An important fact that you, the City Commission, must recognize is that the issue here is not a need
for more high density zoning, but whether it is acceptable to shift the burden for the failure of
property owners and developers to keep up with demand and thus impact residents of existing
neighborhoods for the sake of shifting development to a new parcel that would need to be rezoned.
As residents and taxpayers, we say no to this proposed ZMA, as do a majority of residents of the
Figgins, Alder Creek and Allison neighborhoods, amongst others. Below we address the fact that
there is no shortage of existing R-4 and R-3 parcels in the immediate area that could be developed.
STAFF REPORT discussion
City staff has updated the staff report. Let me quickly identify a few concerns we have with it.
The correlation made between the Figgins neighborhood being adjacent to R-4 high density
development, and the other R-1 neighborhoods next to R-4 in Bozeman is not an apples to apples
comparison. The Durston and 22nd Ave area – Mountain View apartments – is not a valid
comparison. The apartment complex does not cater solely to college students; it has long-term
residents and families – a broad cross-section of community residents. This complex was in place at
Meis/Bolgiano 2-20-14 comment on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
2
the time of the other residential (and school) development. That is the opposite of what we have here
with the proposed rezoning in Allison Phase II.
The Allison Phase II area has always been R-1 zoning (save the small changes in 2007). This ZMA
would logically lead to a domino effect of more R-4 in Allison Phase II being requested if this first
incursion is approved. It would be unjust for the City Commission to open that can of worms.
The discussion of traffic impacts was moderate at best. The very much less than above board traffic
study conducted by the Campus Crest developers should throw up a huge red flag. Logic only needs
to be applied. Yes, some discussions of the traffic issue are weak. But the two major issues with
High Density R-4 rental complexes catering to students is the significant shift in the demographics of
the driver on Arnold and Westridge if approved and built out. There is no good access to collectors
and arterials as there are with over 200 acres of other R-4, R-3 and unzoned parcels in the immediate
area that will and could be used for this kind of development. The recently approved REMU area
north and west of Allison is bisected by the extension of Stucky Road (or whatever it will be named),
which has a traffic light in place and delivers drivers right on to the arterial of 19th Ave. That is a
huge difference. This would be much less significant in Allison Phase II with an R-1 build out.
Note that the City Commission in 2007, on approving the site development plan for Allison Phase II,
logically required an infrastructure build out of 11th Ave and Graf Street before homes could be sold.
The discussion of building values was weak at best. There is no doubt that the value of our home will
drop. After all, I would not want to buy a home on a local street that will feed not just this first
apartment complex, but how many others as the dominos fall. See the attached Building Values.
VALUE OF R-1 ZONED PARCELS versus the Need for R-4
So much focus has been placed on the perceived need for more high-density housing that two very
important facts have been overlooked.
First, there is a distinct shortage of R-1 zoned land available that has good foot and bicycle access to
the core of town. This may be the most overlooked fact in the discussion on this rezoning proposal.
Allison II (The Field) is the last good-sized parcel of R-1 that is proximate to downtown Bozeman
and MSU. This makes the current R-1 zoning far more valuable from a City perspective than to
change it for a falsely perceived need.
Second, there is no shortage of land zoned for high density housing near MSU. A Figgins neighbor
wrote, in his letter to you, that with the recently approved 127 acre REMU northwest of the proposed
Campus Crest rezoning:
“This zoning district, combined with at least four additional, undeveloped R-3 and R-4 tracts
southwest of MSU comprise 217 acres of “higher and high” density development potential. Given
the restriction that 70% of the REMU be high density housing and research into similar zoning
districts near universities in Provo, UT and Austin, TX; I would estimate that there are presently
between 6,000 and 8,300 potential beds to be developed. This doesn’t count what MSU is
developing today and may develop in the future.”
Meis/Bolgiano 2-20-14 comment on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
3
MSU recently demolished a number of old Family and Grad Housing units just off College Street
near 14th Ave, which one would logically presume MSU will replace with a new housing complex.
There is also the ability for MSU to do a joint public/private partnership in the MSU Advanced Tech
Park along 19th, which would be well within reason as well for student housing needs that would
have zero impact on existing neighborhoods.
There is also a parcel of undeveloped R3 at the corner of Kagy and Greek Way. These high density
zoning numbers do NOT include the unzoned, undeveloped 22 acres between Lincoln and Kagy or
10 acres S of Kagy that logically will be used for high density housing. There is also a significant
amount of unzoned acreage west of 19th that is obviously, eventually going to have quite a bit of high
density zoning.
If this R-4 zone change is approved, the domino theory says that more of the R-1 in Allison II will be
proposed for high and/or medium density zoning changes as well. Add to that is the fact that there is
so much high density ground available for development that there will be, again, an overabundance of
rental units available, which happens cyclically in Bozeman, and a subsequent shortage of single
family zoned parcels available close in to the core of town.
SUMMARY
Again, it is important that you, as the elected representatives of the residents of Bozeman, recognize
that the onus for the shortage of rental housing in Bozeman should not be shifted to the shoulders of
existing residents of established neighborhoods by making drastic zoning changes. That is the
poorest possible approach to planning given that there is a more than adequate amount of existing
high density property available that does not create the conflicts that this proposal has created. It is
wrong to burden residents with the failure of the developers and property owners in the area to keep
up with demand.
Attached please find our comment letter to the Zoning Commission which addresses specific criteria
related to zoning.
The Zone Map Amendment / Development Review Application document submitted by Bon Ton,
Inc., and Campus Crest Development should not be approved. It is too drastic a deviation from
existing zoning and violates State of Montana statutes and City of Bozeman codes and planning
documents.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Rick Meis and Susan Bolgiano
Attachments: Meis/Bolgiano letter to Zoning Commission 1-28-14
Building Values – Principles and Axioms
From:PETE ASTRUP
To:Jeff Krauss; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; jpomeroy@bozeman.net
Cc:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Ammendment Z13268
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:56:13 PM
Dear Mayor Krauss and Commissionors,
I am writing to STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed zoning changes being made byCampus Crest for the following reasons:
1. proposed zoning change DOES NOT meet the criteria (S76-2-304 MCA) A. Be in Accordance with a growth policy -There is plenty of land that is already zoned R4 within the same proximity to MSU. -Changes in zoning typically are made to increase or decrease to the"next" level (R1 to R2 NOT R1 to R4 next to an existing single familyneighborhood). This goes against the plan the city already had in place.
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare -high density housing is known to have higher crime, increasedtraffic (note failed traffic study done for this area).
H. Character of the district -this would obviously change the character of the neighborhood,traffic, noise, crime. As MSU has been growing, so is the crime rate in the area. This isconfirmed by the Clery Crime Statistics.
J. Conserve the value of buildings -600 units of high density housing development would deter peoplefrom buying in this area thus decreasing value of existing homes. Current estimatesare 4-9% depreciation in home values when located within 0.5 miles of highdensity areas.
K. Most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. -this R1 land is the last R1 land in the area adjacent to MorningStar Elementary and walking distance to MSU and Museum of the Rockies.
If proposed changes do NOT meet the criteria then it should not be passed.
This land should be livable for everyone. We do not expect our neighborhood tobe "single-family neighborhood-ville" as Mayor Krauss said at the lastmeeting. But expect changes to be made that are appropriate for current andfuture residents alike.
As a resident of this Figgins neighborhood for 25 years I have seen manychanges in the Bozeman area, and in our neighboring areas, this is to beexpected. However this proposed change is wrong for this area and thisneighborhood for the above reasons.
I urge you to vote NO on the Campus Crest rezoning request.
Thank youNancy Astrup
From:Mozelle Soule
To:Agenda
Subject:ZMA Z13268 Campus Crest
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 6:55:02 AM
February 21, 2014
To: Bozeman City Commissioners
From: Mozelle Soule, 3018 Ritter Drive
RE: Z-13268 Zone Map Amendment
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing in opposition to the change in zoning put forth in this proposal. Myfamily and I have lived at this address for 3 years. We initially rented this home andsubsequently bought it in September 2013. We had the luxury of getting to knowour neighbors and the surrounding neighborhoods prior to investing in theneighborhood. The renters previous to us were college students and were not agood mix in our quiet neighborhood from the accounts we received from neighbors. We also received notices from the court to prior renters and a police visit to ourhouse looking for one of the previous renters. I have several concerns with theproposed change.
1. As a new home buyer to this area I relied on the zoning that was in place at thetime of our purchase. I fully expect the area to be developed but I made mydecision based on the zoning at the time. There had been a zoning adjustment inthe near past and we felt we could rely on that zoning going forward. I have strongconcerns that having an R-4 zone change will affect the investment we made in ourhome. As a home buyer in this city I should be able to rely on the planning boardto make thoughtful changes that don’t impact the residents who have invested time,money and effort into their local neighborhoods.
2. Changing the area so close to neighborhoods and schools from R-3 and R-1 toR-4 seems to go against the flavor of the neighborhood that was set forth in thecurrent zoning. One point brought up at the recent meeting was that an R-4 changewould afford the residents in the new R-4 accommodations an opportunity to accessthe city and local community using non-motorized means of transportation. If theproperty is developed under the current zoning with R-1 and R-3 zoning in additionto the R-2 zoning to the east and the R-1 zoning to the south it will encourage morenon-motorized transportation to the local schools. Currently, many children aredriven in from outside neighborhoods to attend these schools. As our communitydevelops, I foresee Morningstar and Sacajawea being truly neighborhood schoolswith much more non-motorized access to the schools. They would be surrounded byneighborhoods that are bike and pedestrian accessible for the local residents.
3. The area under questions also provides multiple options for living close to ourjobs, shopping and the downtown. We chose to live in this neighborhood to be ableto access the city and our jobs through multiple modes of transportation. Keepingthis area with the current zoning will continue to provide modest homes for peoplewho live, play, and work in Bozeman.
4. The traffic study done in evaluation of the Campus Crest proposal seems to beflawed as to date and time that the study was done. I have no doubt that changingthe zoning and building campus crest would increase traffic through the now quietneighborhoods, especially on Arnold Street despite what the study indicated.
5. This proposed change will negatively impact a growing neighborhood that hasclose access to schools, jobs, shopping and the downtown. There is not much landleft that has this kind of access for people who live and work in this city. Removingthis amount of acreage from the current zoning plan diminishes the value of livinghere and doesn't seem to fit with the transition of zoning from R-1 to R-4. Thereseem to be other options for R-4 zoning in the immediate area. With so many otheroptions, why is the zoning board recommending this proposal go through when itwill change these neighborhoods so drastically? I am very concerned that if thischange is made then it will set a president of changing the undeveloped landadjacent to the new R-4 to similar R-4 zoning and further diminish the desirability ofthese neighborhoods.
Please take these concerns into consideration when voting whether to change thezoning. This change will impact many people who have lived in these neighborhoodsfor years, it will impact those who have just invested in this neighborhood, and itwill impact the desirability of this neighborhood for future residents.
Sincerely,
Mozelle Soule
3018 Ritter Drive
Allison Phase II
From:PETE ASTRUP
To:Jeff Krauss; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; jpomeroy@bozeman.net
Cc:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Ammendment Z13268
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:09:43 PM
Dear Mayor Krauss and City Commission. I would like to add my voice to thoseopposed to therezoning of the property next to Morning Star School. I attended the ZoningCommission meeting on February 4, 2014 and was impressed by the quality of theopposition arguments. At the beginning of the Zoning Commission meeting MayorKrauss reminded us that we live in Bozeman, Montana and not Single FamilyResidential-ville, Montana. That is an important thing to remember whenthinking about or planning for our town in general but it is not so importantwhen weighing the pros and cons of this specific re-zoning request.
It was brought up by Doug Riley that there are other places in the citywhere R-4 zones are adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones. Well that does not meanthat they live in harmony with each other and certainly it is preferable tohave more gradual transitions whenever possible as in this vacant area wherewe have a choice.
During the commissioners discussion it was debated as to why it seemed thisR-4 zone would be OK west of 11th avenue but not OK on the east side of thestreet. A couple of the zoning commissioners seemed to think that thisargument was strange. In fact, the zoning process is all about developmentsbeing OK on one side of a line and not OK on the other.
The last thing I want to mention is my support for the argument that this R-4zone is not needed to address an imminent need. With the recent rezoning ofthe property west of 11th as ReMU and the imminent construction of a newdormitory on campus we most likely have already addressed the near termshortage of student housing close to campus. Approving this request for thepurpose of having an acceptable level of "inventory" does not seem to makesense when there are many acres on the west side of 11th and even on the westside of 19th avenue available for that designation and so many quality reasonsfor keeping the current zoning intact.
Sincerely,Pete and Nancy Astrup3005 Secor AveBozeman, MT 59715
R. DALE BELAND, AICP 3141 SPRING RIDGE DRIVE BOZEMAN, MT. 59715
February 21, 2014
Mayor Krause and City Commissioners 121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715 Re: Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners:
My wife and I own a home in the Alder Creek Subdivision, south of the proposed zone change. I am a
retired professional urban planner with over 30 years’ experience, a charter member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, and hold a Master of Planning degree. Also, I am a former corporate
member of the American Institute of Architects. As such, I feel qualified to offer an expert opinion on the subject matter. We selected our new home carefully, based upon neighborhood quality and location. As senior citizens,
we chose to live in a family-oriented development with a mix of residential home types and resident demographics.
I was shocked when I reviewed the proposed zone change due to its incongruity-- the total misfit with the existing development pattern and its low-density residential land use pattern. I have reviewed the Bozeman Growth Policy and the Campus Crest Traffic Impact Study (TIS), In addition, I attended the
Zoning Commission hearing on 2/2/14 Key legal criteria for approval of a zone map amendment (Section 76-2-304, MCA) require the
municipal governing authority to consider:
“… the promotion of compatible urban growth;
the character of the (zoning) district and its suitability ;
the effect on motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems;
the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land…).
With these criteria in mind, I note that:
“The compatibility (of the proposed R-4 zoning) with existing zoning and land uses to the east
and south is not as clear as the compatibility with the same to the west and east.” (Staff report, p.16)
“Density of development must be balanced against community character, parks and open
spaces, and the housing choices of citizen. (Community Plan- pp. 3-4).
“Goal H-1: Promote an adequate supply of safe, quality housing that is diverse in type, density,
cost and location with an emphasis on maintaining character and stability “ (Community Plan).
“The Community Plan states “all residential housing should be arranged with consideration
given to the existing character of adjacent development””- (Staff report p.10).
The TIS is incomplete. “It is unclear how the impacts from other traffic sources not
accounted for in this traffic study could affect the local traffic system… the Morning Star
School traffic and the projected vehicle trips associated with the Stadium Apartments were not addressed in this TIS.” (Staff report- p.13)
Several persons testifying at the Zoning Commission hearing expressed concerns about impacts
on the value of their homes.
But there is an overriding issue involved in this case. Citizens depend on local government to support and
sustain a policy of predictability of land use plans and zoning regulations. Extreme changes in potential land use (R-1 to R-4) are inconsistent with this policy and can destroy the perceived integrity of the entire
planning process..
In closing, I refer to the recent Bozeman Chronicle Editorial Board opinion piece stating that the “rezoning
proposal is unfair to residents” … “There’s no question that a development of this kind will change the
character of the surrounding neighborhoods (2/02/14)” I completely agree.
I respectfully ask that you deny the requested zone map amendment.
Sincerely,
/s/ R. Dale Beland AICP
From:Tate & Jani Richards
To:Agenda
Subject:"Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268".
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 3:07:35 PM
2-17-14
Dear Bozeman City Commissioners,
We are writing to urge you to vote “NO” on the zoning change proposed for the Z-13268
area northwest of Morning Star School,
We recently moved from our home in northwest Bozeman because we desired a quiet, familyneighborhood. After looking at the zoning in the area
around Morning Star, we felt it was the perfect choice. If this field is changed from R1 to R4you are sending property owners the message
that they cannot trust Bozeman’s zoning. It is clear that our property value will drop, and theremaining land around the proposed zone change would
fall to high-density, as well, which would drastically change the character of ourneighborhood and lower the value of our homes.
MSU already has projects in the works to address the shortage of student housing, and they
currently own land that would be appropriate fora high-density housing project such as the Campus Crest proposal. The existing land that is
already slated for R4 is in areas that would not create thetraffic congestion and safety issues that would occur with the proposed Campus Crest zone
change.
The field in question should be left as is to provide family friendly housing with easy accessto schools and trails. It would also be the perfect place for
university employees looking for a safe, convenient location to raise their families.
Once again, we urge you to listen to the voices of property owners who will suffer the loss oftheir neighborhood’s character and the equity of their home
investment. PLEASE vote”NO” on the Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment. Ingood conscious you cannot allow this area to be rezoned
for campus housing within such close proximity to Morning Star Elementary School.
Thank you for your time.
Dennis and Janis Richards3158 Spring Ridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:rick meis
To:Jeff Krauss; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; I-Ho Pomeroy
Cc:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA hearing Monday
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 3:12:18 PM
Mayor Krauss and Commissioners Taylor, Mehl, Andrus and Pomeroy, As today is my day off, I have been talking with a number of people in the neighborhood about the
upcoming Commission meeting on Monday night.
Several people have expressed concern over the Campus Crest issue being so far down the agenda.
Many people who will attend that meeting have kids, not to mention jobs, and are worried they will
have to leave the meeting before the Campus Crest agenda item even comes up, let alone being able
to stay long enough to testify.
Is it possible to shift the Campus Crest ZMA to be the first item on the agenda to accommodate the
sheer numbers of people who will be there, but especially to give those who cannot stay late a chance
to participate? Thank you for your time. Respectfully,
Rick Meis
From:Mary Brauer
To:Agenda
Subject:oppose rezoning for Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 2:57:46 PM
I am writing to oppose the rezoning of the residential area near Morning Star School. With MSU set to
build the Stadium View Apts (500 beds) and a 400 bed dorm as well as the 127 acres available to
build on, there is no shortage of appropriate sites for high density housing. It is absolutely unnecessary
and inappropriate to rezone and build next to an elementary school and single-family homes. And it will
totally change the neighborhood to funnel more traffic through that area. There is currently a significant
traffic problem at certain times of the day as Sacajawea and Morning Star Schools open and close and
it is extremely difficult to make a left hand turn off S Third to access my home on Highland Court. This
proposed rezoning would make it much worse.
Please vote to deny the rezoning of that area.
Mary Brauer
2207 Highland Court
From:Mark
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 3:15:01 PM
Dear City Commission,
Please DO NOT approve the rezoning proposal for the single family area near Morning Star ElementarySchool concerning the proposed Campus Crest student apartment complex.
It would be a 'bait and switch' for the current residents to have their zoning redefined after purchasingtheir homes. I would definitely not approve of such a move in my neighborhood for the same reasons.
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Mark Payne128 Erik DrBozeman
From:Loretta Swain
To:Agenda; Loretta Swain
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 3:07:13 PM
TO: Bozeman City Commissioners
FROM: Mary Loretta Swain 3023 Healy Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715
DATE: February 21, 2014
RE: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
I have lived in the Figgins Subdivision for 24 years. We chose this particular R-1zoning area to raise our children in due to the Family single home zoning andatmosphere around the area. It was R-1 zoned land available with great foot andbicycle access to the core of downtown. Our children both walked to Morning StarElementary, as we felt comfortable with their safety in this neighborhood.Now, as a Grandmother, I enjoy my Grandchildren's visits to me in this area and ourwalks to the playgrounds.I oppose this Zone Map Amendment and do not think it right of you to consider achange in family zoning when so many of us home buyers trusted that this wouldremain R-1 zoning.I would respectfully ask you to vote to keep the zoning as it is now.Thank you.
February 19, 2014
Dear City Commissioners,
I am writing to you regarding the proposed Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment (ZMA 13268). This has
been a topic of great discussion, not only for the surrounding neighborhoods directly affected by the
potential of this proposed zone change, but for the city as a whole as exemplified by the numerous front
page articles and OP/ED letters of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Commissioners, Mehl, Pomeroy, Taylor
and Andrus, I ask each of you to vote against this proposal for the reasons stated below. Mayor Krauss, I
respectfully ask that you remove yourself from this vote since your position on the MSU Board of
Regents is of a significant conflict of interest in this matter.
Rules and regulations, law and order are the very essentials to which equality, trust, and progress is built
upon. City Commissioners, the only way you can judiciously approve the zone map amendment request
is if the amendment is fully compliant with the criteria for a zone map amendment set forth by the
rules and regulations that our City Zoning Committee developed to give each parcel of land a fair, equal,
and deserving consideration during land development in the City of Bozeman. I task each one of you to
look through the “lenses” of law and order, rules and regulations, and truthfully and fairly decide if the
Campus Crest zone map amendment request successfully meets the ZMA criteria that was developed by
our own City. I would like to take this time to point out that many aspects of this proposed zoning
change is NOT successfully aligned with the criteria for a ZMA, and therefore should be RIGHTFULLY
voted against by each of you.
1. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
a. It is stated that there is a need for density and R‐4 zoning in the City, but is it ok to leave
some parts of the city family oriented, and not with high‐density? Perhaps you leave the
south end of Bozeman to be more of a family‐oriented community? Is there harm or
rules against having an area in Bozeman left for low‐density, single‐family living? I see
this in many other cities around the nation.
b. The adjacent REMU District already has high‐density R‐4 zoning and commercial uses in
close proximity (a few hundred feet!!) to the property in question. Is there really need
for more R4 zoning right now, without utilizing the already existing properly zoned
parcels for this type of construction?
c. There is a need for R‐4 and other high density residential near campus in order to
reduce the impacts of having people drive across the City to reach campus. However,
the city already has zoning in place for 6,500 beds. At the current growth rate of MSU
(500 students per year), it will take 13 years to fulfill all of these beds that are ALREADY
ZONED for this purpose. Do we REALLY need this area to become rezoned to fit 600
beds to provide only one more year of MSU’s current growth, without utilizing the
current properly zoned parcels?
d. This application does NOT to be looked at in relation to broader City issues…It seems
that if the city is having broader city issues and approves take an existing R1 zoning to
and change to an R4 zone, the city is looking to have a lawsuit filed for “spot zoning”
which is AGAINST Montana State Law.
e. The Community Plan’s desire for infill and density need to be weighed against the need
for compatibility with adjacent EXISTING neighborhoods. Zoning is PREDICTIBLE growth
planning. If an R1 can be changed to an R4 zone because of some interest groups, no
property is left sacred in Bozeman, and all residence should feel paranoid that their
neighborhood could be next. There is no predictability or trust that will come from
passing this amendment and it goes against the whole purpose of city planning!
2. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
a. There is GREAT concern for the safety of children (5 years old to 11 years old) near
Morningstar ELEMENTARY School and nearby neighborhoods. Everyone I have talked to
(all city planners and developers in other states) said putting College students and
elementary school students, separated by a walking path, is ludicrous. Our 5 year old
children are highly impressionable at this age, and do we want them picking up beer
cans, cigarette butts, condoms and the like from their playground, walking paths, and
nearby areas to the school? We all were in college once and we all know what goes on
at these types of complexes. Are we that naive to say MSU off‐campus living will be
immune to the same college habits exhibited generation after generation across the
entire U.S.?
b. I would like to remind you that Morningstar Elementary School is one of the few BLUE
RIBBON schools in all of Bozeman!!! Are we wanting to compromise the success of this
school for some off‐campus living (which could potentially become low‐income
housing)? Decreasing our school status is not promoting general welfare!
c. I have GREAT concerns regarding increased crime being introduced into the
neighborhood. When I was young, I was drugged and raped on the campus of Colorado
State University in an off‐campus complex that was very similar to The Grove complex.
There are NUMEROUS accounts of rapes, crimes, EVEN MURDER on Campus Crest
campuses in other cities in the nation. The CEO himself was convicted of assaulting his
16‐year old step‐son on September 9th, 1995. After he beat his stepson, he then fled the
scene when police arrived and his step‐son was taken to the hospital in an ambulance!!
We honestly want Bozeman to partner with this man and his company? Ted Rollins, CEO
of Campus Crest, and the complexes he builds, do not seem to exude public SAFETY and
general welfare to me.
d. One of the MOST serious pitfalls to this rezoning amendment will be the safety of our
elementary school students. College students are known for having freedom from their
parents for the first time in their life. They are free to make their own choices, and most
of the time they are not the healthiest, safest choices. They are known for sleeping very
little, drinking a lot, and driving too fast! ALL of these DO not mix when you have 6 and 7
years olds riding their bike to school the same time a tired, drunk, speeding college
student is coming home from a house party. There will ABSOLUTLEY be problems and
accidents if you put college students and elementary students in the same location at
the same time in the morning and afternoon. I would hate to see a child getting hit by a
car in the morning while walking to school in order for you to understand the FULL
safety hazards this rezoning will have on our streets!!!
3. The effect on motorized and non‐motorized transportation systems.
a. R‐4 zoning needs to be in locations that help to keep vehicle traffic reduced.
Neighborhood side streets with access to an ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE School are NOT
designed to handle speeding college students all hours of the day and night. They also
are not designed to add 600 potential drivers to our neighborhood streets is a recipe for
accidents, and possible death of our children. The REMU has established access to
EXISTING collector/arterial streets…the proposed zoning parcel does not.
b. Stand on the street corner of 3rd and Graf at 8am and see for yourself how effected the
streets will be if you add 600 possible drivers. There is NO truthful stance you can take
to say this amendment will not affect transportation systems.
c. There is no FACT based, truthful representation of a traffic study to date. The applicant’s
traffic study was flawed and misleading. School was out (college and K‐12 public) the
day before Thanksgiving and many from the neighborhood were on vacation. This time
frame was NOT a truthful depiction of the actual existing traffic.
4. Promotion of compatible Urban Growth.
a. The promotion of compatible urban growth is a key criterion, and the public comments
indicate that this proposal may not be compatible.
b. I am in support for higher density west of S. 11th and just south of Kagy in order to keep
off‐campus College living separate from Morningstar Middle School.
5. Character of the district.
a. The character of the district is a key criterion due to the proximity of the EXISTING single
household neighborhoods. It will absolutely change the feel and character of South
Bozeman. Predictability based on zoning is important. Without it, why do city planning
and zoning!?
b. Approving R‐4 zoning would set a new precedent for this area and would break the trust
of HUNDREDS of residents and constituents. It would also come under scrutiny as being
SPOT ZONING, if passed.
c. The existing zoning is very reasonable considering that we have the REMU zoning just a
few blocks/hundreds of feet to the west side of S. 11th. (13 years’ worth of current MSU
growth).
d. Appropriate transitions of zoning are not provided because it jumps from existing R1
single family homes to a now proposed non‐existing R4 zone. How can that be
considered transitioning?!
e. This property has remained vacant and that creates some uncertainty as to what would
actually be built and the fact that zoning is not stagnant. If Campus Crest bails on the
project, what is Bozeman’s plan with R4 zone if approved?
f. It is important to have a “stepping” or transition of zoning…period! Going from R1 to R4
will deface the existing surrounding R1/R2 property.
g. Perhaps the REMU property should fully develop first over the next 13 years. That is
why it was zoned, right? To be USED!! If after 13 years, MSU still needs more beds, then
start changing zoning…but NOT until all of the allocated current R4 and REMU zones
have been built and maximized.
6. Conserving the value of buildings.
a. Impacts to area property values are an issue/concern. Going from R1 to R4 will deface
the existing R1/R2 property. To say our EXISTING R1 and R2 properties will not be
defaced by this re‐zoning measure is a bold face lie! You are devaluating Bozeman real
estate if you pass this amendment. Is the goal to have south Bozeman homes lose their
value over the next 10 years?
b. Allison II (The Field) is the last good‐sized parcel of R‐1 that is proximate to
downtown Bozeman and MSU. This makes the current zoning far more valuable from a
City perspective than to change it for a falsely perceived need.
I know this letter is long and contains a lot of information, but they are IMPORTANT facts and truths that
DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA of a zoning map amendment. Fair is fair. Just is Just. Please look at the big
picture of this rezoning and all of negative the effects it will have on the city (rent money from this
complex will NOT be staying in Bozeman! ), on the surrounding neighborhoods, on your constituents
lives and children’s lives, and ultimately the image of Bozeman. This amendment will do nothing but
harm our city and community and I don’t want all of us looking at it as a BIG mistake 5 years from now.
Therefore, I STRONGLY urge you to please REJECT PROPOSED ZMA 13268. Thank you!!
Sincerely,
Kelley J. Howe
Alder Creek Subdivision
From:Kelley Howe
To:rick meis
Cc:Jeff Krauss; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; I-Ho Pomeroy; Agenda; Chad Howe
Subject:Re: Campus Crest ZMA hearing Monday
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 3:55:41 PM
Thank you Rick for your email!
Commissioners and Mayor, I too ask you move the Campus Crest agenda earlier inthe schedule. At the last Campus Creat ZMA hearing, there were only two agendas(one which took 5 minutes) and the meeting ran over four (4) hours in lengthbecause of the attendance numbers and people speaking. We are projecting to havemany more in attendance and speaking at this meeting. Therefore, I kindly ask thatyou consider to move the Campus Crest agenda/discussion for earlier in themeeting/evening.
Thank you for in advance for your consideration and I hope you all have a wonderfulweekend!
Take care,
Kelley J. HoweAlder Creek Subdivision
On Feb 21, 2014, at 3:12 PM, "rick meis" <rmeis@centurylink.net> wrote:
Mayor Krauss and Commissioners Taylor, Mehl, Andrus and Pomeroy,
As today is my day off, I have been talking with a number of people in the neighborhood
about the upcoming Commission meeting on Monday night.
Several people have expressed concern over the Campus Crest issue being so far down
the agenda. Many people who will attend that meeting have kids, not to mention jobs,
and are worried they will have to leave the meeting before the Campus Crest agenda
item even comes up, let alone being able to stay long enough to testify. Is it possible to shift the Campus Crest ZMA to be the first item on the agenda to
accommodate the sheer numbers of people who will be there, but especially to give those
who cannot stay late a chance to participate? Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Rick Meis
From:Jennifer Pawlak
To:Agenda
Subject:Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 2:28:15 PM
Bozeman Mayor and Commissioners
City of Bozeman
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
I have previously written to the zoning commission to express my
opinion regarding rejecting the zone map amendment Z13268. Today I
am repeating my request.
I have just browsed through the 343 compiled pages of public comment,
all opposed, voicing a variety of concerns with the impact of a R-4
zoning change. I am not familiar with the amount of public comment
generated by other development projects, but a 100% negative public
response should mean something when gauging public opinion on a
project. I urge you to listen to your constituency.
I have also read the February 14 amendment to the traffic impact study
which concludes "Development of the Campus Crest property...would
result in more traffic on Arnold Street....Additional benefits of the
Campus Crest Development would be fewer elementary students
walking along the Arnold Street corridor to and from the Allison
Subdivision area." To cite the decreased number of students walking
to school as a benefit strikes me as absurd and completely in opposition
to creating a "most liveable" Bozeman community.
I urge all commissioners to vote no on zone map amendment Z13268.
Thank you,
Jennifer Pawlak
107 Silverwood Drive
From:d b
To:Agenda
Subject:Z-13268 Campus Crest ZMA
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 4:01:47 PM
Dear Bozeman City Commissioners ,
I live in the Alder Creek subdivision and I am very much against the proposed zonechange you have in mind for this piece of property. It actually amazes me that it hasgone this far in the process given the feedback from the tax paying, votinghomeowners that live in the area.
The out of state developer who gave a funky video presentation at the zoningcommission meeting should have fooled no one. MSU already owns acreage nearby that is appropriate for high density housing. Once allowed, this would set aprecedent for all future requests for rezoning. What is the point of having zoning inthe first place then?
Thank you,Dave Bissell
From:oldworldvitis
To:Jeff Krauss; Carson Taylor; Chris Mehl; Cyndy Andrus; I-Ho Pomeroy
Cc:Agenda
Subject:City Commission hearing agenda
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 4:11:50 PM
Mayor Krauss and Commissioners Andrus, Pomeroy, Mehl, and Taylor,
I am concerned over the Campus Crest issue being toward the end of the evenings agenda. I am
worried, as I expect others are as well, that I will have to leave the meeting before the Campus Crest
agenda item comes up, and that I will not be able to give my verbal comments. Could you please shift the Campus Crest ZMA to be the first item on the agenda? Doing so would
allow myself and others the opportunity to participate in this important discussion.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles Howe, Jr.
From:Barbara Oyster
To:Agenda
Subject:Save our neighborhood, protect our school
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 2:31:16 PM
I am writing to protest the zoning change proposed to allow a high density apartment complex to thewest of Figgins Addition. We have a quiet, family oriented neighborhood, something that factoredheavily in our choosing this area. Changing the zoning will negatively affect the character we paid for.In addition to affecting the quality of our life style, I feel that student housing would negatively affectthe calm, safe environment now surrounding our Morning Star Elementary School.
Please consider all of us who chose Figgins because of its family character, the safety of the youngstudents at Morning Star, and choose another spot for the student housing project.
Barbara Oyster510 West Arnold Street
From:Andrea Newman
To:Agenda
Subject:Fwd: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 3:18:26 PM
To whom it may concern,
I have lived in Bozeman for over 11 years and have always been proud to call thiscity home, however recently it has come to my attention that my neighborhood isabout to be changed for the worse. I have lived in the Figgins subdivision for about10 years and when I purchased my house I planned on making it my home for thelong-run. I knew there was the possibility of growth on the west end of Arnold, but Iwas also assured by my real-estate agent that the area was zoned R1 and R2. Singlefamilies like mine and the good neighborhood schools like Morning Star Elementaryand Sacajawea Middle School meant Figgins would be a good place to raise myfamily, a commodity which is becoming increasingly hard to find in our country.Now, ten years later I have started my family, my daughter Zoe Winter Hall wasborn in December. It was a shock to hear that now - after carefully planning my lifein order to give my child the opportunity to grow up in a happy, healthyneighborhood - filled with good people and safe streets, a developer and theuniversity have colluded to change the zoning of the area and insert a completelyinappropriate, low-income/student housing development. What does a parent haveto do to give her child a healthy environment these days? I can't move now, I havea job and a life here, but I do know that if that development goes in at the end ofthe street it will substantially decrease the quality of my life and the life of my newdaughter. We will have increased traffic, increased volume of people, college partiesand late-night carousing.
I am deeply saddened, surprised and disappointed to think that my elected officials,whose job it is to keep the BIG PICTURE for a citizens and city in view, can't seepast the little revenue this idiotic change in zoning will collect. Money is not the onlything to consider here! Happy, healthy children and families are the backbone of thecity of Bozeman and if this development goes in, it will act like a cancer to erode thevery thing the city council was put in place to protect. As a voter I will be sure tomake my feelings known at the next election if they choose not to heed the warningof me, my family and the neighborhood of Figgins subdivision.
Sincerely,
Andrea Hall
Adie Phillips and Karl Swingle
2511 Westridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Re: Campus
Crest
ZMA
Z13268
To: Bozeman City Commission Members
This letter serves to express our concern and disagreement with the proposed zoning
change from R1 to R4 for the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment. We live in the
Figgins addition and feel that the increased density from what will likely be a student
housing complex will dramatically increase the traffic, possibly increase crime, decrease
property values of the existing single family homes in the immediate area and reduce
the community feel of our neighborhood.
First, the roads in this area are not major arterials and the traffic increase due to high
density housing will be very difficult to manage. Traffic to the Morning Star School in
the morning during drop off is already congested. One concern is the safety of children
who walk and bike to school at Morning Star should the high density housing and
therefore increased traffic be allowed.
Second, we used to own a condo on South 20th Avenue where a concentration of
college students occupied the apartments and condos there. We woke many nights to
loud parties, drunken people in our yard, and sometimes damage to our property. We
bought a house and moved to Westridge because of the quiet and calm family oriented
feel of the neighborhood.
Third, High density housing nearby is likely going to reduce our neighborhood character
and decrease the value of our property. By the Axioms of Real Estate, the R4 Zoning
would decrease the desirability of the surrounding area and decreased desirability leads
to decreased demand and lower home values. We feel that the loss of property values
for a great number of working families in the Bozeman must be taken into consideration.
We think the zoning change is a bad idea for the character of our neighborhood and are
concerned that the zone change sets a precedent for a domino effect of rezoning the
rest of the field, further eroding out property values.
The area would be best suited to its current zoning plan to maintain the feel of the
surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods
Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration and please reject the Campus
Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268.
Sincerely,
Adie Phillips & Karl Swingle
From:Tim Crawford
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Z-13268
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 9:51:42 AM
Dear City Commissioners,
As a Bozeman City taxpayer, I am very uncomfortable with the proposed zoning changes of Campus
Crest Z-13268, when there appears to be viable alternatives that don't have negative impacts on
existing neighborhoods and schools.
I oppose the zoning change requested by Campus Crest Z-13268.
Thank you,
Tim Crawford
1300 Dry Creek School Rd
Belgrade, Mt 59714
388-4211
From:Tiffany Coletta
To:Agenda
Subject:Zoning Change for Campus Crest Does Not Support School Redistricting or Walkability to School!
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:57:57 AM
Please do not change the current zoning that accommodates single family homes next to Morning Star
School to instead allow for "fully loaded college living" with the 600 bed proposed Campus Crest
housing project. If the city commission approves this zoning change and allows the Campus Crest
Housing Project to be built within close proximity of Morning Star Elementary School, you all are
completely ignoring the recent brutal school redistricting that was imposed on the school families and
residents across Bozeman in the name of increasing "walk ability" and the concept of the
"neighborhood" school.
The city commission should be encouraging housing opportunities that are in sync with the Bozeman
School District goal of housing to support the neighborhood school concept. Multi-family or single-family
housing is much more logical and congruent with the concept of "walk ability" and the "neighborhood
school". Placing large numbers of college students on prime real estate adjacent to an elementary
school is absolutely opposite of current school districting goals.
How do college students who are encouraged to raise Flip, the red party cup, encourage the concept
of a "neighborhood" elementary school? It absolutely does not and shows a short-sided consideration
from the city commission. To approve this housing project would be a slap in the face of the many,
many families who are having to pull their children from the school district this year and next as a result
of the new redistricting. These people purchased homes in what they were told was the "neighborhood
school" by the city and school district which was then changed with no advance warning. Now the city
is doing it again, changing zoning to suit who? Certainly not the surrounding residents of the
"neighborhood school and certainly not the elementary students of the Morning Star School.
There are many more suitable land options for Campus Crest around MSU to place this student
housing project. Any other location other than yards from an elementary school is welcomed and
supported. The concerned citizens of the Figgins and Alder Creek neighborhoods have oultined a list of
other suitable locations for this property. A private entity like Campus Crest, willing to bankroll and build
more student rental housing, is a wonderful opportunity for MSU. I understand the potential influence
that the largest employer and local economy contributor can have on the city commissioners.
But, please use logic in analyzing the potential safety concerns of "fully loaded college living" right next
to impressionable young children. I shutter at the thought of the beer cans, red party cups and who
else knows what else tossed along the side-walk or fence next to Morning Star after a MSU game or
the end of finals week:
This is ridiculous next to Morning Star Elementary School:
full throttle fun—think...bar crawls...DJ’ed pool parties...and way more.
...Crank it up...
I have been a parent since 2005 of 3 children who have and are still attending Morning Star School.
Please honor the commitment that has been made to all of the parents and students of this school and
the residents who purchased homes surrounding Morning Star. VOTE NO to change the zoning which
would allow Campus Crest to build their housing project right next to an elementary school.
Sincerely,
Tiffany Coletta
local business owner, employer and Bozeman resident
TO: Bozeman City Commission
FROM: Theresa Barry Epps
3120 Madrona Lane
Bozeman, Montana 59715
RE: Zoning Map Amendment Z13268 Campus Crest
In the criteria for change in zoning there are seven criteria that the proposed
Campus Crest development fails to meet.
C. Promote public health and general welfare: make no mistake, a developer who
uses the motto “College Living Fully Loaded” means just that: loaded—alcohol and
drugs, party central. That means condoms, beer cans and vomit in, or close to,
Morningstar School yard. Not every student at MSU is serious about getting an
education. And as we have seen in the last few weeks, due to criminal sexual
predation by one student, the University is reconsidering its admissions policies for
students with criminal records. The Commission must take into account the
safety and welfare of our Community’s children. The rapes that have already
occurred this year near campus and in fraternity houses are cases in point, most of
which are the result of alcohol and drugs. There is no way Campus Crest
development, sited in a neighborhood of single family homes and so near
Morningstar Elementary and Sacajawea Middle Schools (with a neighborhood
park—heavily used by elementary and middle school students— located nearby),
could promote public health and general welfare. Every parent of a child in either
school should be up in arms.
D. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, parks and other public
requirements: The additional traffic to our now quiet, safe neighborhoods is bound
to be negatively impacted by vehicles driven by a few college students who blatantly
ignore ordinances banning hands-on cell phones and texting, not to mention drunk
driving and the speed limit on city streets. Our neighborhood children now walk to
and from school. Most of the neighborhood residents make use of our sidewalks,
bike-lanes and trails year round. How long will this be safe if zoning amendments
allow incompatible development in the midst of this family oriented district?
G. Promotion of compatible urban growth: as stated above, this rezoning request
is incompatible
H. Take into consideration the Character of the District: neighborhoods in this
zoning district are distinctly family oriented, active lifestyle, walkable
neighborhoods. High density housing in the district would impact the character of
the district.
Suitability of Use: High-density student housing is unsuitable for this zoning area
for reasons already stated. Such “amendment” to this zoning district abrogates the
public trust by violating the good faith with which current permanent
residents chose to live in this district. It is a breach of the public’s trust in City
Government.
J. Zoning amendments must Conserve the value of Buildings: Not only will the
rezoning of this district cause the values of existing neighborhood homes to decline;
businesses nearby will suffer impaired traffic flow, as well as the character of the
entire city of Bozeman. The North Carolina developer, Mr. Harntett recently
stated at a public meeting, “I love the passion and conviction of the people who
live here, but this is a college town.” No statement could better illustrate how
little Mr. Harnett understands the nature of Bozeman and it’s residents. Far
from being just “a college town,” Bozeman is one of America’s finest small
cities (as many awards and “most livable place” articles attest). While we love
and support MSU, Bozeman is also home to a thriving business community,
increasing tourism and a leader in small business start-ups that succeed.
We have a level of public and private cooperation, and citizen participation
that is becoming a rarity in most regions of America. Bozeman has a rich
heritage of good stewardship of the land and community values from it’s
ranching and farming history—and the many people who today carry on that
venerable tradition—a heritage that we cherish and must not forget. Public
leaders in Bozeman will be rightly denounced for forgetting who we are for
the sake of development and growth that fails to take these things into
account.
K. Zoning amendments must Encourage most Appropriate Land Use: Today
Bozeman benefits from past public leaders who have wisely respected and planned
for future growth. While there is a definite need for infill of City lots for housing,
more dense housing needs to be appropriately placed with adequate public parks
and green space included in their planning. Specifically designated and designed
housing projects, such as Campus Crest, for student residents—many of whom
will not be long-term citizens of Bozeman—must be weighed carefully against
the public good.
In the case of Campus Crest, and its poor track record in communities
elsewhere, as reported in the Bozeman Chronicle, should by itself call into
question the proposed Campus Crest Project. The future success or failure of
Bozeman depends mightily on the trust between its residents, its public employees
and its elected leaders. If the rezoning criteria are ignored and the public trust
violated in favor of outside interests, Bozeman’s success and quality of living will be
short-lived.
From:Susie Beardsley
To:Agenda
Subject:Deny proposal Z-13268 for "The Field"
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:58:35 PM
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your attention to the public argument against this proposed zoning change to our
neighborhood. I am not opposed to development in general and I enjoy the dynamic atmosphere the
university population brings to the community. However, I do not see this proposed rezoning as
appropriate.
My objections are:
This does not utilize zoning as a tool for long-term planning, and adulterates the integrity of the
wise zoning already in place.
The unwelcome change in demographics would be significant!!!
The proposed R4 zoning would markedly decrease the desirability of the surrounding area
properties and perpetuate the lowered home values.
There is no urgent or immediate need for this rezoning to happen. There are numerous other
options for student housing in the near future.
The proposed rezoning would set a precedent and put in motion a domino effect for this area
effectively zoned in 2006.
West Arnold is not intended to be a collector street according to City Planning documents and
the amended traffic study shows the probable negative impact of the proposed rezoning.
Public Charge to Commissioners:
ZONING MUST
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers.
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
D. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage,
schools, parks, and other public requirements.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
G. Promotion of compatible Urban Growth.
H. Character of the district.
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
J. Conserving the value of buildings.
K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the
jurisdictional area.
Respectfully yours,
Susann Beardsley
Alder Creek resident
From:steve ritter
To:Agenda
Subject:Vote NO Campus Crest
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:49:26 PM
City Commission,
I am a local business owner who purchased a home in this neighborhood because of
it's unique character. Rezoning for Campus Crest would adversely effect the neighborhood.
This is a quiet and peaceful neighborhood with an elementary school, the addition of a high
density college age population will detrimentally change these qualities.
It is illogical to even consider this rezoning application knowing that property values
will decrease substantially. The current zoning provides adequate profit potential for this
subdivision. I trust that the city commission will do what is right for this neighborhood and
Bozeman by voting against the Campus Crest "Rezone".
Sincerely,
Steve
Ritter
2516
Westridge Drive
406-580-
2851
Steve Persons
2512 Landoe Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715
T 406-599-5883
stevepersons@hotmail.com
February 23, 2014
To Mayor Jeff Krause Deputy Mayor Carson Taylor, City Commissioners Chris Mehl,
Cynthia Andrus, I-Ho Pomeroy.
I am writing to urge you to reject the Campus Crest ZMA Z-13268 because A) it does not
meet the review criteria B) it is not needed; and C) it is bad for Bozeman.
A ) At the February 4th hearing Zoning Commissioners Julien Morice and George
Thompson agreed that this ZMA does not meet all of the review criteria. You have re-
ceived numerous detailed reports and data to support the claim that this ZMA would 1)
decrease neighboring property values 2) harm the character of the district and the city and
3) reduce safety at Morningstar elementary and in the adjoining neighborhoods.
B) There is plenty of space currently zoned appropriately for high density student living
that will not impact Morning Star or any family friendly neighborhoods. In the immediate
area. There are over 137 acres (REMU, R-4 & R-3) currently annexed and zoned plus
another 36 acres un-annexed and un-zoned, which is prime for this high density
development. That totals over 170 acres that are well buffered from R-1 zoning and
suitable for high density development.
Additionally, MSU’s Ten-Year Projected Build Out Profile includes significant housing
development in the neighborhood on Garfield Street, near North and South Hedges and
west of campus between Garfield and Fowler. Please see page 85
http://www.montana.edu/campusplan/files/MSUCampusPlan/LRCDP_merge.pdf
Concurrently, there is a distinct shortage of R-1 zoned land available that has good foot
and bicycle access to the core of town. Allison II is the last good-sized parcel of R-1 that
is proximate to downtown Bozeman and MSU.
Hundreds of families like mine support the university. We too want to live within bike/
walk access of our work and children's schools. Zoning Commissioner George
Thompson, at the February 4th city zoning commission hearing, noted that the area south
of the university (Figgins, Allison, Alder Creek neighborhoods) is a fantastic district for
the families that support the university. Every respectable college town has one. If you
approve this ZMA, the families will leave and this will destroy the district. If you keep
the current zoning you will give more families the opportunity to live and thrive there.
C) The area underwent a rigorous zoning process with public involvement in 2007. Sub-
sequently hundreds of families made the financial and personal investment to stay in the
area. We welcome the development within the zoning that was promised to the commu-
nity. If people cannot depend on planning and zoning - and it changes at a developer's
whim - then Bozeman has wasted infinite energy and taxpayer money on the 20/20 plan
and its new form, the Bozeman Community Plan. This ZMA would amount to an unrea-
sonable and arbitrary treatment of an area with applied favoritism to the landowner and
developer.
Finally, I cannot fathom why the city would consider dropping Campus Crest’s ‘fully
loaded college living’ next to Morning Star elementary and within family neighborhoods.
It is incredulous that Bozeman would consider welcoming a nationally franchised Mc
Dorm that would funnel significant rental and business dollars out of our state while
eroding the unique personality of Bozeman. How could a company that runs housing fa-
cilities with such atrocious reputations for taxing emergency services, unmitigated de-
bauchery, violence and poor construction be taken seriously? And next to our middle
school?
That we have to defend our investments and quality of lives from such a terrible concept
pushed by highly paid out of state spin doctor zoning attorneys is infuriating. Its taken
valuable time away from our jobs and families and caused us a great deal ofSteve stress.
You can spare all of us any further distress by please, rejecting this ZMA now.
Sincerely,
Steve Persons
From:Steve Kirchhoff
To:Agenda
Subject:CAMPUS CREST ZMA
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:25:31 PM
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this zone map amendment request,which I hope you will DENY.
Running the request to convert the nearly 16 acres of land lying generally south on11th Avenue behind the football stadium, it appears to fail fatally on at least half ofthe 11 criteria you are directed to use in your analysis (Items A-K in your packet). Iwould elaborate on a few:
A) Be in accordance with growth policy.The Campus Crest request seems NOT to comport with the 2020 Plan, specificallywhere the 2020 states on page 10 in Chapter 3 that "[l]arge areas of single typehousing are discouraged." Sixteen areas is a large area.
In the same paragraph, the plan says that residential development should be"arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development." This zonerequest would provide patches of high density residential that are disconnected fromany larger, already approved plan for the area that I am aware of. It would createislands of high density that would actually complicate attempts to accomplish whatthe Plan calls for: new developments that are compatible with and that flowseamlessly into already existing neighborhoods (in this case, the neighborhoods tothe south and east).
C) Promote public health, public safety, and general welfareThe key words seems to be "promote." Large chunks of high density residential areprecisely the kinds of urban development that we have seen torn down in scores ofurban areas in our country in the last several decades. While I am talking aboutpublic housing in metropolitan areas, the same concept applies here, too. Should weconclude that large, stand-alone islands of high density residential, just because theyare in Bozeman, will promote welfare and safety, while these same types ofdevelopments have been found repeatedly in other parts of the nation to bedetrimental to the same?
F) Effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.The effect will be negative, given the awkward location. If approved, the highdensity residential areas, because of their inconvenient location, will encourage moreauto-dependency than is desirable for our community. There are many otherlocations closer to the campus, owned by the university itself, which would be moresuitable and have less deleterious effects on transportation routes. This is not theonly, and certainly not the most ideal area where high density residential can occuron the south side of Bozeman. Given the large supply of vacant lands (lands ownedby the university, for example) which could be put to similar use, there is noexigency to approve high density in this location.
H) Character of the district.It is unlikely the land in question here will buildout with any discernible "character"worth bragging about. Given the history of high density residential in our city, the
buildout will be an overall detraction to the adjacent neighborhoods and theneighborhoods to be developed around it in the future on currently vacant land. Iwould ask you to consult our history as a city in the buildout of high densityresidential and find three examples of high quality, high character buildout on thescale (up to 32 units per acre) you would reasonably expect to be developed here.
J) Conserving the value of buildings.See C and H above. The buildings here will be unlikely to appreciate in value to thesame extent that other residential structures do in adjacent neighborhoods. Thistype of analysis would be worth pursuing a few more steps, though I certainlywouldn't know how to do it!
These are some thoughts that I hope you might find useful as you consider the ZMArequest on Monday night, February 24.
As always, good luck to you all, and thank you for your service,
Steve Kirchhoff
From:Shaundra Schaff
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:50:49 PM
February 20th, 2014
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the zoning amendment proposal Campus Crest
ZMA Z13268. As I am unable to attend the public hearing Monday, I wanted to share my
thoughts on the proposed zoning amendment. I moved into the Alder Creek Subdivision 4
years ago due to the desirability of living in a quiet family oriented housing area that was
specifically zoned as single family homes. My decision was not only based on this subdivision
but also on the surrounding subdivisions and the area around Morning Star Elementary
School. Looking to the future of having a family and children who would attend Morning
Star, the safety and traffic around the school was very important component of my desire to
buy a home in this area.
The community south of town will be greatly affected by this proposed zoning amendment.
The proposed amendment would not only affect the safety of our kids, but also potentially
increase crime rates, traffic flow, and decrease the value of my current property. As
Commissioners, you must look at how this proposal will not only affect the current
population but also how this proposal would change the neighboring communities down the
road. The vision of the proposed land in question was originally zoned R1 and neighboring
families bought homes in this area because of this. The area is growing and there is
currently limited room available for more family’s to move into this area. (There is plenty of
area already zoned for R4). The priority should be on providing accessibility and safety for
future families with children who will be attending Morning Star Elementary.
It is very concerning that our Commissioners would allow an out of state investment
company to come in and make decisions for our community, making money at the expense
of a community that they do not know or understand. The citizens of this area know the
vision that this area was intended for and have the best interest of the community at heart.
I strongly oppose the zoning amendment proposal Campus Crest ZMA Z1326. I hope that the
Commissioners will look to the best interest of this community and the future of this
community by voting against this proposal and will protect the vision that was intended for
this area of town.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shaundra Schaff
From:sarah
To:Agenda
Subject:rezoning z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:35:13 PM
To Whom It may Concern:My name is Sarah Stanley and I have a house in Figgins Addition. I oppose the rezoning for severalreasons.
Please consider the impact that the proposed z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment will have onMorning Star Elementary. Whether it becomes student housing or another high density demographic,this drastically changes the safety of the school and surrounding area.
I am also concerned about the impact this will have on housing prices for existing houses. Realtors andhousing price evaluators have agreed that changing the zoning to high density housing will have anegative influence on existing neighborhoods including Figgins Addition.
My final concern is the recurring discussion about a need for student housing leading to this changefrom zone 1 to zone 4. We have the REMU zone as well as several plots near the University alreadyzoned for high density. According to the reports I've seen, this more than covers the housing needsexpected for the university for years. We do not need to change zoning here.
Overall, I think the negative impacts of changing the zoning for the Campus Crest area far outweighsthe positive impact. Since I do not see evidence of an imperative need that would counter this, Istrongly oppose this change.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sarah Stanley
From:Sandi N
To:Agenda
Subject:FW: Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:57:28 PM
From: Sandi Nichols 1308 Alder Creek Dr. Bozeman, MT
59715
February 22, 2014
Dear Mayor Jeff Krauss, Deputy Mayor Carson Taylor, and
Comissioners Chris Mehl, Cynthia
Andrus and I-Ho Pomeroy,
I am writing to have my name counted among our neighbors opposing the
proposed zoning change for the parcel to the West of Figgins and
South of the Stadium, Campus Crest ZMA Z13268. There are many
reasons, most of which you have received in detailed,
technically supported letters from residents that live near the parcel.
Safety for the school children and children who live in the
neighborhoods is of prime concern. It just takes increased traffic, a
person in a vehicle not paying attention or in a hurry, and a youngster
stepping out from between parked cars that can result in tragedy.
Pushing through Arnold to a new high density development, will make
that scenario more of a possibility. Increased density, traffic, and
congestion near the schools is a huge negative to consider.
Then there's safety for the local residents and their families. By
putting a large party village near the schools and neighborhoods will
result in more crime and accidents. Walkers and children on their way
to school will see an increase of beer cans, bottles, cigarette butts and
condoms along the already existing pathways. And those pathways lead
directly into the surrounding neighborhoods..... College students are
active and will be using the paths and trails, and that poses a danger to
children on the trails as they become more congested with fast moving
bicycles. Putting a large community of college students (being
encouraged to party) next to a grade school seems totally absurd and
very unfortunate to me.
The proposed development has not indicated that they will be renting
just to MSU students (at least I haven't seen that), so characters that
want to move in for the parties and to meet the young men and women
living there and to hang out on campus might move in as well. Will the
management do criminal background checks on all who want to live
there? We have recently been seeing more rape cases that are
happening near or on campus....even to the extent of a high-priced man-
hunt. In reading through the documents presented to the City
Commission, there have been numerous criminal occurrences at other
similar developments around the country--owned by those proposing to
develop Campus Crest.
It occurs to me that those who did the traffic study either weren't
thinking or were trying to be underhanded when they did the counts on
the day before Thanksgiving. We can't seriously believe those
numbers as representative of the congestion and lines of cars on South
3rd! And then the addendum.....how many hours did they do the
counts? At what times? Only one hour in the a.m. and one hour in the
p.m.? And the write-ups show increased delays measured in
seconds!!!!! More truthful would be increased delays measured in
minutes! I end up sitting at the Kagy-S 3rd intersection thru several
light changes during the busy times (which include 4 different periods
during the day). Not only will Kagy, S 3rd, Arnold and 11th be impacted,
but so will Willson and Church, and of course 19th.
Because I can, I avoid driving in and out during the hours that children
are travelling to and from school, and during early-morning and after-
work rush hours. It is very difficult to make the left turns on to S
3rd when there are hoards of parents in their SUV's jockying for
position to pick up their kids. And many residents living South of Kagy,
clear to Hyalite and beyond use S 3rd as their main artery to come and
go from home. There is an abundance of congestion and traffic on S
3rd and Kagy as it is. Were the additions of Stadium View and the new
dorm on campus considered in the traffic studies?! Thinking of
thousands of MSU students headed for the large parking areas, and the
new living facilities coming on line on or near campus, I would imagine it
is difficult for my neighbors to get to work in the a.m.! What a
cluster!
The proposed Campus Crest or other high density development will
indeed change the character of the neighborhoods--several
neighborhoods! See the paragraphs above for illustration. Real estate
values will decline in Figgins, Allison, Alder Creek, Westfield and other
surrounding neighborhoods. Before we purchased in Alder Creek, we
checked the zoning and surrounding ownership of the fields. We, like
the many neighbors you've heard from, trusted that that area was
going to be developed to R1 and R2 densities, with a little R3 near the
BP. After all, the planning department and Commission has been very
active in the last 2 decades to improve land use and planning in and
around town. We trusted that there would not be issues with spot
zoning in our neighborhood. To have a livable and sustainable
community, we can't turn on those who believed and invested. While
visiting neighbors living in the four blocks farthest West in Alder
Creek, I observed that at least 80% of the homes on those blocks were
occupied by young couples, more than half with young children. We all
bought because of the proximity to the schools and the quality of the
neighborhoods. In our case, we invested all we had, during the time
when building was way down; we got a good price on a lot because they
weren't selling, and hired a number of friends in the construction
industry who had no work because of the housing collapse. I wouldn't
call Alder Creek affordable housing, and those young families also gave
everything and paid a premium to live in that neighborhood, because of
family values. For most of us, we can't afford to sell and move if the
city pulls the rug out from under us. I view the Real Estate value
changes and the changes to the personalities of these neighborhoods as
a 'Taking' by the city.
There are many other options for high density student housing near
Kagy, on campus, and across 19th. There is a fair amount of R4
acreage that already exists--and with better traffic options. It is
desirable to leave the existing neighborhoods for professors, MSU
employees, and other working families. These folks, too, deserve
access to campus and downtown with nearby housing.
It does not appear that Campus Crest will benefit Bozeman with jobs,
and will most likely send profits out of state. There is a long list of
problems at other Grove developments. There is not a strong need for
this development to be located in the proposed area. There are many
reasons to show that this location is a bad choice for many long-time
Bozeman residents. Please vote against the rezoning of the 15 acre
parcel named in ZMA Z13268 to R4. And please do not approve Campus
Crest or the Grove as a Bozeman development.
Thank you, and thank you for your service to our city.
Sincerely,
Sandi Nichols
From:West
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:52:58 PM
Hello. My name is Ryan West and I have two young daughters that will attend Morningstar
elementary school. And the thought of college apartment buildings looming over the
playgrounds and crosswalks makes me a little sick to my stomach.
PLEASE vote against the rezoning of this land. Please keep our neighborhoods a pleasant
place for our children to grow up.
Sincerely,
-Ryan
19 February 2014
Rosie Wallander
2407 Westridge Dr
Bozeman, MT 59715
Dear Bozeman City Commissioners,
In reference to Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268, please do not change the zoning for the
Allison II property. My husband and I’ve been living in Figgens neighborhood for 10 years and we enjoy
our neighborhood. When I first heard about this zoning proposal I was told that “Figgens is just a bunch
of rentals anyway and who cares about them?” Later I heard that the zoning in the Allison II was “10 yrs
old” and not ‘up to date’. We are NOT a bunch of rentals, we have families living here, their children to
walk and bike to Morning Star elementary school and Sacagawea middle school. We have MSU staff and
faculty living here, they walk and bike to MSU. We also have MSU students living here, they live here
because it is a quiet neighborhood and they can study and avoid noise and distractions of apartments,
they too walk and bike to MSU. We are a great neighborhood, not a bunch of rentals.
We purchased our property with the understanding that Allison II was zoned R1, we expected single
family homes to be developed in the wheat field that is in our back yard. The zoning change in 2007 to
R2 and R3 for property nearest Opportunity Way seemed appropriate. A change to R4 high density is
too drastic. Few people realize that the building on the north side of Opportunity Way is noisy,
especially at night, equipment turns on and off all night long and more often during summer. We live
closest to that building and I hear it every night, the noise is tolerable at this distance. That noise would
be much louder for anyone living closer. Also, there is noise from traffic to and from the building, snow
removal equipment with reverse beepers at all hours of night and early morning. Sometimes they have
cleaning crews operating loud vacuums late at night. I can’t imagine anyone living across the street
from this building whether it be in an apartment or duplex or home.
The zoning change proposes to connect 11th street to Arnold street past Morning Star elementary
school. This would increase traffic on S 3rd and Kagy. People dropping their children off at Morning Star
will continue on Arnold to 11th and up to Kagy. Please don’t let Arnold connect to 11th street, this street
is already congested with school traffic every morning and evening. It would be better if 11th street
connected to Graf street, traffic from Graf and areas south of Graf can go directly to 11th and Kagy, we
need another collector street in this area to relieve stress at Kagy and 3rd. If 11th street were zoned
commercial on both sides then we’d have a good buffer area from the street noise on 11th. It would be
good to have commercial business in our neighborhood.
Another factor for this property is the MSU football stadium, the Brick Breeden Fieldhouse and all the
traffic associated with their games and events. Emergency access to the proposed development would
be difficult during these events.
Please vote against this zoning change application and look to a future that will have commercial
opportunities on 11th street serving people south of campus. Encourage a new type of housing
development that helps families and students. Houses that contain separate rental units, maybe a
finished room over a 3 car garage, or a ‘mother in law’ apartment can be rented out by a family living in
the main home. This encourages direct relationships between property owner and renter(s) – a win win
for Bozeman. This rent money stays in Bozeman community.
Finally, Campus Crest is a multinational publically traded corporation, their sole purpose is to provide
profit to their investors. Rent money and other fees they collect do not stay in Bozeman. I’ve been
looking at reviews of Campus Crest Grove communities at various campuses around the country and am
very disturbed by what I’ve read. Renters complain of cheap construction, hearing people 3 floors away.
They say the pool is never cleaned, no propane in the outdoor grill, dog feces and urine everywhere
including inside apartments, broken door locks that don’t get fixed. Students are charged extra fees,
rooms are dirty and students charged with damage that was done before they moved in. Parties at the
fire pit include open drug use. At one Grove community a gang rape. MSU students do not deserve this
treatment. Campus Crest encourages a party atmosphere – their red cup and sunglass logo implies
party and good times. Any party near campus will bring students from the real dorms and things will
escalate. The number one date rape drug is alcohol, and this company implies that it flows freely.
Please do not encourage this type of community, vote against this zoning application. Vote for a
Bozeman that has a positive healthy relationship between students and residents. Vote for a Bozeman
that allows opportunity to residents to live and grow near campus.
Please preserve our neighborhood.
Thank you very much,
I look forward to speaking with you at your next meeting,
Sincerely,
Rosie Wallander
From:Robb Diehl
To:Agenda
Subject:zoning change in south bozeman
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 11:47:24 AM
Dear Commissioners, By now the commission has certainly received numerous and variedcomments/opinions against this zoning change (Z-13268), so many that I would bechallenged to add anything original to the discussion. My bias is clear, as a residentof the surrounding area I do not wish to see this rezoning occur at the proposedlocation, the reasons for which many others will have captured. My family moved here from Hattiesburg, MS, a university town where "zoning" isnonetheless held in high distain, considered a trampling of individual rights. Theresult over time has been a mess, a patchwork of development that, while servicingthe individual, slowly degraded the community. This can happen with zoning. Viewed singly, small compromises seem innocuous but their cumulative effects onlybecome apparent after the damage is done. Robb Diehl3017 Healy Ave
Rance Harmon
2805 Secor Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
February 23, 2014
City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Bozeman City Commissioners,
My family and I live in the Figgins area of Bozeman, and I am writing in opposition of the
application for a zoning change for 15+ acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision from mostly R1 and
some R3 to R4 high-density housing.
If you do not read another word of this letter, please watch the videos at the following link to see the
possible implications of changing the zoning from mostly R1 to R4. It’s one thing to hear about the
huge violent parties and another thing to see and hear footage of the type of disturbances that could
happen if you allow this zoning change to go forward.
http://marshislandexpress.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/p
olice-break-up-huge-violent-parties-at-the-grove
I want to remind you of the Montana law outlining the requirements for zoning regulations (copied
below from http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/76/2/76-2-304.htm, accessed 2/23/3014)
76-2-304. Criteria and guidelines for zoning regulations. (1) Zoning regulations must be:
(a) made in accordance with a growth policy; and
(b) designed to:
(i) secure safety from fire and other dangers;
(ii) promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare; and
(iii) facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other
public requirements.
(2) In the adoption of zoning regulations, the municipal governing body shall consider:
(a) reasonable provision of adequate light and air;
(b) the effect on motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems;
(c) promotion of compatible urban growth;
(d) the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses; and
(e) conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout
the jurisdictional area.
History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 136, L. 1929; re-en. Sec. 5305.3, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 11-2703; amd. Sec. 17, Ch.
582, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 87, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 11, Ch. 446, L. 2009.
I have added highlights to the particular parts of the code that citizens who spoke against the
proposed zoning amendment made at the zoning commission meeting. They provided strong
evidence that the change from mostly R1 to R4 would significantly degrade qualities covered by the
following parts of the code:
(1) (b) (ii)
(2) (b)
(2) (d)
(2) (e)
The two zoning commissioners who voted against recommending the amendment spoke in terms of
the law, especially (2) (d) and (2) (e). I did not hear the two commissioners who voted to recommend
the amendment even attempt to counter the arguments that (2) (d) and 2 (e) would be degraded, but
spoke in vague terms about the need for more R4 designations. But those considerations do nothing
to refute the simple, clear fact that allowing the zoning change would degrade the character of
the surrounding neighborhoods (2) (d) and depress values of surrounding homes (2) (e).
My wife and I moved here from another part of Bozeman because the character of the neighborhood
seemed to be safe, quiet, bike and pedestrian friendly, free of traffic congestion, and comprised
predominately of single-family, owner-occupied homes, whose owners took pride in along with the
larger neighborhood as a whole. In short, it seemed like a great place to live and raise our family. In
the time we have lived here, we have found the neighborhood character to be just what we expected.
When we decided to move here, we were aware of the agricultural land just west of the neighborhood
and knew that it would likely be developed someday. We took comfort in knowing that Bozeman has
a zoning plan in place and that most of the land was zoned R1.
In short, we believed that when the agricultural land was developed, it would not significantly alter
the character of the neighborhood.
Montana State Code requires that the character of a district be considered in zoning
regulations. To permit such a radical change in zoning from mostly R1 to R4, would drastically
alter the character of the neighborhood in substantial ways:
1. Decreased property values—it is inevitable that changing the zoning from mostly R1 to R4
would significantly decrease property values in adjacent neighborhoods.
2. Less safety—the higher number of residents of the R4 development would almost certainly
commit more crimes and traffic violations than that if the tract were built out with single-
family homes. To make safety an even more critical issue, there is an elementary school
adjacent to the tract, and having a less-safe neighborhood could certainly pose an unnecessary
risk to the children who attend the school.
3. More noise— the higher number of residents of the R4 development would create
significantly more noise than if the tract were built out with single-family homes. Sources of
increased noise (compared to R1) would be more traffic, parties, and slamming car doors and
voices in parking lots from residents likely to be active at later hours and have very different
lifestyles than single-family home inhabitants.
4. More traffic—vehicle traffic from the higher number of residents of the R4 development and
their guests would mean significantly more traffic through existing neighborhoods.
Specifically, Arnold and Westridge would become de-facto collector streets, something that
would be most unsuitable in terms of the city’s own traffic plans and the characteristics of
those streets. In addition, anyone who has ever tried to make a left-turn from Arnold or
Westridge onto S. Third streets at rush hour knows how frustrating that task already is.
Increased traffic volume, would inevitably cause increased frustration for both the new and
existing residents.
5. More pollution—denser development means more air pollution from cars, fireplaces and
furnaces. Light pollution would also increase with the large, lighted parking lots and common
areas that R4 development would bring. As mentioned previously, noise pollution would
increase as well.
To exacerbate the degradation of the character of the neighborhood, changing the zoning from
mostly R1 to R4 would set up a form of incrementalism that would surely have owners of
neighboring tracts asking for zoning amendments to allow more dense housing on their land.
Once the precedent for R4 is established in the area, the neighboring lands would be less valuable as
R1 housing. Few people seeking single-family housing want to live near an R4 development. This
amendment would forever alter the character of the existing and future neighborhoods in this
part of the city.
I also believe that if granted, this zoning amendment would set a terrible precedent. The tract in
question underwent a zoning amendment just a few years ago. Does this mean that all a landowner
has to do is keep bringing up zoning amendment proposals every few years until the combination of
planning and city commissioners is right for them to get their wishes? Why would a tract of land
that was determined to be mostly R1 just a few years ago, be suddenly suitable for R4 now?
What good is city planning and zoning, if it can be changed, so radically, in such a short time span?
One of my neighbors told me that he is considering moving his family out of the neighborhood if this
amendment is allowed. My neighbor values the character of the neighborhood as it is now and is sure
that the radical changes that this zoning alteration would permit would degraded the character of the
neighborhood so much that it would no longer be a desirable place to live. If an exodus of single-
family, owner-occupants from adjacent neighborhoods takes place as a result of this zoning
amendment, it would compound and accelerate the degradation of the character of the neighborhood
caused by the zoning amendment.
I urge you to uphold the laws of Montana and vote against this radical change in zoning from mostly
R1 to R4. This amendment would allow uses that will certainly degrade property values of
surrounding homes and irrefutably degrade the character of the neighborhood. I have never seen large
violent parties, people chanting “Hell no, we won’t go” and throwing beer bottles at police officers,
people jumping off roofs, or multiple police departments called in to establish order (all very real
possibilities if this radical zoning change is allowed—please read the attached articles from news
sources that show what has happened in a Campus Crest Grove Community near the University of
Maine). Please protect our community from a similar fate by upholding the laws of Montana and
voting against this radical change in zoning.
Sincerely,
Rance Harmon
Attachments:
(1) Grove needs to clean its act up for its tenants’ sake. The Main Campus (The University of
Maine student newspaper since 1875). On Bangor Daily News website.
(http://bangordailynews.com/link/grove-needs-to-clean-its-act-up-for-its-tenants-sake/?ref=search
accessed 2/23/2014)
(2) Multiple police agencies called to Orono apartment complex The Grove 3 times in past
week, neighbor says area ‘a zoo’. On Bangor Daily News website.
( http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/02/news/bangor/multiple-police-agencies-called-to-orono-
apartment-complex-the-grove-3-times-in-past-week-neighbor-says-area-a-zoo/?ref=search accessed
2/23/2014)
The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
Opinion
Grove needs to clean its act up for its tenants’ sake
By Dodge Tucker
Posted on Nov. 19, 2012, at 1:53 a.m.
Imagine walking out of your apartment to see someone lying on the ground, bleeding profusely, his
eyes rolling back in his head with people surrounding him, frantically calling 911. That was the scene
I witnessed Friday night at The Grove, and that was only a part of what went down.
When you look outside and see a fire truck, ambulance, three police cruisers and security vehicles,
you know something is up, and whatever it is, it’s probably not good. I threw on some shoes and
decided to take a closer look. After passing the kid who was being tended to by EMTs at this point, I
continued to see why all the police officers were there. Out of nowhere, two kids sprinted by me as if
their lives depended on it and in not-so-hot pursuit were at least three cops who appeared very
winded. This was absolute mayhem.
I continued on when all of a sudden a door whipped open and a fight spilled out onto the sidewalk.
By now more cops had arrived and quickly responded to the fight by breaking it up and trying to cool
things down.
I eventually headed back inside, as it was getting late and I figured all of the action was over — but
no. Hearing yelling, I looked outside my bedroom window to a huge mob of cops sprinting after
someone in-between buildings.
Uncontrolled chaos was The Grove in a nutshell this past weekend. Security has been becoming more
lax and the gates haven’t been used in what seems like over a month, allowing anyone and everyone
who wants to come in and out the complete freedom to do so.
Ever since that first move-in weekend, security has had less and less of a presence in The Grove. I am
not saying that I support being questioned everywhere I go, but for the overall safety and peace of
mind of everyone living here, some sort of order needs to be maintained.
Fights and parties aren’t the only problem, however. There has been a lot of vandalism to both
buildings and cars, which has undoubtedly costs residents and The Grove management a huge
amount of money.
I was thinking to myself while I was witnessing Friday’s absurd display of debauchery that if I were a
more vulnerable person, I wouldn’t exactly feel safe walking around with brawls and foot chases left
and right. The Grove needs to figure out a way to mitigate these incidents without being too
overbearing on students’ social lives. Yes, college is supposed to be fun; but there needs to be a
healthy balance between fun and social order.
Source: The Bangor Daily News website
http://bangordailynews.com/link/grove-needs-to-clean-its-act-up-for-its-tenants-sake/?ref=search,
(accessed 2/23/2014)
Multiple police agencies called to Orono
apartment complex The Grove 3 times in past
week, neighbor says area ‘a zoo’
By Alex Barber, BDN Staff
Posted May 02, 2013, at 5:52 p.m.
Last modified May 03, 2013, at 4:32 p.m.
ORONO, Maine — Kathy Pollard remembers when her neighborhood along Park Street near the
University of Maine campus was a relatively peaceful place to live. That was before a large
apartment complex populated primarily by students opened near her house eight months ago.
“The whole ambience of this area has changed … from what was a very reasonably quiet area to a
zoo,” Pollard said Thursday at her home. “That’s the way it feels. It feels like we’re part of a zoo.”
Multiple police agencies were called to The Grove apartments on Wednesday for the third time in
less than a week to respond to disorderly conduct caused by a large crowd. Town officials are
considering ordinances to address the situation, they said.
Orono police Sgt. Scott Lajoie said a crowd of roughly 300 people gathered at The Grove on
Wednesday evening. Police officers from Orono, Bangor, Old Town, Veazie and the University of
Maine responded, as well as the Penobscot County Sheriff’s Department, Maine State Police and the
Orono Fire Department.
“Lots of drinking, hooting and hollering, people who didn’t want to leave and having a good time,”
Lajoie said on Thursday. “Apparently the staff was trying to move along the crowd from the pool
area and [they] didn’t want to go.”
Lajoie said police responded similarly to a 150-person crowd last Friday and a more than 300-person
crowd on Saturday.
The warm weather and classes ending at the University of Maine have been factors in the recent
parties at the complex, which is made up of a dozen buildings with 12 apartments in each, as well as
another eight four-bedroom units called “townhomes.” The entire facility has a 620-tenant capacity.
“We’ve had the problems since last fall,” he said. “Things seemed to quiet down a little bit, but of
course with the warmer weather and nice conditions outside, things have seemed to start back up.
Especially the pool and especially [Wednesday] where things were warm.”
The party goers have become quite rowdy recently, according to Lajoie.
“We’re starting to get a lot more pushback from the students,” he said. “Things that they’re saying
and chanting — ‘Hell no, we won’t go.’ Beer bottles being thrown at officers, those type of things.”
Pollard said the parties last well into the night, with people walking by her house at 3 or 4 a.m.
“They’re still out walking down the street screaming and hollering, etc.,” said Pollard. “Last week,
Thursday, Friday and Saturday were all quite bad.”
Several videos on YouTube of Saturday’s party show people setting off fireworks and getting into fist
fights and one man jumping off a one-story roof.
“The events that have been happening at The Grove are deeply troubling,” Orono Town Manager
Sophie Wilson said Thursday.
Jason Chuboda, spokesman for Campus Crest Community Inc., the parent company of The Grove,
said the onsite security team has worked closely with police to help disperse the large crowds.
“The safety and security of our residents is our top priority. Any individual who compromises the
safety of The Grove community will not be tolerated,” Chuboda said in an email Thursday. “As a
precautionary measure, we have retained the local police department to patrol the property during the
hours of 12 [midnight] to 3 a.m. over the next few days. This is an added measure to complement the
private security team we employ on the weekends.”
Orono’s town council met on Wednesday evening and discussed ways to help combat the issues at
The Grove.
“We gave the council an update on the large disorderly events that police have been responding to,”
said Wilson. “They talked about what resources we had available to us and the council brainstormed
some ideas. We talked about town ordinances and what may or may not be relevant for these
circumstances.”
Lajoie said his department has not made an arrest or given a summons in the last three responses to
The Grove because of safety concerns.
“Unfortunately, it becomes a safety and manpower issue,” he said. “Say you have 20 officers trying
to clear out a group of 300 that are being disorderly and chanting and throwing beer bottles at you.
You’re looking out for your safety and everyone else’s safety rather than trying to find violations and
make arrests. The biggest goal is to disperse the crowd and move everybody along.”
Lajoie said officers give a two-minute warning for the crowd to disperse. After two minutes are up,
the officers line up side by side and march toward the crowd. Nobody was hurt at the three parties, he
said.
However, the police department’s patience is wearing thin, he said.
“[We’re] getting very tired of it,” said Lajoie. “We’re absorbing a lot of overtime lately. Obviously, it
takes time away from family, friends and other activities for officers. It also takes away from us
covering the rest of the town. The Grove is one small part of the town of Orono. If all of our
resources are tied up there, we’re not able to adequately protect and serve the rest of the town of
Orono, which isn’t fair to the rest of the people who live here.”
Pollard said she is constantly awakened at night when the parties happen. It hasn’t always been that
way.
“It’s always been very normal and very reasonably quiet and a good place to live,” said Pollard.
“Having The Grove here is destroying that to the extent we don’t get sleep here for nights and nights
and nights on end because of the level of disturbance.”
Contributing to the disturbances is the fact that police can’t regularly patrol the area like other roads
because The Grove is on private property.
“We’re trying to be as proactive as we can. However, with it being private property, we do have to
work with the property owners. That’s our biggest challenge,” said Lajoie.
The Grove experienced similar large parties soon after it opened in September. The complex also has
been plagued by problems including electrical outages and mold.
Lajoie said most of the residents in The Grove are cooperative and appreciate when police break up
the parties.
“As usual, it’s 10 percent of the people who cause 90 percent of the problem,” he said. “There are
plenty of good people who live up in The Grove. Unfortunately, it’s the few rabble rousers that cause
the problem for everyone.”
Source: The Bangor Daily News website
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/02/news/bangor/multiple-police-agencies-called-to-orono-
apartment-complex-the-grove-3-times-in-past-week-neighbor-says-area-a-zoo/?ref=search (accessed
2/23/2014)
From:Rain Houser
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:16:07 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Alder Creek on the South side of Bozeman. I chose Alder Creek as my neighborhoodto raise my children ages 2 and 6 months. The schools in our neighborhood are considered by many asthe best elementary and middle schools in Bozeman. I wonder if this acclaim will continue when collegestudents are drinking and driving, texting and speeding by the school.
I'd imagine that as an educated professional you most likely went to university and I'd imagine that youlike every other student were a bit rowdy a few times durning your higher education years. I am surethat there were some things that you may have done that you'd not want your parents to havewitnessed? But what about your children? Do you think that elementary aged children should add acollege apartment complex a hundred feet away to their list of things to be curious about. Should theybe influenced, little sponges that they are, by the goings ons in this apartment complex? And what if,god forbid, one of these college students get drunk in the middle of the day or stays up all night anddrives home around 8 am and kills one of these children that live in this child friendly neighborhood?Will the person that decided to rezone this residential area across the creek from a elementary schoolbe responsible? Will that commissioner, board member or whomever that thought it was a great idea toadd this high density area slated for a student housing project next to an elementary school go to thehouse of the child to tell their parent that they were really sorry that money influenced them to makethis zoning decision and that their child is dead because of it? If the city commissioner will take everyresponsibility for all the effects this decision will have on the current residents and everything thatoccurs in the current R 1 zoning adjacent to it then so be it. I will be sure to have my home appraisedand I will be sure to send that person the bill when the value of my house falls, or when theunregistered pedafiel sits on his balcony across from the elementary school decides that this is a goodday to snatch a child because they are right there where should we send the parents to thank theperson responsible for rezoning their quiet little family neighborhood. Please be sure to send the nameof this person that will take the responsibility for changing this residential R1 area to an R 4 rezonedarea.
The initial reaction of this community I am sure is "not in my backyard" however what the real point ofthe matter is that hundreds of people are against rezoning a small plot of land but yet money powerand greed will be the deciding factor and a vote of a few people that clearly are not for the communitywill allow an R 1 area to be rezoned to a higher density area right next to a school! I get that this couldhappen especially in political areas like California and NYC but in Bozeman? Come on isn't this why weall live here, for the quality of life? Am I to understand that Bozeman is no longer about quality of lifebut the new mantra is something along the lines of "show me the money?" I certainly hope the votersuse their conscience, along with their intellect when making this decision...and sadly we have to sayswe all think if this was an election year we know how the vote would go... For my sake and mychildren's I hope that the people that I've allowed to make decisions for me as public servants are thevoice for the people especially since so many have written, shown up and made certain that theirelected officials know how they stand on this issue.
Thank you,Eraina Houser3195 Gardenbrook lane, Bozeman
Sent from my iPad
________________________________The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is forthe intended addressee ONLY. Any electronic files that are transmitted are for your use and informationonly and are not intended as official documents issued by PEARSON DESIGN GROUP, INC. The recipient
user bears the responsibility to check these files against the corresponding signed and sealed drawingsand specifications (if applicable). Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of
this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediatelyand delete this message.
From:David and Rachel Rockafellow
To:Agenda
Subject:No to rezoning near Morning Star School...
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 10:23:38 PM
I am writing in support of the neighbors who live near Morning Star School who do not wish to see thezoning changed to allow high-density student housing. They bought their homes because of the zoningin place, and to change it now is unfair. Please do not change the zoning near Morning Star School.
Sincerely,Rachel Rockafellow1202 S. Spruce Dr.Bozeman, MT 59175
From:Pippin Wallace
To:Agenda
Subject:I strongly oppose ZMA Z13268 because ...
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:20:26 PM
There are over 200 acres in parcels near MSU that are already zoned for high
density. It is wrong to burden the established single family neighborhoods with this
rezoning with the REMU and plans by MSU for even more housing. Even before the
REMU was approved, there was enough appropriately zoned high density parcels for
several thousand beds - enough to meet demand for years to come. With the
approval of the REMU, the supply is far beyond demand.
Another note is that this track being so close to one of the only Blue Ribbon schools
in the state, does an injustice to the school as well as community members
who would like to live in a family based neighborhood next to this award winning
school. Not only will the character of the remaining Allison lands be diminished but
also the surrounding family based neighborhoods.
Please do not outweigh the concerns of your community for the profits of few
businesses! You have seen this community come together over this issue because
that is what we are, a community. This issue pits pits a strong community against a
strong business. The business is sounds but their choice of locations begs the
question of fit and from the outcry the answer should be clear that this is location is
not the right fit.
Thank you for your time.
Pippin Wallace
3226 Summerset
Bozeman
From:Peter Scherfig
To:Agenda
Subject:regarding the Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:05:19 AM
Dear Bozeman City Commission:
We urge you to deny the zoning amendment requested by Campus Crest for the 16 acres
located south of MSU.
Having lived in Gallatin Valley since 1980 and in Figgins subdivision since 1998, we
understand the growth that Bozeman is experiencing, and understand that sometimes
zoning changes are necessary. However, in this case, it is not necessary to change the
current R1 zoning to R4.
First, there is not a need for R4 development on this property because there are other
nearby properties already zoned for this kind of development which are sufficient for the
projected growth of MSU.
Second, and contrary to the planning staff report, this type of development on this property
will adversely affect the quality of life for the surrounding R1 neighborhoods. It will also
lower the value of those properties.
Currently, this part of town is zone R1 and we believe it is in the best interest of Bozeman to
provide more R1 development in this area. There are neighborhood schools for families.
Many professors and other MSU employees live with their children in these neighborhoods.
As MSU grows, it is important to continue providing neighborhoods for families which allow
them to walk and bike to school, MSU, and downtown.
Lastly, a zoning change from R1 to R4 will set a precedent for the surrounding undeveloped
properties and make it more likely that future high density developments will be approved.
It is your duty to preserve the current zoning because it is the best use for this property.
Again, we understand that many needs must be balanced as Bozeman grows. However, we
hope that you will agree that amending the zoning of this property will decrease the overall
livability of the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as all of Bozeman.
Respectfully,
Peter and Katie Scherfig
3025 Healy Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:Patricia Cline
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 2:13:14 PM
Dear city commissioners,
This is a bad idea on the basis of this alone. If the company is saying 600 people will be living in
this apt. complex, than you can count on 800. I have 2 college student daughters. Their friends rent
out their garages, couches, and any other spare inch of their apartments because of the cost of renting
their own apartment. 800 cars in that small area is a night mare waiting to happen.
Please vote No on this.
Patty Cline
3129 Gardenbrook Lane
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:nwhcor@gmail.com
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 3:07:17 PM
Please note my strong opposition toward the location of campus housing within established residentialneighborhoods.
Zoning ordinances should have more integrity than to bend at the whim of every experiencedcommercial developer, who are typically only here to make a profit and then head on to the nextgullible city.
Owen S.
From:N8houser
To:Agenda
Subject:: R4 zoning
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31:52 PM
>
> I, like most others, oppose the proposed zoning changes next to the middle school. The elementaryschool is my main concern, but certainly not the only one.> There have been several arguments made against changing existing zoning, with only a few forchanging it.> Arguments for changing the zoning state: " Well, we need R4 somewhere..."> The cat is out of the bag as far as what will go in there. Does that mean that if there is enoughmoney and approval from the college, any zoning is fair game? What about the money the surroundingfamilies will lose in property values? Or is that money the city or college doesn't see so it's ignored?> It baffles me that 2 of the 4 zoning committee board members voted for this, when NOT ONEresident was for it at the meeting. We as residents and families absolutely have better things to dothan argue that our city board members stick to their zoning decisions that have been made only a fewyears ago. There are problems with Bozeman, this will add to them.> One person ( allegedly ) for it is our ( elected ) mayor. If this was an election year, this proposalwould have been rejected and forgotten about by now.> There have been many arguments by very informed neighbors that should not be ignored and everyreason "for" has been rebutted by an equal or stronger reason for a " nay ". With this strong of opposition, how does one arrive at an approval?
Do the right thing Bozeman.
Nathan HouserAlder Creek
From:Nancy Tanner
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 7:30:34 PM
Importance:High
To the City Commissioners,
I would like to add my voice to the conversation in opposition to the Campus Crest Zone map
amendment Z13268.
Our family has lived in the Figgins subdivision for 12.5 years. We chose this neighborhood because it
was a family neighborhood surrounded by potential growth of other family neighborhoods. This was
a factor in buying our home where we did, to raise our children, and attend the schools close to us.
MSU has a 10 year plan that indicates future student and employee housing, on campus, that would
be adequate and fulfill the need for future growth. And this growth is on campus where it simply
makes sense.
The area in question for possible re-zoning sits next to well-established family neighborhoods,
Morning Star Elementary, and Sacajawea Middle School. Adding a 600 bedroom, 1,200 bed student
facility does not in any way enhance the lives of those who already live here, work here, and are
raising children here. Re-zoning an area that already has appropriate zoning for the area would be a
bad move and in no way fit with a health city growth plan. A healthy growth plan should take into
consideration the neighborhoods already in existence.
I urge the commission to turn down the request for zoning changes.
Nancy Tanner and Tom Meuwissen
3020 Secor Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is
active.
From:Nancy Kelly
To:Agenda
Subject:Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 9:12:16 AM
City Commissioners,
As a 30-year resident of the Figgins Subdivision I am writing to express myopposition to the amendment of the zoning plan for our family neighborhood. Anytime exceptions are made that negatively impact the lifestyles, investments andfuture viability of a community, they break the trust of the community you wereelected to represent. High density housing and single family housing are polaropposites. In no universe can the two successfully exist. Families are going to takea hit, our property values will plummet and our neighborhood will bear the brunt ofsuch a decision.
I'm sure when the city developed and approved the zoning plan, you had theforesight to set aside areas for high density housing. It is my sincere hope CampusCrest will be directed to one of those locations.
Thank you.
Nancy Kelly2709 Langohr Ave.
From:Nancee Beebe
To:Agenda
Subject:statement for tonight Feb 24 meeting to City commission
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 9:26:19 AM
We live at 1327 Cherry drive and strongly oppose the High density rezoning there are over 200 acres
in many parcels near MSU that are already zoned for high density.
if this is passed it would be very unsightly like all the apartment and townhouses pass the mall and
down on Durston several people I knew that lived there have moved but said it was the bad side of
town. The newer townhouses across from Museum of the Rockies is done very well and in small
grouping to do another high density is not what people want to see it ruins property values and it
changes the overall look of Bozeman forever.
Nancee and Larry Beebe
1327 Cherry Dr
Bozeman
From:Nan
To:Agenda
Subject:Zoning
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:35:15 PM
Please do not rezone the Morning Star area for student housing. If zones can be changed after theyhave been set, then why zone?The people who bought in that area bought with the zoning in place andit should be honored.NanBrandenbergerpayne128 Erik 59715
Sent from my iPad
From:Missey Dore
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Application Z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 8:03:04 PM
February 21, 2014
Dear City Commissioners,
Below is a letter outlining my concerns regarding the proposed zoning change near Morning Star
Elementary School. Since I wrote my original letter, the Bozeman Chronicle published an op-ed
against the proposed zoning change, the city approved a large acreage near the university for REMU
purposes, and I attended the zoning commission meeting on February 4.
My concerns about the rezoning remain, and my confusion about this rush for student housing in
this particular area has increased. I do not understand the reasoning behind rezoning the 16 acres
adjacent to Morning Star Elementary when other land is available. I can only conclude that there is
substantial pressure from some anonymous source to get this project done. At the February 4th
meeting, I appreciated the thorough and respectful discussion of the four Zoning Commissioners,
Trever McSpadden, George Thompson, Julien Morice and Erik Garberg. However, I heard only
Commissioners Thompson and Morice specifically address the MCA 76-2-304 criteria in their
remarks. In fact, I remember Commissioner Morice referencing the criteria from points A-H in
order. I do not recall Zoning Commissioners McSpadden nor Garberg using those codified criteria in
their arguments; rather, their commentary focused almost solely upon a need for R-4 zoning in the
Montana State University area. In my opinion, their responses were unduly narrow in focus.
I ask that you, City Commissioners, take a broad view of this important decision and base your
decisions upon the MCA 76-2-304, the Community Growth Plan and the public sentiment of the
neighbors of this proposed rezoning. You are elected officials, and you work to serve the public
trust. Please listen to the people:
Mary S. (Missey) Dore
64 Hitching Post Rd,
Bozeman. MT 59715
City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 1239
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
January 26, 2014
Dear Zoning Commission,
It was with great alarm and incredulity that I learned a proposal was underway to
drastically change the neighborhood where I teach and my son attends school. I am
a teacher at Morning Star Elementary, and my son, Calvin, is a 4th grader there.
I am writing in reference to the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268.
Currently, the land is question is an open field. My students and I certainly enjoy the
view from our classroom window. We often gaze at falling snow and watch geese
and ravens flock there. We also utilize the Gallagator Trail as a study site for our
Environments Science unit, and additionally, we cross country ski there in the winter.
However, my concern is not just sadness at losing open space, a beautiful view and
enrichment for my students, but rather in the manner in which it will be transformed.
I understand Bozeman is growing and incoming people need housing. While I did not
know the specific land ownerships and plans (until recently), I figured the land would
be developed in line with the character of the community. Around the other sides of
Morning Star are single family homes. In those neighborhoods one also finds small
play areas and green spaces such as Jarrett Park and the Allison Subdivision Park at
11th
To allow high density R4 zoning, directly northwest of Morning Star School, would, in
effect, destroy the family character in the area. My impression is that Morning Star
parents—and I am one of that fortunate group--value and cherish this neighborhood
that promotes a safe and child-centered environment.
Zoning of this area was under question in 2007, and at that time, the City of Bozeman
Zoning Commission determined that a R1 single family residential designation was
appropriate. What has changed? It seems to me that others areas of Bozeman have
changed but not this neighborhood. Indeed, its character and atmosphere have only
become more clearly defined and broadly recognized as family oriented. Therefore,
new development in this area should reflect the character, indeed the culture of the
surrounding area. I imagine city planning takes these considerations into account
when formulating the parameters of future growth. Please note these considerations
in this case.
I hope you also consider my personal concerns as both a parent and a teacher. They
center on safety for my son, my students and myself. If a high density population
zoning designation is approved so close to Morning Star, many more people will
reside in close proximity to the school. Such a large increase in people will likely
result in more crime and most certainly will result in more traffic. Both of these results
are dangerous for children, especially curious and impressionable youngsters of
elementary age. For myself, I am concerned about my personal safety after hours at
school. I often work after dark and also come to my classroom on weekends,
sometimes at night. At these times, I am almost always alone. I will not do this as
readily or at all with a high density population a few hundred feet away. Moreover, I
know other teachers work such hours. If you read a recent article about Morning Star
(The Bozeman Chronicle November 6, 2013, “Morning Star School strives to get kids
actively learning”) you’ll note that teachers often work until 9:00 p.m. I know, for my
part, that I will not be so inclined to stay late when I have personal safety concerns on
my mind.
The issue before you, City of Bozeman Zoning Commission, is whether to alter
current zoning from R1, single family residential to R4 high density population
housing for a tract of land a few hundred feet northwest of Morning Star School.
While you are poring over the information presented to you in this decision and most
certainly before you arrive at a decision, I encourage the commission to visit this
neighborhood and Morning Star School because the family-oriented, safe, respectful
and friendly feeling is palpable. As a former principal remarked, “When you walk in
here you feel how special this place is.”
Thank you very much for your time and effort as you conduct your important work as
stewards of Bozeman.
Aloha,
Missey Dore
From:Michele Grabbe
To:Agenda
Subject:Tonight"s Meeting
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 11:12:11 AM
I came before you several weeks back asking for Bozeman to adopt a non discrimination
ordinance. Since then, I have asked a few friends a week to come and ask for one, if they
really felt we needed one. I just asked as a Mom. I have no other agenda.
I found out last night that the Family Foundation has sent a mass email asking folks to come
to your meeting tonight and wear white and speak against the ordinance.
I have asked the 2 people who had planned to speak for the ordinance to wait until next
week. We just want to respect your time, as tonight will already be a very busy meeting
without discussing something not even on the agenda.
Thank you for all that you do!! You are appreciated!
Michele Grabbe
From:Marty Glynn
To:Agenda
Subject:Rezoning
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:29:02 PM
I strongly oppose the rezoning from R1 to R4. Martin Glynn, 417 W. Spring creek Dr. Bozeman, MT,59715
Sent from my iPad
From:Cameron
To:Agenda
Subject:no rezoning for campus crest
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:49:46 PM
City commission,
I oppose the proposed development and rezoning for Campus Crest. This would
drastically change the character of the neighborhood. This change would ruin the
neighborhood and completely change the character of this family oriented neighborhood,
the Campus Crest mascot says it all (red keg cup with sunglasses). You wouldn't want this
next to your house would you? Please don't turn this into a town we don't want to live in.
Martha Fayen
1109 S. Pinecrest ave.
Bozeman, MT
From:Marsha Paulson
To:Agenda
Subject:NO on ZONING Z-13268
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 11:24:13 AM
Please count my NO vote for the re-zoning of the area behind Morning Star School. This is a
RESIDENTIAL area – a NICE neighborhood! Let’s keep it that way!
Thank you.
Marsha Paulson
Marsha Paulson, MBA
Senior Vice President
BioScience Laboratories, Inc.
1765 South 19th
Bozeman, MT 59718
406-587-5735 X 115
www.biosciencelabs.com
mpaulson@biosciencelabs.com
BioScience Laboratories - EXPERIENCE SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE WITH MONTANA HOSPITALITY
This e-mail and any attachments are for authorized use by the intended recipient(s) only. They may contain proprietary material or confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. They should not be copied, disclosed to, or used by any other party. If you have reason to believe that
you are not one of the intended recipients of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by
reply e-mail and immediately delete this e-mail and any of its attachments. Thank you.
From:Mark L. Taper
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268"
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:14:43 PM
As a long time resident of the University Neighborhood, I oppose rezoning the land near Morning Starschool to R-4 for a number of reasons:
1) Even if legal, if breaks the city's compact with residents who purchased houses in good faith in anarea zoned for single family houses. Does zoning mean anything or not?2) Violation of the zoning compact aside, building the complex is a bad idea. That concentration ofstudents is an invitation to disaster. Adolescent stupidity feeds on adolescent stupidity. I have seenstudent housing complexes like the proposed one in other cities, and they are never pretty.3)The company running the complex has a checkered history. There is no reason to assume they willbe anymore effective in Bozeman than they have been elsewhere.4) The proximity to Morning Star is dangerous. There will be drug dealers there, as there are in theMSU dorms and every university dorm in the country.5)Ideally, students should be dispersed throughout Bozeman's neighborhoods, but if high densityprojects are necessary, The University should build and manage more dorms.
Please do not do this terrible thing. -- Mark L. Taper: Environmental & Ecological Analysis(406) 451-9542
Department of Ecology Department of Biology310 Lewis Hall 220 Bartram HallMontana State University University of FloridaBozeman, Montana Gainesville, Florida
Errors like straws upon the surface flow:Who would search for pearls must dive below. -Jon Dryden (1631-1700)
From:Prugh
To:Agenda
Subject:Zoning amendment
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:49:44 PM
I oppose zone amendment changes before the commission re: ZMA Z13268.I don't live in or near an adjacent neighborhood. This letter hasnothing to do with my back yard. But it does have to do with thecommunity where I have lived for 40 years. There is no need for more high density zoning. There are over 200acres in many parcels near MSU that are already zoned for high density. It is wrong to burden our neighborhoods with the lack of planning andforesight on the part of developers and property owners who failed tokeep up with demand. Even before the REMU was approved, there wasenough appropriately zoned high density parcels for several thousandbeds - enough to meet demand for years to come. With the approval ofthe REMU, the supply is far beyond demand.
We boast about our wonderful city and all the terrific amenities andyet to put an R4 zone change at this location would substantiallychange the quality of lives for all the neighbors immediately to the Sand E of this proposed zone change. Then there is the poorly plannedtraffic impact that affects us all. Please vote NO to the zoneamendment change request. This particular acreage would be perfect forfamily housing for professors and young first time home buyers if keptas an R-1 zone. Thank you. Lisa Prugh
From:linda larsen
To:Agenda
Subject:stop proposed zoning change
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:44:56 PM
I do not want a high density development built near the elementary school!!! I think this is
dangerous for many reasons-traffic congestion, chance of injury to young children, crime near the
grade school!
There are no streets going through on 11th, 15th, or 19th streets-no matter what the city maps may
show!! Please drive by and check for yourselves! Those streets where supposed to be completed
before the grade school and middle school were built. How can I trust what is being said now?
There are NO streets to support that many apartment units. You cannot shunt them all down
Arnold Street past the grade school to South 3rd, whch is considered a residential street, thus the 25
mile an hour speed limit! And the other way going west will cause Arnold Street to become a
raceway.
I do not feel obligated to provide housing for MSU when they have plenty of land upon which to
build student housing-which is in fact in their development plans! I do not feel it is necessary to
change zoning in an area when that high density zoning land is already available in the city limits that
has not yet been developed!
Thank you for considering these points.
Linda Larsen 406-581-5023
Plus, I have researched and found nothing good to be said about this Campus Crest Communities,
LLC. Why do you not want to believe what other cities are saying about their projects?
From:Laura Grochowski
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:14:05 PM
2/21/14
To Whom It May Concern,
I am strongly opposed to rezoning the farmland south of Opportunity Way and east of
S. 11th Avenue in order to build "The Grove." The project proposed by Campus
Crest is not suitable for that site. At your February 3rd meeting, the commissioners
supported the proposed "Stadium View Apartments;" that should satisfy the housing
requirements. An additional project would be 'too much, too soon.'
Thank you for your consideration,
Laura E. Grochowski
"Creating a favorable first impression ... with living plants"
Laura E. Grochowski
The Foliage Company
Post Office Box 10307
Bozeman, MT 59719
Phone/Fax: 406.522.7076
Cell: 406.581.2526
Email: laura@foliageco.com
Website: www.foliageco.com
From:Larry Minkoff
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 1:13:40 PM
My wife and I are writing again to confirm our opposition to the proposed rezoningof this property from R1 to R4. We have lived in Westridge for 20 years and sentour kids through Morning Star and Sac. This is truly a special neighborhood andwouid NOT be enhanced by high density housing and all the other elements thatsuch zoning brings inevitably. Moreover, as we have followed this discussion in thepapers and in meetings, it has become abundantly clear that there are numerousother areas surrounding the campus which are already zoned for high density andcan readily accommodate the alleged ENORMOUS and SUDDEN influx of students toMSU. This is so clearly a greedy land grab that it warrants complete denialregardless of whether it meets the lax "zone change" standards. The developersmerely want to "get in first" and dominate the market in the short term. As othermore well-thought out and better developed properties come on line, Campus Crestwill be shown to be a slapdash, cheaper product that will attract a strugglingclientele NOT students.
Finally, HAS ANYONE EVER SIMPLY STATED AND SHOWN HOW THISDEVELOPMENT AND ZONE CHANGE WILL ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE INTHE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD?
This is not simply a NIMBY issue. It is about avarice and outsiders looking to makea quick buck under the guise of improving the "community."
Sincerely, Larry & Vickie Minkoff
From:mary martin
To:Agenda
Cc:mary martin
Subject:Bozeman City Commission/ZMA Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 2:38:24 PM
Dear Bozeman City Commissioners,
Reference: Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
We are writing to you today to add our voice and thoughts in strong opposition to ZMA Z13268
that is appearing on your agenda Monday, February 24, 2014. As property owners in Figgins Subdivision (We havelived at 3010 Erwin Ave. for over 26 years), we DO NOT want the property in question to be re-considered from R1 zoningfor single family homes to R4 zoning of high density dwellings.
It is our belief that the R1 zoning is most appropriate for our area and that there is a need tomaintain that zoning for future single family dwellings in this part of the city. There are already plenty of largeparcels of land that are close to MSU that have the type of zoning already in place for high/higher densitydwelling WITHOUT this type of change under consideration.
PLEASE VOTE NO FOR ZMAZ13268! THERE IS NO LOGICAL NEED TO REZONE THIS
LAND!
Best regards,
Larry and Mary Martin
3010 Erwin Ave.Figgins SubdivisionBozeman, MT 59715
From:Larry Minkoff
To:Agenda
Subject:CaMPUS crest
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:21:10 PM
With 500 bed units already approved for Stadium View and MSU building another400 bed dorm, why all the rush to pile in even MORE housing? Why not GO SLOWand develop properties that already have access to collector streets? And whatabout the 22 acres between Kagy and Lincoln which would have virtually no trafficimpact. Or all the acreage abutting the MSU Tech Park to the west and south?
You will be reviled and viewed as laughingstocks if you approve this farcical moneygrab. These are NOT the type of constituents you want turning against you. Weknow how to organize and campaign. Ask Rehberg n Burnett how they did aroundhere recently. Daines is up next in the cage.
Forget the "niceties" and "legalities" of zoning change regulations, et al. You knowthis is bogus. Nut up and block it.
Larry & Vickie Minkoff
From:VINCENT EGBERT
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA 13268
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:30:45 PM
To:City Comissioners,I am unable to attend Monday's meeting when the re-zoning of the field South of campus Next toMorning Star School will be considered. I submit my opinion via this email that you NOT change theparcel from R-1 to high density R-4. My concern is not just for the neighboring property owners andthe effect it might have on their values but the impact of mixing that number of students in a growingfamily area. My other concern is that already a 400 bed and another 500 bed development has alreadybeen approved, Do we honestly need another 600 beds? Is it not conceivable that at some point therewill be a glut of 1st year housing, as most of us know , by sophomore year most students are lookingto live in independent homes away from the campus .
I urge you to decline the request for re-zoning
SincerelyLBolton1305 s Willson AveBozeman,my
Sent from my iPad
From:Deborah Kimball
To:Agenda
Subject:Re zoning
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 12:46:14 PM
I strongly oppose the zoning change that is being considered for the proposed Campus Crestdevelopment. I live on south third and the impact of increased traffic on a now very busy north/southartery will make the congestion on the street unbearable and dangerous. I walk along the ped laneduring the day and night and the amount of traffic load it carries now is borderline dangerous. Pleasevote no to the request for a zoning change.Thank you
Deborah KimballWilliam Robinson2308 south 3rd Ave406-586-8510
From:Kevin O
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 8:22:39 AM
To: Bozeman City Commission
Re: Campus Crest ZMAZ13268 - Rezoning of the land near Morningstar Elementary School
Please do NOT change the zoning of this land. This is not the right location for a high density
development. There are several other land options that are better suited for the
construction of student housing.
Kevin Oliver
From:kerry reif
To:Agenda
Subject:Re Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 9:30:36 AM
Commissioners:
It is my understanding that zoning exists to promote growth in an orderly proscribedmanor. Although small exemptions will always be needed, the change in zoningfrom single family to a large student housing project is NOT this. It is very unfair tothe many families that purchased homes in an already zoned single family area. Please vote against the Campus Crest proposal.
Kerry Reif90 Trails End RdBozeman, Mt 59715
From:Julie
To:Agenda
Subject:Proposed Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment ZMA Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:25:35 PM
I wanted to voice my concern about the proposed zoning amendment for the Campus Crest
project. I reside on the south side of Bozeman just off of South Third and within walking
distance of this proposed project. My children attended Morning Star School. I do not
support the proposed zoning amendment. The homeowners in the area, particularly those
whose land is very close or will adjoin this project, bought their residences in large part
knowing what that the areas adjacent to them were zoned single family residential. A
change of the zoning will impact their property values negatively and change the character
of the area.
This area of Bozeman is for families, particularly those with young children. It is not
appropriate for a high density apartment project for college kids. The proximity of it to
Morning Star Elementary School is concerning. The school needs neighborhoods of families
with children surrounding it. A college apartment complex simply doesn't fit with character
of the neighborhood. One apartment buildings with 10-12 units would be ok but not a
development for 600 students.
Bozeman does need apartment housing for its growing college student population but it
needs to be in an area better suited for it. Thank you.
Julie Bennett
juliebennett1@hotmail.com
From:jdore@q.com
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 5:30:37 PM
23 February, 2014
Bozeman City Commission
Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Members of the Bozeman City Commission,
I am writing, as I did to the Zoning Commission, to express my opposition to the proposed
zoning change for the Allison Phase II (Alder Creek) area from R1 to R4. Although I do not
reside in that neighborhood, my son attends and my wife teaches at Morning Star School;
hence, I have a vested interest in the safety, character and development of its surroundings.
My opposition to the proposed zoning change is based on three major points:
1) Montana Code Annotated 2013 Sec. 76-2-304 (2) (d) states that: “In the adoption of
zoning regulations, the municipal governing body shall consider the character of the
district and its particular suitability for particular uses.” Clearly, the suitable uses for
the area in question were previously considered, resulting in its present R1
(Residential Single Household Low Density) zoning. It is up to the landowner and
proposed developer to present a COMPELLING argument as to why the R1
designation is no longer appropriate, and how high-density R4 zoning would be more
consistent with the character of the district. To my knowledge, no such argument
has been forthcoming from them.
2) The proposed rezoning is being requested by the landowner (Bon Ton) and the
developer (Campus Crest) for the stated purpose of building a 16-acre very high-
density housing project for students attending Montana State University (MSU). Such
large, dense aggregations of young adults are incubators for irresponsible collective
behaviors that should not be allowed to occur anywhere near elementary school
children. You only need do a quick internet search of the term “Campus Crest” to
find articles from city newspapers across the country documenting that this
developer’s projects have no special immunity from such irresponsible group
dynamics.
3) Any change to district zoning designations should not be made lightly, and certainly
not without compelling public need. The developer is in the business of building
student housing complexes in locations where a strong market for them is perceived
to exist. MSU has suffered recent student housing shortages due to increased
undergraduate enrollment. However, MSU also recently opened a new dorm on
campus, and it is unclear what level of additional housing is actually going to be
needed in coming years. In addition, MSU student enrollment will not necessarily
keep increasing; e.g., consider that the University of Montana has had enrollment
declines while MSU has grown. Many faculty have expressed concern to MSU
administrators that continued growth in enrollment must not exceed growth in
human and campus resources (e.g., classrooms), and the administration is working to
make sure that future growth will not proceed unbridled. Therefore, a rush to
change existing City of Bozeman zoning to accommodate potential MSU enrollment
growth would be imprudent at this time.
Thank you for considering my opinion on this most important matter.
Best Regards,
Dr. John E. Dore
64 Hitching Post Rd
Bozeman, MT 59715
jdore@q.com
Jim and Suzanne Bratsky
521 W. Arnold
Bozeman, MT 59715
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Bozeman City Commission Members:
We live in Figgins subdivision and we are writing to oppose the application for a zoning change
for 15+ acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision from mostly R1 and some R3 to R4 density
housing.
The proposed zone map amendment is not in compliance with several of Montana Code 76-2-
304: Criteria and Guidelines for Zoning Regulations, and therefore should not be approved by
the City of Bozeman Commissioners.
First, section (2) (d) states that the zoning shall consider “the character of the district and its
peculiar suitability for particular uses”.
The area of land proposed for rezoning to high density complexes is part of a largely single
family home neighborhood (Figgins), with the property in question directly adjacent to Morning
Star Elementary School. The school is the focal point of the family neighborhood. If zoning was
allowed to be dramatically changed to principally R4, the character of the community would be
drastically altered by changing the demographics to a largely college student rental community.
This goes directly against section (2) (d) of the code by significantly altering the character of the
district and changing its suitability as a single family neighborhood. Our property values will be
diminished significantly also. Montana Code 76-2-304 must also be followed in accordance with
the Bozeman Growth Policy. This policy included strong public support for preservation of
existing neighborhoods. Rezoning this parcel of land is clearly not meeting that criteria or
affirming community values, a guiding principle of the growth policy. Therefore the Bozeman
City Commission should reject amendment Z13268.
Under Section (2) (b) the zoning board shall consider “the effect on motorized and non-
motorized transportation systems”.
The addition of 600 bedrooms slated for Campus Crest, in addition to the 500 planned
bedrooms in the nearby Stadium View apartment complex places a massive vehicle load on
South 11th Ave, Kagy Boulevard and Arnold St. With no collector road to South 19th this will
result in excessive vehicular traffic next to Morning Star Elementary School and through a
family neighborhood. This raises major safety issues.
“Arnold is too narrow to be a collector street” according to the city official’s statements when
Morning Star School was being built and Arnold was being considered a through street to 19th.
It is unacceptable to add more traffic to Arnold when it is too narrow to provide adequate
traffic space for the traffic it encounters now. Side parking and snow plowed to the sides of
Arnold nearly make it a single lane street now. The high density R4 zoning would add
unacceptable levels of traffic on Arnold that already has a high volume due to school traffic
from two schools, Morning Star Elementary and Sacagawea Middle School. More car numbers
will only create a bigger problem with traffic.
We strongly urge the Bozeman City Commission to NOT recommend this ZMZ be approved and
vote AGAINST this zoning change. We treasure our neighborhood and wish it to remain in the
R1 zoning for future families to raise their families in a quality neighborhood. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Bratsky and Suzanne Bratsky
From:Jim Allard
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA A13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:51:10 PM
Dear Commissioners,
After considering our opinions further, we are writing again to express our opposition to the
proposed zoning change that would allow the development of the Campus Crest studenthousing complex. We have some doubts about the wisdom of such developments, but that is
not our concern here. Our concern is with the site of the proposed development. There are anumber of sites that would be suitable for this sort of development, but the present site is not.
One thing we should all be able to agree on is that Bozeman is a wonderful place to live and
that we should do what we can to preserve our quality of life here. That quality is built frommany components including our outstanding location, the opportunities it offers for outdoor
recreation, and the intellectual stimulation that comes from being the home of a majoruniversity. A prime component is also the friendliness and small town atmosphere that we
have been able to maintain. This grows out of the fact that we care about where we live andwe care about our friends and neighbors and that we have established neighborhoods with
shared concerns. Neighborliness is a very important component of the quality of life here. Itdepends on trust, both between neighbors and between neighborhoods and the city. Part of
the trust between neighborhoods and the city rests on planning. People choose where to livebased on a variety of things, but one of them is the character of the neighborhoods where
they choose to live. Zoning is a kind of guarantee on the part of the city that developmentwill not radically change the character of neighborhoods in unexpected ways. Unfortunately,
that is exactly the kind of change that the proposed rezoning change would allow. Figginsand Alder Creek are good neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning would change them for the
worse. It would diminish the trust between them and the city and by that means trust betweenother neighborhoods and the city. Zoning helps preserve our quality of life in Bozeman and it
should not be changed without stronger reasons than those given by Campus Crest.Respectfully,
James W. Allard and Mary C. Bushing2121 South Tracy Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Jen Grace
2512 Landoe Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715
T 406-249-2153
minisuperjennifer@yahoo.com
www.jengrace.com
February 23, 2014
To Mayor Jeff Krause Deputy Mayor Carson Taylor, City Commissioners Chris Mehl,
Cynthia Andrus, I-Ho Pomeroy.
I am writing to urge you to reject the Campus Crest ZMA Z-13268 because A) it does not
meet the review criteria B) it is not needed; and C) it is bad for Bozeman.
A ) At the February 4th hearing Zoning Commissioners Julien Morice and George
Thompson agreed that this ZMA does not meet all of the review criteria. You have re-
ceived numerous detailed reports and data to support the claim that this ZMA would 1)
decrease neighboring property values 2) harm the character of the district and the city and
3) reduce safety at Morningstar elementary and in the adjoining neighborhoods.
B) There is plenty of space currently zoned appropriately for high density student living
that will not impact Morning Star or any family friendly neighborhoods. In the immediate
area. There are over 137 acres (REMU, R-4 & R-3) currently annexed and zoned plus
another 36 acres un-annexed and un-zoned, which is prime for this high density
development. That totals over 170 acres that are well buffered from R-1 zoning and
suitable for high density development.
Additionally, MSU’s Ten-Year Projected Build Out Profile includes significant housing
development in the neighborhood on Garfield Street, near North and South Hedges and
west of campus between Garfield and Fowler. Please see page 85
http://www.montana.edu/campusplan/files/MSUCampusPlan/LRCDP_merge.pdf
Concurrently, there is a distinct shortage of R-1 zoned land available that has good foot
and bicycle access to the core of town. Allison II is the last good-sized parcel of R-1 that
is proximate to downtown Bozeman and MSU.
Hundreds of families like mine support the university. We too want to live within bike/
walk access of our work and children's schools. Zoning Commissioner George
Thompson, at the February 4th city zoning commission hearing, noted that the area south
of the university (Figgins, Allison, Alder Creek neighborhoods) is a fantastic district for
the families that support the university. Every respectable college town has one. If you
approve this ZMA, the families will leave and this will destroy the district. If you keep
the current zoning you will give more families the opportunity to live and thrive there.
C) The area underwent a rigorous zoning process with public involvement in 2007. Sub-
sequently hundreds of families made the financial and personal investment to stay in the
area. We welcome the development within the zoning that was promised to the commu-
nity. If people cannot depend on planning and zoning - and it changes at a developer's
whim - then Bozeman has wasted infinite energy and taxpayer money on the 20/20 plan
and its new form, the Bozeman Community Plan. This ZMA would amount to an unrea-
sonable and arbitrary treatment of an area with applied favoritism to the landowner and
developer.
Finally, I cannot fathom why the city would consider dropping Campus Crest’s ‘fully
loaded college living’ next to Morning Star elementary and within family neighborhoods.
It is incredulous that Bozeman would consider welcoming a nationally franchised Mc
Dorm that would funnel significant rental and business dollars out of our state while
eroding the unique personality of Bozeman. How could a company that runs housing fa-
cilities with such atrocious reputations for taxing emergency services, unmitigated de-
bauchery, violence and poor construction be taken seriously? And next to our middle
school?
That we have to defend our investments and quality of lives from such a terrible concept
pushed by highly paid out of state spin doctor zoning attorneys is infuriating. Its taken
valuable time away from our jobs and families and caused us a great deal of stress. You
can spare all of us any further distress by please, rejecting this ZMA now.
Sincerely,
Jen Grace
From:jjkkl5l@gmail.com
To:Agenda
Subject:zone change
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:09:18 PM
I am writing in regard to the proposed zone change from from R1 toR4 hearing for the Z-13268
Campus Crest Amendment. As a long time resident homeowner in the Figgins subdivision I urge you
to not rezone from single family to high density commercial zoning. This is a long time, well
established residential area which I feel would be adversely affected by the change. I can see no
benefit which would enhance or improve the area by a change and certainly no benefit to the grade
school in the immediate area. (One which is a neighborhood school.). There will be no improvement
to the traffic flow and increasing the traffic flow next to the school is not without issues of safety
which cannot be ignored. The Campus Crest Communities developments are followed with
dissatisfaction expressed fairly often by the areas they have been allowed into and this too must be
a consideration before rezoning to allow a potentially depreciating change in a well functioning and
valued neighborhood. There seems to be a fair amount of space available much more favorable for
this type of zoning and housing development which could be an improvement and enhancement
rather than a potentially destructive and frankly unwanted or needed change in a long time family
residential neighborhood.
I ask you to deny the zoning change, maintain the longstanding zoned single family status of the
area and allow it to continue as area that people want to be part of and that has the potential with
the zoning as it is to continue to improve.
Thank you.
James Larsen
3009 Healy Ave
Bozeman
From:Hua Li
To:Agenda
Subject:Fwd: pls. forward by Monday morning the 24th to agenda@bozeman.net
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:52:49 PM
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "pfwms@juno.com" <pfwms@juno.com>Date: February 23, 2014 at 7:49:21 PM MSTTo: hlhuali@hotmail.comSubject: pls. forward by Monday morning the 24th toagenda@bozeman.net
Dear Bozeman City Commissioners: As a homeowner in the Figgins area near Morning Star ElementarySchool, I am strongly opposed to the North Carolina REIT developerCampus Crest's application for rezoning 16 acres of mostly R-1 land nextto Morning Star as R-4 high-density for a giant student-age apartmentcomplex, Zoning application Z13268. Such a rezoning to R-4 would result in the loss of value of my homeat 3001 Secor Ave. to the tune of at least $15,000 or at least 5%--thiswould violate the rezoning criterion that the value of existing buildingsshould be preserved rather than eroded. Large apartment complexes builtright next to single-family neighborhood generally erode property valuesby at least 5% to 7 % within a half mile radius. There are also serious public safety issues involved in building a giant500-bed student-age apartment complex right next to Morning StarElementary School, as the rezoning proposal proposes. There is alreadyplenty of empty R-4 land to the tune of scores of acres within walkingdistance to MSU in the 19th Avenue and Garfield area, and MSU isactively planning to develop some of this for high density student-agehousing; this would not have any of the deleterious impacts on existingsingle-family neighborhoods, unlike Z13268. Please joint the two Zoning Commissioners who voted nay on this ill-considered and radical rezoning proposal and vote nay. Thank you. Signed,Hua Li The link below will take you to the agenda for Monday’s meeting. Scroll
down and click on the Campus Crest topic. This will take you to the staff
report which now includes information from the zoning commission
hearing in red.
http://www.bozeman.net/Departments/Administration/City-
Commission/Agenda-and-Events/02-24-2014-City-Commission-Meeting-Agenda
From:Gerald Westesen
To:Agenda
Subject:NO to re-zoning for Campus Crest
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:14:48 AM
Dear Commissioners,What could you be thinking. This is a slam dunk.
NO, NO, NO to re-zoning the parcel of land adjacent to the elementary school.
Wow, think of the lawsuits the high density buildings could bring by our neighborhoods and because ofour children and safety reasons.
There is NO need for a change. NO need for more high density zoning.
Please vote NO as your neighborhoods desire.
Say NO to Campus Crest! NO! Bad idea to say yes.
Thank you,Gerald Westesen
3114 Madrona Lane, Bozeman, MT 59715
From:Dan Good
To:Agenda
Subject:Zoning Changes for Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:51:11 PM
To whom it may concern, This is a letter of strong opposition for the zoning changes for the Z-13268Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment currently proposed for the Figgins additionarea south of MSU. Our family has lived on Secor Ave. for the past 4 years and wevery consciously bought in this area for the proximity to great public schools, theopportunity to invest over the long term in a great neighborhood, and a safe area toraise a family. The proposed zoning changes will bring a more transient college age renters towhat would (should) be a single family housing area. I understood the potential forsome college aged renters to be living in our neighborhood when we bought ourhouse on Secor, but the proposal for high density development is not ideal for thegrowth and desirability of our neighborhood, not to mention having this potential forincreased crime and a breakdown of safety that statistically happens with this typeof development near our great elementary schools. Looking at MSU's long term plans for growth and development, it is apparentthat there are better areas already zoned for this type of high density developmentand we should not jeopardize our future growth of the Figgins neighborhood withunneccessary changes in zoning, I hope that Bozeman's leadership would take it'slong term growth and public's opinion seriously, and make decisions that are in thebest interest of the families who currently live here and hopefully plan to live here inthe future, not based on external investment opportunities that don't supportpositive growth and development of our great city. I would personally have to think twice about further investment in my house andcommunity, if the Commission refuses to make decisions that make our incrediblecommunity better than it already is, and would really hope that with all of thediscontent within the current residents of the Figgins area you make decisions thatare in the best interest of our great city not in a shot from the hip opportunity foroutside investment that will deter from what all zoning regulations are in place toprotect against...bad long term development that will break down the positivegrowth of our local schools, neighborhood, and city. Thanks for the opportunity toexpress my strong opposition of the proposed zoning changes, and i hope that athoughtful decision will be made by Bozeman's leadership.
The Good's2815 Secor AveBozeman
From:David Coletta, MPT, CMPT
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:38:03 PM
Dear City Commissioners,
The proposed Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment will be coming before you for a
vote tomorrow, February 24rth, for a vote. I can think of no logical reason for you to
support this measure. The amendment poses serious deleterious consequences for the
surrounding home owners and Morning Star Elementary School. Please vote no on
Amendment Z13268.
David Coletta, MPT, CMPT
Excel Physical Therapy
Owner
Physical Therapist
Certified Manual Physical Therapist
Bozeman ph: 406.556.0562 f: 406.556.0965
Manhattan ph: 406.284.4262 f: 406.284.4203
www.excelptmt.com
join us
From:David Hartman
To:Agenda
Subject:campus crest zma z13268
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 6:04:36 PM
We are currently under contract to purchase the home at 3020 Healy Ave, 59715. One of the main attractions of the Figgins subdivision is the safe and quietneighborhood where we want to raise our 11 month old son. We are very disturbedby the news of the proposed student housing project. The type of high densitystudent living that this development will bring is the exact opposite environment ofwhat we want for our children. Please reject the rezoning proposal and consider amore appropriate location.
Regards, David and Stephanie Hartman
From:daniel lakatos
To:Agenda
Subject:In opposition of Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:14:18 PM
Dear City Commission,
I urge you to vote against the proposed rezoning which would pave the way for Campus Crest or a similar development. We moved to Alder Creek subdivision in 2005 due to the close proximity to Morning Star Elementary and Sacajawea Middle School. We were drawn to the neighborhood because of the single family nature of the project and consistent future plans for the surrounding area. My wife is a teacher at Morning Star and we felt Alder Creek would be the perfect place to raise a family. Until the proposed rezoning initiative we felt we'd made the best decision of our lives. We invested our hard earned resources in a community of like-minded homeowners in a neighborhood and surrounding area where we feel safe for our child and which is within walking distance to my wife's work place. The rezoning of this land will have an undeniably adverse affect on the character of the surrounding neighborhoods; more traffic, decreased certainty and safety for our families, and a reduction in property values. I attended the zoning commission meeting and witnessed two commission members who failed to consider numerous set forth criteria and public comment in casting their votes. Please do not make the same mistake, listen to your south side constituency, there are other solutions to campus housing challenges beyond destroying the character of our neighborhoods and decreasing our property values. Do the right thing, vote NO!
Sincerely,
Daniel Lakatos3118 Gardenbrook LaneBozeman, MT 59715
From:Crystal Boxwell
To:Agenda
Subject:z-13268 campus crest zone map amendment
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 1:32:26 PM
Dear Bozeman City Commission,I have lived in Montana all my life and in Bozeman for nearly 15 years. Please do NOT
rezone the subject piece of property. I know you have heard many arguments why not torezone: traffic, safety, declining housing values, neighborhood character, proximity to the
neighborhood elementary school and I have those same concerns. Therefore I will keep thisshort and sweet knowing you have limited time to read all of letters being received on this
topic.
from :http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Planning/Home.aspx
Again you already know but the planning Departments mission is :
To preserve and enhance Bozeman’s unique quality of life through innovative and
responsible planning and community development.
I would say that rezoning the subject property from r1, r2 r3 to r4 does NOT enhance myunique quality of life in Bozeman or my neighbors lives. We are members of our community,
working, volunteering, taking pride in our homes and paying taxes. Please listen to ourvalid concerns and think about the well being of our families, & neighborhoods and what fits
in the subject area.
Thanks for listening,Crystal Boxwell
8 West Arnold STBozeman, MT 59715
From:Cheryl Eiholzer
To:Agenda
Subject:rezoning near elementary school
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 1:49:16 PM
I am against changing the zoning of various residential medium and low density districts to a
residential high density district for a propose MSU student apartment complex. First, people buy
homes near undeveloped residential medium and low density districts expecting the districts will
remain zoned as they are. Nothing like switching zoning to make people not trust the government.
The change will also lower people's property values. I looked for houses that were not near
residential high density. Second, having apartments targeted to college students close to an
elementary school is asking for problems. College students can be irresponsible. Off campus collage
students can have guns, get drunk, have parties, damage nearby property and just poor role models
for elementary school students. The accused rapist that escaped the Bozeman police did is act at a
apartment complex for students. Please do not change the zoning.
Cheryl R Eiholzer
406-585-3398
3514 Fieldstone Dr W, Bozeman, 59715
From:Stacy Ulmen
To:Jeff Krauss; Carson Taylor; Cyndy Andrus; Chris Mehl; I-Ho Pomeroy
Cc:Chris Kukulski; Chuck Winn; Greg Sullivan; Wendy Thomas; Chris Saunders; Meagan Lak; Aimee Brunckhorst
Subject:Lange transcribed public comment for Campus Crest
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 1:01:22 PM
Hello Mayor Krauss and Commissioners!
Mr. Lange called and stated that he does not have email and asked me to generally transcribe his
statement on Campus Crest and forward it to you. He is opposed to the Campus Crest rezoning
project because it is just too close to the Morning Star school and to the residential homes in the
neighborhood. This will de-value those properties but mainly his concern is the location near the
school.
Charles Lange
586-1849
Stacy Ulmen, CMCBozeman City Clerk
"Bozeman...the most livable place!"
The City Clerk's Office is dedicated to preparing the proceedings of the City Commission and preserving thecity records using integrity to offer timely and courteous service to the citizens and staff of Bozeman,Montana along with enhancing the ability of the citizenry to participate in local government.
From:casey heerdt
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:12:25 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
In regards to Campus Crest ZMA Z13268, the rezoning of 16 ares of low density housing
to high density housing, please consider the families and community affected by this
decision.
The citizens of Bozeman continually lose out to MSU and outside developers. I have very
low expectations for a vote in favor of local residents, based on previous growth and
agendas from bozeman city commissioners. Please prove me wrong. Campus Crest has no
ties to this community and is operating on a build it and forget about it philosophy. I look
forward to the day this land is developed with single family homes providing work to local
builders, painters, and flooring companies. Who will build these dorms? I doubt local
businesses.
Further, I am a local citizen, born on Wilson street and raised in Bozeman. I now have a
family of my own with a young daughter. We bought our home in the Figgins Subdivision a
few years ago and were primarily drawn to the family-oriented neighborhood with walking
distance to great schools and trails. Had we known that this safe, family-oriented
neighborhood would be adjacent to an R4 housing development, decreasing the property
value of our home, introducing potentially higher crime rates, and increasing the number of
transient student renters, we surely would have reconsidered our decision to buy a home
here. In what world does it make sense to build high density housing dorms, catering to a
party atmosphere DIRECTLY ACROSS from an elementary school? Please consider this and
the effect it may have on all the families already invested in this wonderful neighborhood.
Thank you.
Casey & Ruth Heerdt
From:Carol Anderson
To:Agenda
Subject:Against Proposed Rezoning to High Density south of Opportunity Way and east of South 11th Ave.
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:51:24 AM
Dear City Commissioners:
I currently own a condominium in Overbrook. I have lived at this location for 11 years. I
have experienced many changes within the 26 unit Overbrook community. 7 of those units
are now student occupied that were not when I purchased my condo. Having students
come and go in these 7 units causes the permanent residents tension with monitoring the
noise levels, traffic speeds, etc. of the student occupied condos. We have a strong board of
directors and we all live in Overbrook. We have an enforceable list of Rules and
Regulations which allows us to monitor the behavior of our residents.
My point is that in the proposed 600 student occupied development there will be only two
people monitoring the behavior of those students. Those students will not be under the
jurisdiction of MSU to monitor their behavior. Plus, the development is by an out of state
developer charging $400 to $500 per month per person. All of that rental income would go
out of state.
I attended the Zoning Commission meeting. I was shocked with the vote of 2 to 2 by the
Commission. The 35 presentations against this development were well written and
presented. I agree with the following points that were made at that meeting:
This development is proposed to provide more student housing. But, MSU has
proposed and approved the building of two new dorms. Plus, The South University
District, paving the way for the Stadium View Apartments complex has already been
approved to supply 499 bedrooms. All of these new buildings will more than supply
needed student housing.
This development will have bright lights in a low light neighborhood, increased noise,
increased traffic, and increased crime.
The development will create dangerous amounts of traffic on Arnold which goes by
Morning Star Elementary School.
The change of zoning to high density to allow for this development would greatly
reduce property values.
The credibility of the Zoning Commission and City Commissioners would be greatly
reduced. People bought in the area thinking it was all Zone 1 in that field. Pressure
brought by Gene Graf 6 years ago changed the area from Zone 1 to Zone 2 and 3. (I
attended 3 meetings and went door to door to try to stop that change.) Now, I believe
that Gene Graf again is behind trying to make more money from his land and is
pushing for this change to Zone 4.
People have invested in this area of town because it does not have a lot of high rise
density housing with transient people. It is a safe family neighborhood. The
environment allows for children to feel safe walking and riding bicycles to and from
Morning Star and Sacajewea.
The neighborhood will be devastatingly changed if this development is allowed to
move ahead. The change to high density in this area would create a precedent that
would allow for future changes to high density, Zone 4, on the rest of the property in
that field and other open space in this part of town.
Please vote “NO” to changing the proposed zoning to Zone 4 and please vote “NO” on this
Campus Crest development.
Thank you for your time. Carol Anderson
From:Cameron
To:Agenda
Subject:Vote no, on zoning amendment
Date:Friday, February 21, 2014 5:02:55 PM
City commission,
I oppose the proposed development and rezoning for Campus Crest. This would
drastically change the character of our neighborhood. When we moved to this
neighborhood we trusted that the city would not change the zoning in such a way to lower
our property values. We work hard for this and it is not right to basically take money away
from hard working family's by knowingly making changes that drop our property values.
This change would ruin our neighborhood and completely change the character of
this family oriented neighborhood, the Campus Crest mascot says it all (red keg cup with
sunglasses). You wouldn't want this next to your house would you? Please don't turn this
into a town we don't want to live in.
Sincerely ,
Cameron Smith
2705 Westridge dr.
Bozeman, MT
February 21, 2014
City of Bozeman Commission
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Chairman and Members of the Bozeman City Commission,
We live in Figgins neighborhood and am writing to speak against the proposed zoning change for the
Campus Crest Development.
We find the proposed zoning change for the Allison Phase II area to high density housing requested
by Bon Ton Inc, the property owners, and Campus Crest Development (CCD) of Charlotte, NC, to be
contrary to rule of law. There are significant issues that need to be addressed. This proposed zone
map amendment should be killed for not meeting the State of Montana statutes or City of Bozeman
codes for a zoning change for the area.
The R4 Zone Map Amendment overlays ground that is currently mostly zoned R1, with the north end
currently zoned R3 as a buffer. The south end would be just a few hundred feet from an elementary
school and existing R1 neighborhood. This is just plain wrong. It should not move forward.
The Zone Map Amendment / Development Review Application document submitted by Bon Ton,
Inc., is misleading. This “in a closed box” set of responses to the Zoning Provision Criteria not only
fails to convince anyone who lives in the adjacent neighborhoods, but should throw up red flags with
the Zoning Commission and City Commissioners. Let’s look at some of these answers and think
about them in relation to the proximity to an elementary school and the adjacent R1 neighborhoods.
Here are our concerns in relationship to the developer’s answers to the criteria.
2) How can the proposed zoning lessen congestion in the streets? By its very nature it definitely will
add congestion to residential Arnold Street, to 11th Ave and Opportunity Way. On Arnold
specifically not only will congestion dramatically change, but also the demographic of the drivers
will change - from family oriented homeowners to a significant percentage of college age renters.
What street networks are to be expanded and approved? Even were the developer/property owner to
build out the transportation infrastructure completely, in advance, it would not alleviate the problem.
3) Whose health and general welfare is being promoted? Certainly not the single-family residents
who live in the adjoining neighborhoods or the safety of the children who attend Morningstar School.
Again, with a significant change in the demographic of the new neighborhood, a significant safety
and risk factor is created.
6) The new zoning will NOT prevent the overcrowding on this land if you look at it outside of a
closed box and in relation to the current zoning and its proximity to an elementary school and R1
neighborhoods. In fact, if this R4 zoning is accepted it stands to reason that the property owner will
propose that the other parcels in Allison Phase II should be R4 because of the precedent of this
comment on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
2
ZMA? Certainly the value of the rest of the Allison Phase II property as R1 quality home
development would be significantly diminished if this ZMA moves forward.
7) It will NOT avoid the undue concentration of population as the developer / property owner
indicates if you look at it outside of a closed box and in relation to the existing zoning and its
proximity to an elementary school and R1 neighborhoods. Within the overall concept of the Unified
Development Ordinance, the planning process and the reason for zoning, this proposed zoning
amendment from mostly R1, single family, to R4 high density is a definite undue concentration of
population on the specific property. This is not being developed per City of Bozeman density
standards. The City Commission agreed with residents in 2007 that this tract of land should not be
developed with an R4 zoning when they approved the property owner’s proposal at that time.
8) As stated in 2), above, transportation requirements are thrown out the window by this proposed
zoning change.
The previously approved proposal for Allison Phase II required the designated collectors of 11th Ave
and Graf to be completed as a condition of development, a requirement that everyone agreed was the
correct approach to developing this area.
9) The most egregious answer by the property owner is to say that this proposed zoning change
considers the character of the district and its suitability for particular uses. This proposal is
diametrically opposite of the 2007 zoning and development plan approved by the City Commission.
While in a box it may look like a logical location for high density student housing, in reality it belies
the previously stated intentions of the property owner. It is not suitable to put this level of high
density adjacent to an existing R1 neighborhood and elementary school.
10) It does not give reasonable consideration to the character of the district and it is certainly not the
most appropriate use of land in this particular instance. This is exemplified by the 2007 Allison
Phase II process. The property owner at that time acknowledged that R1 was what is appropriate to
the character of the adjacent, established R1 neighborhoods. The City agreed and approved R1 for
most of the land proposed for this zoning change. This R-4 zoning proposal would negatively affect
the surrounding R1 family-oriented character of the district.
12) The proposed R-4 zoning does not promote the most appropriate use of land throughout the area.
It is very obvious to anyone that this type of zoning and development is not at all the most
appropriate for this piece of property, again, looking back at the previously approved zoning and
development plan of the property owner in 2007.
In fact, another large apartment complex that is all ready to be built in the area, to the north and west,
behind the Stadium Drive commercial development is significantly more appropriate and does not
impact existing R1 neighborhoods or any schools. The Stadium View area is zoned appropriately
and should move forward.
The applicant is only looking at the proximity to the university to take advantage of the short-term
student housing shortage. They do not consider how this R-4 zoning would affect the adjacent,
already developed R1 neighborhoods and an elementary school a few hundred feet away. The
property owner’s answer looks at a single use in a single direction, not appropriate use throughout the
area.
comment on Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
3
This proposed zoning change and development as proposed will triple the density originally agreed
upon by the City Commission for the entire parcel after the last zoning proposal which received
significant scrutiny and significant public input.
This Campus Crest Development is a major deviation from what exists on record as what will be
developed in Allison Phase II. It goes against the very discussions and decisions that occurred and
were made in City hearings and meetings in 2006 and 2007.
Bon Ton, Inc. and Campus Crest Development are showing a lack of community consciousness and
disrespect towards the adjacent neighborhoods and Morning Star elementary school. In 2007, Bon
Ton, Inc.’s original proposal was for R3 adjacent to the existing R1 neighborhoods was deemed
unacceptable as it did not meet the requirements of law.
The Zone Map Amendment / Development Review Application document submitted by Bon Ton,
Inc., and CCD should not be approved. It is too drastic a deviation from existing zoning and violates
State of Montana statutes and City of Bozeman codes and planning documents.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Michael J. and Lisa D Burgard
3017 Secor Avenue
Bozeman, MT
From:Carol Flaherty
To:Agenda
Subject:Traffic flow question and future density need decrease in area near MSU
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 2:12:40 PM
Bob and Carol Flaherty
416 W. Arnold St.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Members of the Bozeman City Commission
Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715-1230
Dear City Commission Members,
We have lived in the Figgins Addition since 1978 and enjoy both MSU students and other families in
the neighborhood. We are concerned about the proposed Campus Crest rezoning.
This is at least the third development proposal since 1978 for the area west of what has become
Morning Star School. Arnold now ends at the school. While the plan is for 11th Ave. to extend beside
the proposal area, the proposed area artfully avoids touching Arnold Street, which leaves a
question of future east-west traffic flow on Arnold or other east-west streets north of
Goldenstein and south of Kagy.
Even in 1978, Arnold was intended to extend to 19th Ave. Has the city given up plans to extend
Arnold to 19th and developed an alternative planned route? If so, that probably should be explained
as we deal with the current proposal.
Turning left onto Third from Arnold is, even now, a problem when children are being delivered and
picked up at school. The proposed rezoning area looks like an island with one exit. If you plan more
exits, as in extending Arnold to 19th, then you need to consider the traffic problem at the corner of
Arnold and Third. Previously, added cars from single-family development proposals west of Figgins
was considered a problem for Arnold at Third. The current proposal adds density. The plan’s
avoidance of Arnold may keep more cars off my street, which I wouldn’t mind a bit, but does it
serve the city’s larger concerns of egress?
Another question is whether this addition of student housing makes long-term sense. MSU has so far
benefited from the need, especially since 2008, of people to develop new careers. However, the
long-term trend will likely be not toward college residential education but toward cable/Internet
options that allow students to work and live outside Bozeman while taking online courses from MSU
to train for a better job. Thus, in the future it is likely that MSU will need less near-campus
housing rather than more. While it is not in the city’s purview to be concerned with long-term
educational trends, it is also not in the city’s purview to provide student housing.
I hope you will consider the overall logic, or lack thereof, of dense housing at the site proposed.
Cordially,
Bob and Carol Flaherty
-- Carol Flaherty
Experienced-Registered Yoga Teacher (ERYT-200)
Member, International Assoc of Yoga TherapistsLicensed Massage Therapist(406) 595-9642, http://www.carolflaherty.comYoga classes M/W noon at the Westridge Center, 1919 Fairway Drive, just off Kagy.
Other classes listed at http://www.bozemanhealingarts.com/Please call for private yoga or massage sessions
From:Ann Thompson
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:48:04 PM
I object to the r-zoning proposal that is coming up for City Commissionconsideration. It is up to MSU to house any increase in the student population, andit is not fair to re-zone an area that would impact current residents property values.Having lived near campus for over twenty years, I know what its like to be affectedby large groups of students living in close proximity to each other. Noise,vandalism, drunken behavior. Please refuse the proposal that will only benefit anout of town developer.Thank you,Ann Thompson
From:Amy Stoddart
To:Agenda
Subject:Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:41:47 PM
From: Amy Lynn Stoddart3198 Madrona LaneBozeman, MT 59715(406)587-2776
City of Bozeman Mayor and CommissionersDepartment of Community DevelopmentP.O. Box 1230Bozeman, MT 59771
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners,
It is with great concern that I write to you in regards to the proposed zone changes regarding theCampus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268. As a resident of the Alder Creek neighborhood, I trulybelieve that a decision to re-zone the lot adjacent Morning Star Elementary School and Alder Creekwould be a potentially catastrophic decision for the neighbors and elementary students in this area. Istrongly urge you to carefully review the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268 proposal anddeny changes in the current Residential plans for this lot.
My family and I moved into Alder Creek in 2008. In our search for the “perfect” home andneighborhood we did our due diligence and reviewed city planning maps for the areas surrounding AlderCreek and Morning Star Elementary. We opted to spend an addition $100,000 above comparable homeson the west end of town when we moved here in 2008. We were willing to pay this additional amountto ensure that our children could safely walk to and from their schools each day and the developmentplanned in our neighborhood would be single-family residential in nature thus promoting a familyfriendly atmosphere. Alder Creek is a lovely neighborhood with a nice mixture of middle and high-endpriced family homes on lots surrounding a 7 acre public park, sandwiched between SMS and MorningStar and bisected by the “Galligater” Trail.
Having served as a professor at the University of Oregon for over a decade and having lived in thecampus neighborhood, I am keenly aware of the downfalls of commingled family and college studentliving. We dealt with drugs and drug paraphernalia on our street and in our parks. We regularly foundalcohol containers in our front yard and throughout our neighborhood. Foul language, loud and violentparties, sexual assault, lewd behaviors, and speeding cars were par for the course in our neighborhood.This is precisely why we looked carefully, asked all the right questions, and chose Alder Creek to be ourhome. To change the rules of the game, so to speak, at this point seems both unfair and potentiallyillegal.
A big concern for our family and the families of children who attend Morning Star is that high densityzoning will create additional traffic in front of Morning Star Elementary, thus creating an unsafe area forthe more than 500 children who attend the school and the countless children who walk to and fromschool on a daily basis. Not only will congestion on Arnold St. dramatically change, but also thedemographic of the drivers will change from family oriented homeowners to a significant percentage ofcollege age renters. This is both a congestion problem and a safety concern.
The proposal would change 11 acres from R-1 (47 single family homes) and 5 acres from R-3 (16 lotswith duplexes and fourplexes) to 16 acres of R-4 high density to allow large apartment complexes to bebuilt. The proposed 224 apartments would be built with 600 bedrooms. Considering that most collegeaged renters share bedrooms with 1 - 3 additional roommates that means 1,200 - 2,400 additionalcollege aged residents and nearly equally as many cars in our neighborhood.
The development of a high density area so close to single family residence neighborhoods, and anelementary and middle school will jeopardize the health and welfare of the current residents.
As proposed, this high density development will introduce a new driver demographic, and residents withdrastically different goals and priorities from the current residents. It is without question that collegestudents enjoy a good party, care less about their property and surroundings, have less awareness oftheir language and dress, and ultimately - due to their short duration of stay - less investment in theirneighborhood. These characteristics make the proposed high density housing detrimental to the healthand well being of the current residents.
Within the overall concept of the Unified Development Ordinance, the planning process and the reasonfor zoning, this proposed zoning amendment from mostly R1 single family, to R4 high density is adefinite undue concentration of population on the specific property. This is not being developed per Citydensity standards. The City Commission agreed with residents in 2007 that this tract of land should notbe developed with an R4 zoning when they approved the previous zoning changes. This proposal isdiametrically opposite of the 2007 zoning and development plan approved by the City Commission. While in a box it may look like a logical location for high density student housing, in reality it belies thepreviously stated intentions of the property owner. It is not suitable to put this level of high densityadjacent to an existing R1 neighborhood and elementary school.
This zoning amendment proposal does not give reasonable consideration to the character of thedistrict. This is exemplified by the 2007 Allison Phase II process. It was acknowledged then that R1 iswhat is appropriate to the character of the adjacent, established neighborhoods. This R-4 zoningproposal would negatively affect the surrounding R1 family-oriented character of the district.
With an increase in traffic and density comes a decrease in property value. By drastically altering thecharacter of our neighborhood, the prices of homes in Alder Creek will drop. We have held values at areasonable level since market changes and rebounded rapidly because of the current character of ourneighborhood. Our homeowners take pride in our neighborhood, its parks, and its trails. We have anactive homeowners association and a vibrant community of families. If thousands of college agedstudents begin to drive through our neighborhood, hang out in our parks, leave litter and debris in thearea, and behave in a manner that has been described in media throughout the country in otherCampus Crest developments and similar college high density housing, it is certain that our preciousinvestments will decrease in value.
The proposed R-4 zoning does not promote the most appropriate use of land throughout the area. It isvery obvious to anyone that this type of zoning and development is not at all the most appropriate forthis piece of property, again, looking back at the previously approved zoning and development plan ofthe property owner in 2007.
Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners, my family asks that you kindly examine the Campus CrestZone Map Amendment Z13268 zoning change application with a critical eye. This proposed zoningchange would be hugely detrimental to the current neighbors and children who attend both MorningStar Elementary and Sacajawea Middle School. This outrageous proposal must not be allowed to passfor the health and well being of the families who reside here and cherish the safety and character oftheir quiet, safe, and family friendly neighborhood. I thank you for your time and consideration in thisextremely important matter.
Most Sincerely,Amy Lynn Stoddart
From:Amy Katz
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:28:13 PM
Dear Commissioners,
Please oppose the rezoning of the field near Morning Star Elementary school and ourhome in the Figgins neighborhood of Bozeman. I feel that the present zoning isappopriate. There is opportunity for housing for MSU students at Stadium Viewapartments and in the new dorm being built on campus and other parcels of R4 landnearby.
Thank you for your consideration,
Amy Katz 421 Cutting Street
February 20, 2014
Bozeman City Mayor and Commissioners:
My career has taken me across the lower forty eight states from the northeast to the mid-west,
the rock mountains to the northwest. In Alaska I worked all over the state except on the Aleutian
Islands. I've spent time in mega-communities (Washington D.C.) to remote villages of less than a
hundred people (Metlakatla, Alaska).
In all cases where the citizens were content and trusting, the stability and predictability of their
local government was paramount. When local governments were changing the rules to meet short term
interests or personal goals, without recognizing viable options, the results were instability in the
communities, fostering serious and disruptive mindsets, creating residents who were deprived of a
sense of place and a stake in their community.
The arbitrary rezoning of Allison II to meet the needs of a North Carolina developer who has no
community interest in Bozeman Montana, except to make money at the cost of local home owners life-
long investments in their homes, is a prime example of the negative impacts local governments can
mistakenly implement.
I urge you to vote with your fellow permanent Bozeman residents rather than the short term
interests of a non-resident developer, especially since Montana State University already has ample land
on which to add student housing.
Alan C. Epps
Montana State University alum and
Professor of Natural Resources Emeritus
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
From:Thomas Burns
To:Agenda
Subject:Regarding Zoning Change for Campus Crest
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 2:56:46 PM
Dear Commissioners:
Regarding the parcel of land south of Kagy that
Campus Crest developers are pushing to have
rezoned from residential housing to high density
apartment buildings actually offers you an
opportunity to be more farsighted regarding
Bozeman's future. Because housing development
south of Kagy is expanding at breakneck speed, a
better use of the land behind Morning Star
elementary school would be to designate it a public
park.
Presently, area residents use the trails along the
parameter for walking and exercising their dogs, and
school children use the fields in winter for skiing.
For homeowners in the area, the land acts a buffer
from traffic on Kagy, nearby office complexes, the
university, and, in the near future, additional traffic
from the other student housing project your gave
the green light to.
Instead of a potentially noisy, 600-bed apartment
complex, why not turn the land behind Morning
Star elementary school into green space? Why not a
dog park, sculpture park, ice skating park, labyrinth
park, or whatever---anything but another high-
density development in an area of family homes
and an elementary school.
Think of the future. Keep the zoning as it is, or have
the city or allow private citizens to buy the land,
and designate it a public park for everyone to enjoy.
Thomas and Charlene Burns
21 Overbrook Drive
406-220-3905
From:Jack Stoddart
To:Agenda
Subject:Opposition to ZMA Z13268
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 2:57:32 PM
Dear Mr. Mayor and Commission Members
I am a resident of Alder Creek neighborhood and I am writing to strongly oppose the
application for a zoning change for 15+ acres of the Allison Phase II Subdivision frommostly R1 and some R3 to R4 high density housing.
The proposed zone map amendment is not in compliance with several sections of Montana
Code 76-2-304: Criteria and Guidelines for Zoning Regulations, and therefore should not beapproved by the City Commission.
First, section (2)(d) states that the zoning board shall consider “the character of the district
and its peculiar suitability for particular uses”. The area of land proposed for rezoning tohigh density complexes is part of a largely single family home neighborhood with the
property in question directly adjacent to Morning Star Elementary School. The school is thefocal point of our family neighborhood. If zoning was allowed to be dramatically changed to
principally R4, the character of the community would be drastically altered by changing thedemographics to a largely college student rental community. This goes directly against
section (2)(d) of the code by significantly altering the character of the district and changingits suitability as a single family neighborhood. Our family has already experienced a
dramatic change to the character of our neighborhood when the house next to us waspurchased as a college rental. For much of the past five years, we have endured outrageous
college parties, illegal drug and alcohol abuse, significant traffic increases, irresponsibledriving and parking violations, and in general have felt as though our quality of life was
diminished by the unthoughtful nature of college aged renters. Luckily for us, the collegerental next door was recently sold to a single family and the character of our part of the
neighborhood has returned to a family conducive atmosphere. We do not wish to see thischange!
Montana Code 76-2-304 must also be followed in accordance with the Bozeman Growth
Policy. This policy included strong public support for preservation of existing neighborhoods.Rezoning this parcel of land is clearly not meeting that criteria or affirming community
values; a guiding principle of the growth policy. Therefore the Bozeman City Commissionshould reject amendment Z13268. When we purchased our property in 2008, we were drawn
to the existing neighborhood. We knew that the neighborhood would grow, however, wewere under the impression that it would grow with the idea of maintaining a community
atmosphere of family housing. The propsed rezoning is clearly not family housing and willdramatically change our existing neighborhood.
Additionally, under Section (2)(e) the zoning board shall consider “conserving the value of
buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictionalarea”. Our family chose to invest in property in Alder Creek due to the existance of a family
friendly environment. This decision required a significant investment on our part. We easilycould have chosen cheaper property on the west end of town in a higher density district. Our
additional significant investment will be lost if you are to approve this zoning change.
Simply put, our property value will diminish. Who in their right mind would choose tomove into a high density district of college kids and still pay top dollar for housing? If the
zoning change is approved to R4, the value of surrounding properties will be reduced, not incompliance with section (2)(e). Therefore the Bozeman City Commission should reject
amendment Z13268.
Lastly, under Section (2)(b) the zoning board shall consider “the effect on motorized andnon-motorized transportation systems”. The addition of 600 bedrooms slated for Campus
Crest, in addition to the 500 planned bedrooms in the nearby Stadium View apartmentcomplex places a massive vehicle load on South 11th Ave, Kagy Blvd and Arnold St. With
no collector road to South 19th this will result in excessive vehicular traffic next to MorningStar Elementary School and through a family neighborhood. This raises major safety issues
and legal concerns. Our experience involving college aged neighbors has given us reason forour concern. The stop sign on our corner became optional to our negihbors. On more than
one occasion, our children and our pets were nearly run over as they played in and aroundour property. On even more ocassions, the guests of our college neighbors raced through the
neighborhood after having attended one of the many late night parties. I can only imaginetheir blood alcohol level as they far exceeded the posted speed limit. This happened with
such frequency that my wife and I routinely had to call the police department for assistance. It seems irresponsible to add more vehicle congestion to the area in question, let alone given
the potential for illegal and dangerous driving activity. Please do not approve ZoningAmendment Z13268, as it will dangerously increase the amount of motorized traffic in our
surrounding area.
I strongly urge the City Commission to not allow this Zoning Map Ammendment for thereasons stated above. My family and I are very happy in our present neighborhood. We are
aware of the need for additional student housing, but it should not come at the expense ofexisting family friendly neighborhoods such as our current one in Alder Creek. Thank you
for your consideration and I look forward to your denial of this inappropriate andirresponsible zoning change amendment.
Sincerely,
John M. Stoddart
Alder Creek Resident
From:Terese Schmidt
To:Agenda
Subject:Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 4:58:00 PM
Mayor Krauss and Commissioners Taylor, Mehl, Andrus and Pomeroy,
I am writing to ask you to deny the proposed zoning change. There is no need for more high density
zoning as there are over 200 acres in many parcels near MSU that are already zoned for high density.
The Commission has approved the development of an REMU near campus which has the potential to
be a vibrant section of town. MSU is planning to build more housing on campus for students. R-1
zoning near MSU is needed for employees so they can walk, ride their bikes and contribute to lowering
our carbon footprint.
Please vote no to changing the zoning to R-4.
Thank you,
Terese Schmidt
From:Scott W. Bohr
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest ZMA Z13268
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 8:45:46 PM
Attn: Mayor and Commissioners
City of Bozeman
P.O. Box 1230
121 N. Rouse
Bozeman, MT 59771
Re: Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
I am writing in regards to the Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment, for which there
will be a public hearing this evening, February 24th.
I oppose this ZMA amendment. The lack of transition between R1 and the
proposed R4 is unnecessary and would be detrimental to existing neighborhoods
for the following reasons:
1) With the approval of the nearby REMU zone, the supply for higher density housing
far exceeds demand. And though MSU has recently experienced increased student
enrollment, there is no guarantee it will continue. The reverse may actually be more
likely to occur as students are engaging in online and distance learning opportunities
at much faster rates.
2) Increased traffic risks for families of Morning Star Elementary students, as Arnold
Street would become a highly trafficked thoroughfare because of adjacent high
density development.
3) Diminished home and property values due to development of the highest form of
density housing that caters to high turnover renters.
Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott Bohr
1033 Brookdale Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
From:Kelly & Sandy Fried
To:Agenda
Subject:Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 5:57:46 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
Please block the zoning change that would permit R4 for the high density apartment complex to be
built by Morning star Elementary School.
A Shift will occur from primarily family-oriented homeowners, to transient college age renters, changing
the home values of the homes in the area, as well as
making it easier to re zone the rest of the fields in the area at a later date. The apartment complex
will bring more traffic to the area, which is already very congested
before and after school, with two large school is the area. An up swing of parties,drugs, and alcohol
will come to the area as that just goes with college life.
A change of this magnitude next to an elementary school with young impressionable and curious
children is not a safe atmosphere nor something
responsible adults should allow to surround their children.
Thank you for your consideration on the matter
Sandra Fried
From:Nancy Regan
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 8:59:06 PM
The neighboorhood surrounding the location where Campus Crest would like to buildis not the right place for this application of building. This is a family area where kidswalk to school and enjoy time with family and friend. I do not live in the area. I liveoff 8th Avenue near the' Barmuda' triangle and I moved here because my kids aregrown and I am happy to be in the thick of things. Most nights I hear the loudvoices and laughter of tipsy or drunk college kids walking home after the bars closeat night. This is fine with me because i CHOSE to be in this setting. BUT the peopleover off South Third didn't buy their houses there for that environment. They wereunder the assumption that houses would surround them and the family environmentwould continue.
On top of the fact that Campus Crest is not a good match for the area, it is notnecessary. MSU is soon to be building their own new housing areas and there isplenty of land to accomidate their needs. Campus Crest location would be too farfrom the campus, make it difficult for the MSU police to monitor and is not needed.
I know the other areas where Campus Crest has built and I know people whosurround that area and they confirm that Campus Crest does not do a good job offullfilling their promises to the surrounding areas. They don't manage the propertyconsistantly and there are other issues that are not good for a family environment.
MSU has plenty of room and a plan for more housing so I pray you will allow themto take care of the students on campus. There is not need for this at this time.
Nancy Regan
From:Meagan Snodgrass
To:Agenda
Subject:ZMA Z13268
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 7:53:11 PM
Dear City Commission,
I'm strongly against the proposed zoning change ZMA Z13268.
It seems that Campus Crest's vision is basically a 'drunk dorm'. Seriously, a keg cupas a mascot? Given that MSU has a strong commitment to improving studentretention, and this type of living arrangement seems unlikely to foster a focus onacademics, it's not a healthy fit for MSU. Inexpensive housing is likely to attractlower income, in-state students. I trust that our city planners will not approve astudent housing sure to facilitate wasting of subsidized tuition dollars.
Yes, students need housing, but this is not a sustainable solution. We owe it to ourstudents, their families and the taxpayers of Montana to continue to build a collegecommunity that strengthens the state. What message are we sending our sons anddaughters by approving substandard housing? Successful students are one of ourmost promising assets and protecting them from a profit-driven housing company isno different from protecting livestock from predators. True to our roots, we arethoughtful stewards who take good care of what is valuable to our future. Andsurely, no local businessperson would argue that volleyball courts and outdoor poolsare a large part of Montana culture.
Communities are not built from branded hotel chains and we recognize thatsentiment as the dirt on our boots. We are Bozeman and we can do better.
Thank you, Meagan Snodgrass and Ross Taylor 2515 Westridge Dr. Bozeman, Montana 59715
From:Diane Donnelly
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Re-zoning Issue
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 5:04:21 PM
Dear Commissioners: I would like to add my feedback to the current discussion onre-zoning to allow for the Campus Crest complex to be built south of MSU, nearMorning Star School. Having lived in Bozeman for over 30 years (15 of those yearsin the Figgins neighborhood), I think this is not a good idea for the southside ofBozeman. The family neighborhoods nearby Morning Star and Sacajawea Schoolsare designed to be just that - family neighborhoods, and I think the current zoningis the most appropriate for Bozeman's long-term development and positive growth. Also, the density of the development is a real concern with the already heavilytraveled streets in the area. As you know, MSU is already moving forward to build a400-bed residence hall and while the campus has experienced significant growth inrecent years, the rate of growth is unlikely to continue.I hope the Commissioners will vote to retain the current zoning and not permitdevelopment of this kind in this area.Sincerely,Diane Donnelly3150 Graf St. #11Bozeman, MT 59715
From:Colleen Schmidt
To:Agenda
Subject:Z-13268 Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 5:05:23 PM
Mayor Krauss and Commissioners Taylor, Mehl, Andrus, and Pomeroy,
I am writing to ask you to not pass the proposed Campus Crest ZMA. I am against it because there is no need for itwith so much undeveloped R-4 type zoning in and around Bozeman, not to mention the huge plot of REMU land just
across 11th street from the proposed site. I am against it because it is a perfect example of spot-zoning, which is illegal.
I am against it because the zone change will and already has dropped the value of properties in the nearbyneighborhoods. Please vote to deny this zone change.
Thank you,
Colleen SchmidtJunior, Bozeman High School
815 W. Arnold St.
406-548-5107
From:Beth Burroughs
To:Agenda
Subject:Campus Crest Zone Map Amendment Z13268
Date:Monday, February 24, 2014 5:33:16 PM
Dear City Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the rezoning issue that is before theboard tonight. Rezoning is a serious issue, and the strong opposition expressed bycity residents is evidence that much more investigation should be conducted beforea decision to rezone is made.
The area in question is very close to Morning Star Elementary, and traffic in thatarea is a major concern to me. Because the proposed rezoning would increase trafficflow in this area so heavily used by school-aged pedestrians, it is important for theCommission to conduct a study of the traffic flow implications of the proposedrezoning.
While it is true that MSU is in need of student housing, it is also true that the facultyand staff at MSU need single family housing near campus. It would be hasty torezone this area because of the proposed Campus Crest housing developmentwithout exploring the need to maintain options for future single family homes nearthe MSU campus. In addition, to rezone in order to accommodate Campus Crest, anorganization whose mascot is a red "keg" cup, seems to me to be in completeopposition to the type of housing that MSU would want to establish for its students.
I am a homeowner in the Alder Creek subdivision, and while preserving propertyvalues is not my primary concern, I would view a rezoning of the area adjacent tomy neighborhood as a breach of the agreement that the existing zoning structureestablished when I bought my house.
I ask the City Commissioners to please vote against the proposed rezoning becauseit is not in the best interests of the citizens of Bozeman.
Sincerely,Elizabeth Burroughs3263 Gardenbrook LaneBozeman