Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-18 Protest - J. & A. Hinds - Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment • August 17, 2018 Bozeman City Clerk 121 North Rouse Ave. PO Box 1230 Bozeman MT 59771-1230 Dear Bozeman City Clerk: RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation& Initial Zone Map Amendment Application 18-240 We own and live in the home located at 4616 Danube Lane, Bozeman MT(Legal Description: BAXTER MEADOWS SUB PH 3A, S34, T01 S, R05 E, BLOCK 15, Lot 6). We are writing to protest Rainbow Creek's proposal to amend the zone map to R-5 for the property located at 4555 Baxter Lane, Bozeman MT(Legal Description: Book 148, Page 207, S34,T01 S, R05 E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana) (hereafter"subject property"). Our property is directly behind the subject property and therefore will be directly impacted by this proposed high density development. Our property is zoned R-1. The intent of the R-1 residential low density district is to provide for primarily single-household residential development and related uses within the city at urban densities. These purposes are accomplished by providing for such community facilities and services as will serve the area's residents while respecting the residential character and quality of the area. (Bozeman's UDC, Sec. 38.300.100.Emphasis added. ) We were drawn to this neighborhood for exactly that reason—the quality of the area. The lots sizes in Baxter Meadows West are bigger, giving more space between you and your neighbor. The location of the subdivision,being on the edge of City's limits, gives it a somewhat rural feel. If you allow R-5 zoning directly behind us, the "quality of the area"will be negatively impacted. There are many places in Bozeman where R-5 would be appropriate, however the subject property is not one of them. In comparison to R-1, R-5 is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. It is defined as a mixed use high-density district,which allows for a variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive commercial uses in a geographically compact area. Use of this zone is appropriate for areas j adjacent to mixed-use districts and/or served by transit to accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs and services. (Bozeman's UDC, Sec. 38.300.100)The subject property does not fall into this category. It is not adjacent to mixed-use districts, served by transit, or in close proximity to jobs and services. Sec. 38.300.010 of Bozeman's Unified Development Code also states: Individual zoning districts are adopted for the purposes described in section 38.100.040. Furthermore: A. A variety of districts is established to provide locations for the many uses needed within a healthy and dynamic community. B. Each district, in conjunction with other standards incorporated in this chapter, establishes allowable uses of property, separates incompatible uses, and sets certain standards for use of land. C. This provides predictability and reasonable expectation in use of land within particular zoning designations and sites. (Emphasis added.) By establishing Baxter Meadows West as R-1, the City of Bozeman set certain standards for the property in this area. Having a small piece of property zoned R-5 surrounded by R-1 properties certainly would qualify as incompatible. We as property owners should be provided the predictability and expectation that the quality of our property will remain. In addition, we believe that if the subject property is approved as R-5, it would fall under the category of spot zoning, which is illegal in Montana. The Montana Supreme Court adopted a three-part test for spot zoning in Little v Board of County Commissioners (1981), 193 Mont. 334, 631 P.2d 1282. That test is as follows: 1. Whether the requested use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area; 2. Whether the area in which the requested use is to apply is small, although not solely in physical size.An important inquiry under this factor is how many separate landowners will benefit from the zone classification; 3.Whether the requested change is more in the nature of special legislation designed to benefit one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or general public. Under the third factor for spot zoning, the inquiry should also involve whether the requested use is in accord with a comprehensive plan. Greater Yellowstone Coal., Inc. v. Bd. of Ctv. Comm'rs, 2001 MT 99, ¶ 21, 305 Mont. 232, ¶21, 25 P.3d168, ¶ 21 The first test asks if the requested use is different from the prevailing use. The subject property is requesting R-5, multi-use high-density housing. All the surrounding residential property is zoned R-1, low density single family housing. Therefore, the requested use (R-5) is significantly different from the prevailing use (R-1). The second test deals with the size of the property in regards to physical size and number of property owners. The subject property is a small pocket of land sandwiched in the middle of a large area of R-1 housing. It is also small from the standpoint that it is owned by one property owner who will benefit from the zone classification. The third and last test asks whether the zoning will benefit one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners. This is definitely true in this case. The owner/developer of the subject property stands to gain a great deal while the existing property owners, ourselves included, stand to loose a great deal—not only in our property values but also in the enjoyment of our property. Therefore, we believe zoning the subject property at R-5 would pass the three-part test and be considered spot zoning and is therefore illegal. For all the above reasons, we respectfully request you deny Rainbow Creek's request for the subject property to be zoned R-5. In the alternative, we request the property be zoned R-1, which is compatible with the property that surrounds it. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Jason Hinds Angela Hinds