HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-18 Protest - E. & B. Hook - Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment1
November 17, 2018
Bozeman City Clerk
121 N. Rouse Ave
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
RE: Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment – File 18-240 – Letter of Protest
TO: Bozeman Zoning Commission
Bozeman City Commission
Please accept this letter of protest regarding the Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment – File
18-240 requesting re-zoning the property located at 4555 Baxter Lane, Bozeman, MT to R-4.
We have no problem with annexation of this property into the City. In fact, we are supportive of annexation.
We do question the need to zone at R-4, or any other designation other than R-1. The basic tenets of our protest
are that:
The re-zoning request represents “spot zoning” and is therefore illegal.
That the request does not comply with the intent, nor the spirit, of the Bozeman Community Plan or the
United Development code.
Once zoned, the surrounding homeowners will have no say on what is built on the site, which would
potentially disrupt the current character of the surrounding neighborhood.
It will set a precedent within the City for other locations to be spot zoned.
While the City would like to consider this property as “infill”, we believe it is better described as “spot zoning”,
which is illegal in the State of Montana. It should be noted that the land to the west of Harper
Puckett/Cottonwood is undeveloped, providing opportunity to build denser, multi-use properties in the future.
There is also a large amount of property that is already zoned R-3 and higher available in the adjacent areas,
providing immediate yet unfulfilled opportunities for denser, multi-use development.
Spot Zoning:
To be considered Spot Zoning, the property must meet the following criteria:
The proposed use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area.
The area in which the requested use is to apply is rather small from the perspective of concern with
the number of separate landowners benefited from the proposed change.
The change is special legislation designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of
the surrounding landowners or the general public.
How this criteria is met:
The property is bordered on the south by PLU (Public Land Use—in this case, the sports fields), the
west by a single-family residence on County land, and on the north and east by R-1, single family
lots. Therefore, the R-4 zoning is significantly different from the surrounding zoning and is in direct
conflict with the existing Baxter Meadows neighborhood Master PUD plan.
The property in question is small, only 2.29 acres, of which only 1.8 acres can be built on (the other
land is for setbacks).
2
The beneficiary of the zoning change is limited to the landowner and, it could be argued, the City of
Bozeman. The greater community and adjacent landowners do not benefit from this zoning
designation.
Winner: The property owners gain the proceeds from sale or lease of the apartments.
Winner: The City acquires right-of-way land (a 50’ strip along Baxter) at no cost to the City,
based on applicants’ comments to the Zoning Commission at the original meeting.
Loser: The surrounding homeowners may see decreased property values, which could trickle
down to other properties in the subdivision.
Loser: The character of the surrounding community is significantly changed.
The Baxter Meadows community has been building out for over a decade, using a planned and measured
approach. It is one of, if not the first, Planned United Developments (PUD) in Bozeman. When one looks at the
Baxter Meadows planned community, one finds density increasing as one moves east from Harper-Puckett
toward Davis (see attached map). Within the PUD there is R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-S and B-2 zoning.
Additionally, there is plenty of undeveloped acreage, already zoned for higher density, nearby. South and east of
the applicant property, the new Flanders Mill development is zoned R-3 with a large section zoned R-4.
Developments further east are zoned R-3. To the south of the Sports complex, there is R-O zoning, as well as R-3
and R-4. Comparatively speaking, very little of the area is zoned R-1. It is our opinion that the Baxter Meadows
community and surrounding developments have already adopted, in spirit and in deed, the tenets of the
Bozeman Community Plan.
These tenets are stated in the Community Plan, Chapter 2, Introduction, Section 2.1 Guiding Principles:
“Strives to achieve a fair and proper balance among conflicting interests, to protect the rights of
citizens, and to affirm community values as they have been expressed by citizen’s and throughout the
planning process.”
And,
“Affirms Bozeman’s commitment to responsible stewardship of the natural environment, excellences
of environmental design and conservation of heritage of the built environment.”
Additionally, stated in Section 2.3, Why Do We Need a Plan?:
Promote the interest of the community at large, while respecting and protecting the interests of
individuals or special interest groups within the community.” [emphasis mine]
It is our opinion that these guiding principles of the Community Plan have been and continue to be met as
Baxter Meadows continues to build out. In fact, the Baxter Meadows community has helped development by
“lending” its 10 Acre Park open space to adjacent developments to help them meet open space requirements.
Intentional and planned development, coupled with the support of adjacent development, seems to
demonstrate the culture the City is trying to create as it grows. It is our opinion that rezoning to R-4 in the
middle of the R-1 section of a planned community moves away from the spirit and principles outlined in the
plan.
Chapter 3, Land Use, Section 3.2, Major Themes and Related Chapters, under Land Use Principles -
Neighborhoods states:
3
“There is strong public support for the preservation of existing neighborhoods and new development
being part of a larger whole, rather than just anonymous subdivisions.”
It is our opinion that the proposed Rainbow Creek is more an anonymous subdivision than part of the larger
whole. It does not fit the planned character of the neighborhood nor that of the surrounding communities and
developments.
Further in Section 3.2, Land Use Principles – Centers, the following is discussed:
“Centers are further supported through careful location of high density housing in a manner that
provides support for commercial operations while providing amenities to residents.”
in the Community Plan, a list of benefits potentially derived from this type of use area is listed. They include:
Increased business synergy.
Greater convenience for people with shorter travel distance to a wide range of businesses.
The opportunity to accomplish several tasks with a single trip.
Facilitates the use of transportation alternatives to single occupant motor vehicles with a corresponding
reduction in traffic and road congestion and air quality impacts
Enables greater access to employment, services, and recreation with reduced dependence on the
automobile.
Greater efficiencies in delivery of public services
Corresponding cost savings in both personal and commercial applications
In reviewing the above benefits, not one is in accord with the property location. We do not see how they can be
achieved considering the relative isolation/anonymity of the applicant property.
In the same section, under Land Use Principles – Sustainability, one finds:
“Development should be integrated into neighborhoods and the larger community rather than a
series of unconnected stand-alone projects.”
We feel this development represents an unconnected stand-alone project that is not integrated into the
neighborhood or larger community.
Section 3.3, Land Use Goals and Objectives, Objective LU-1.4 states:
“Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of
use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it.”
We support annexing the property into the city but we also ask for the zoning to respect the larger community
plan and the context of the existing development. R-4 zoning does not respect either. To us, the R-4 request is
based on one goal – maximize potential earnings for the landowner while disregarding the opportunities,
character, and context of the immediately surrounding community.
In the same section, Objective LU-2.1 states –
“Locate high density community scale service centers on a one-mile radius and neighborhood service
centers on a half mile radius, to facilitate efficient use of transportation and public services in
providing employment, residential, and other essential uses.”
Given the fact that there is existing, yet undeveloped, B-2 zoning within one half mile of the applicant property,
we fail to see how this R-4 “spot” zoning advances the cause.
4
In the Criteria narrative provided by the applicant, they state that the requested R-4 zoning is aligned with the
growth policy because the current zoning is residential, and the requested zoning is residential. R-1 does not
equal R-4.
In fact, the DRC notes state:
“Use of this zone (R-4) is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed use districts and/or served by
transit.”
The above sentence is a truncated version of the following one found in the Bozeman UDC Update, Part 2,
Zoning District Intent & Purpose Statement, Section 38.300.100, F:
“Use of this zone is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed use districts and/or served by transit to
accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs and services.”
The subject property is neither adjacent to mixed use nor served by transit. Additionally, we fail to see how
increasing the density on such a small parcel places a significant number of people in close proximity to jobs and
services.
Also, in Section 38.300.100, F., the partial sentence cited by the applicant in their Criteria Narrative is found. The
applicant notes:
“…walkable area to serve the varying needs of the community’s residents.”
The full sentence reads:
“The intent of the R-4 residential mixed-use high density district is to provide for high density
residential development through a variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive
commercial uses in a geographically compact, walkable area to serve the varying needs of the
community’s residents.”
We do not think the requested “spot zoning” realizes this intent.
In Section 3.4, Land Use Category Descriptions-Residential one finds the sentence cited by the applicant:
“Large areas of single type housing are discouraged.”
Further in that section it states:
“All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent
development….and in a fashion that compliments the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy.”
We do not think the request is compatible nor complementary to the furtherance of the Community Plan
(Growth Policy). These tenets are echoed in the Residential Emphasis Mixed Use section, which states:
”All uses should complement existing and planned residential uses.”
“Development should be integrated into neighborhoods and the larger community rather than a
series of unconnected stand-alone projects.”
As shown in the Zoning Map below, there is an abundance of land already zoned R-3 and R-4 and a
comparatively smaller section of land that is zoned R-1.
5
The City has demonstrated an intent to realize the goals stated in the Community Development Plan by
increasing density closer to service centers and transit corridors, such as 19th and Huffine, and decrease density
in more distant neighborhoods.
In consideration of this demonstration of deliberate and thoughtful zoning, to select anything other than R-1
zoning shows a blatant disregard for of the spirit and intent of the Bozeman Community Plan and is clearly spot
zoning.
In summary, the above information shows definitively that anything other than R-1 zoning on the applicant’s
property does not meet the criteria nor intent set by the City of Bozeman. Therefore, we respectfully protest the
request for R-4 zoning by Rainbow Creek Rentals.
Sincerely,
Edward L. Hook, Jr. Barclay G. Hook
4634 Danube Lane
Bozeman, MT. 59718
Baxter Meadows Sub Ph 3a, S34, T01 S, R05 E, Block 15, Lot 5
6
7