HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-18 City Commission Packet Materials - A2. Rainbow Creek Annexation and ZMA - SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Danielle Garber, Assistant Planner Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Summary of public comment and Zoning Commission on November 20,
2018 for the Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment
#18240. MEETING DATE: November 26, 2018
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: See staff report RECOMMENDED MOTION: Not applicable, summary memo for information only
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Rainbow Creek Rental Properties, LLC, seeks to annex one parcel of land totaling roughly 2.29 acres into the City limits and establish initial zoning of R-4 “Residential High Density.” The property is currently zoned “Agriculture Suburban” within the County. Nearby
municipal zoning includes Residential Single-Household Low Density (R-1) to the north and east and Public Lands and Institutions (PLI) to the south. Land to the west is unincorporated and zoned “Agriculture Suburban” within the County. The future land use map in the Bozeman Community Plan designates the property as “Residential.” The subject property is occupied by a single-household residence and a shop. The property is immediately surrounded by single-household
residential land uses to the north and east, the future Bozeman Sports Park to the south, and agricultural land to the west. The property is generally located east of the intersection of East Baxter Lane and Harper Puckett Road, and addressed as 4555 Baxter Lane, Bozeman, MT 59715. The property is legally described as a tract of land located in the SW ¼ of Section 34, Township 1 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M. Book 148, Page 207, Gallatin County, Montana.
The application for Annexation and Zone Map Amendment was received by the Planning Division on May 29, 2018 with a request for initial zoning at R-5, Residential Mixed-Use High Density. This request was reviewed by the Zoning Commission on August 21, 2018 with a high volume of
written public comment received against the proposal of R-5, as well as a high number of oral
testimonies given at the Zoning Commission hearing. The Zoning Commission discussed compatibility with nearby adjacent development, correlation with the existing Community Plan, and impact to neighbors. The Zoning Commission motion to recommend approval failed 3-1.
The application was then scheduled to be reviewed before the City Commission on September 17,
2018. Prior to the September 17 meeting, the applicant requested a continuance to allow them more time to confer with the neighbors and try to address their questions and concerns about the
proposed zoning. At the September 17 meeting, the City Commission approved a continuance to
October 8, 2018. Prior to the October 8, 2018 meeting City Staff requested a continuance to allow
for additional time for public notice and Zoning Commission Review. At the October 8, 2018 meeting, the City Commission approved the continuance to November 26, 2018. On October 25, 2018, Staff received an amended request for R-4 zoning, and the R-5 request was
withdrawn. A second round of public notice was sent out on October 30, 2018 with a special note
to notify all adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the application that they would need to submit new public comment, or written protest if they so wished, due to the requested zoning district changing to R-4. A number of written comments and letters of protest were received by the City Clerk’s office beginning on November 12, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the Zoning
Commission held a second hearing to review the revised application. At this meeting, the Zoning
Commission voted 3-0 to recommend approval of the application at the R-4 zoning. Staff is hereby providing a summary of the written public comment and letters of protest received by the City, as well as a summary of the November 20, 2018 Zoning Commission meeting. The
video record for this meeting can also be reviewed here:
https://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=2a69a317-b3f8-4ca5-96ad-43ff51544b91&prefilter=654,3835 PUBLIC COMMENT
As of November 21, 2018, 22 letters of public comment have been received by the City Clerk’s office and forwarded to Planning Staff. They are summarized below.
# Property Address Name Comment Summary
1 4510 Drafthorse Keown Oppose - Community Plan, Spot Zoning, No
Commercial Services
2 2490 Thoroughbred Awe Oppose - Protest
3 2397 Lasso Kovalik Oppose - No services, Environmental Cost,
Transportation
4 4559 Danube Bergevin Oppose - Spot Zoning, No Services,
Compatibility
5 2180 Riata Road Howard Oppose - Spot Zoning, No Services,
Compatibility
6 2278 Riata Road Ball Oppose - Spot Zoning, form & intensity, CIL
Infra. & Open Space
7 2486 Arabian Routhier Oppose - Spot Zoning
8 4626 Equestrian Bader Oppose - Spot Zoning, No Services,
Compatibility, Tree Preservation
9 2320 Andalusian Nolan Oppose - Compatibility, Property Value, Traffic
10 4590 Equestrian MacCall Oppose - Spot Zoning, No Services, Property
Value
11 4659 Danube Nohava Oppose - Compatibility
12 2438 Farrier Camps Oppose - Compatibility with Baxter Meadows
Plan
13 4525 Drafthorse Summerfield Oppose - Compatibility with Baxter Meadows
Plan
14 3300 Harper Puckett Cok Oppose - Compatibility w/ Baxter Meadows,
Spot Zoning
15 335 Clifden Wickland Support - high density near parks and arterial
streets
16 2314 Milkhouse Bartholomew Support - to thwart sprawl and promote healthy
lifestyles
17 777 E Main - Gallik
Law
Gallik Oppose - Attorney representing neighbors, spot
zoning,
18 4261 Equestrian Crites Oppose - Spot Zoning, Community Plan,
Compatibility w/ Baxter M.
19 2375 Lasso Poole Oppose - Spot Zoning, Traffic, STR rules
20 2152 Andalusian Luchetti Oppose - Compatibility w/ Baxter Meadows,
Community Plan
21 8965 Sandy Crk Lane Gallagher Oppose - Size of subject property, affordability,
traffic, suggested development instead
22 4544 Equestrian
Lane
Levert Oppose - Compatibility w/ surrounding
residences, proximity to services
The identification number in the left column corresponds to the order of public comment letters attached.
As of November 21, 2018, six letters of protest have been received from property owners within 150 feet of the subject property. Of the 10 properties within 150 feet, these six represent 60% of adjacent landowners requiring a 2/3 majority favorable vote by the City Commission. These protest letters are summarized and attached in the order below:
#
Assessment
Code
Property Address Owner Name Protest? Ownership
Verified
1
RFG56897 4634 Danube Lane Hook, Edward L Jr &
Barclay G
Yes Yes
2 RFG56898 4616 Danube Lane Hinds, Jason & Angela Yes Yes
3 RFG56899 4600 Danube Lane Vongehr, Scott A Yes Yes
4
RFG56900 4582 Danube Lane Drake, Garrett L & Kaitlin
N
Yes Yes
5
RFG56901 4532 Drafthorse
Dr
Kujawa, Gregory M Yes Yes
6
RFG56902 4526 Drafthorse
Dr
Peterson, David R &
Suzanne M Trustees
No Yes
7
RFG56903 4518 Drafthorse
Dr
Darden, William E III &
Judith A
Yes Yes
8
RFG8098 4687 Baxter Lane Pritham, Gregory H &
Whitney W
No Yes
9
BAXME3OSP Open Space Baxter Meadows Master
Community Assoc.
No Yes
10 RGG54801 Sports Park City of Bozeman No Yes
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
At the Zoning Commission meeting on November 20, 2018, 12 individuals gave public testimony against annexation and the proposed zoning of R-4. The main themes of the public testimony are listed below:
1) Hook, B. – Compatibility with the adjacent Baxter Meadows West development and
compatibility with the existing character of the area. The 50-foot open space will not be an
efficient buffer between the development and their homes, the space is flat and fences cannot be built. Also, view shed and ownership. 2) Vongehr – Growth Policy, high density should be near established commercial areas. Character of the area and compliance with the UDC.
3) Hinds – Character of the exiting neighborhood. 50-foot opens space is flat. Development
pattern of Baxter Meadows PUD. 4) Ellwood – Protest, Developer is playing both sides of the issue and downplaying what it could be built at and based on the presentation 36 units causes greater concern.
5) McKenzie - Does not believe it should be annexed at all. This is spot zoning. Nearby property
owners have put their properties up for sale. Baxter Meadows is a PUD and high-density zoning
is already provided. Traffic will be impacted.
6) Hook, E.J. - Elementary school does not serve this neighborhood. Planned unit community provides predictability and character he wanted when buying. City tapers zoning density down towards edges. This is a standalone parcel and should be integrated into the adjacent
neighborhood. Nearby Development further from Baxter Meadows should provide high-
density housing. 7) Kujawa - Agrees with neighbors and protests the zoning at R-4. Supportive of annexation. Two concerns, the need for additional high-density housing does not fit this corner of the city. Not compatible with growth policy and is spot zoning.
8) Darden - The removal of mature trees and bird nesting will be a detriment to the community.
Sidewalk should be extended to connect to existing sidewalk. R-4 appears to be spot zoning. There may be an impact to City tax revenue. 9) Bergevin – Character of existing PUD, perception when purchasing and assumption of lower intensity use. Spot Zoning. High Density should be closer to center of town. Speed limits
should be reduced on Baxter. Spoke about 50-foot open space.
10) Levert – Distributions of existing density nearby already. Compatibility with PUD and growth policy. Encourage coordinated design effort between this parcel and Baxter Meadows. Small size of parcel is inappropriate for R-4. Distance to High School is almost a mile. 11) Drake - Baxter Meadows is a planned development with low-density edges. Compatibility with
existing neighborhood character and PUD.
12) Drake, K. – Concurred with previous Drake comment, should be low density to match existing neighborhood. Following public comment further questions of staff included questions about the growth policy,
if staff agreed with the applicant regarding number of units and development potential at R-1 vs.
R-4, the goals of Annexation and the acquisition of right of way as a policy of Resolution 4400, and how speed limits are set. A motion to recommend approval was made after questions of staff. Discussion by the board
members included the following:
• Chris Scott – In support of the motion to recommend approval. We have seen examples of R-1 being adjacent to R-4 at a larger level than this proposal. The existing transportation network is currently handling and planned to handle more volumes. Transit will eventually be offered
nearby due to the high school. Did not recommend R-5 due to the extra height limit and reduced
parking requirements, but feels R-4 is more compatible with the existing neighborhood.
• Paul Spitler – In support of the motion. This board needs to look at the larger picture of the city, which means making hard decisions. Future growth will happen in this area and we must
do our best to make sure that growth happens in a responsible way, which means higher
densities. Additional reasons for support include potential for additional commercial nodes nearby and transit.
• George Thompson – In support of the motion and agrees with Paul. Looking at other areas of
the city where low density is adjacent to arterial and collector streets, it would be more appropriate to place high density here. The existing R-1 neighborhood is not changing. The Zoning commission than voted on the motion, which passed 3-0.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None ALTERNATIVES: See staff report
FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified at this time.
Report compiled on: November 26, 2018 Attachments: Written public comment and letters of protest