HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-25-18 Protest - EJ Hook - Rainbow Creek Annexation and Zone Map Amendment1
Robin Crough
From:ej&barclay hook <ejbhook@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 25, 2018 7:09 PM
To:Agenda
Cc:Home; ej hook, work
Subject:Rainbow Creek Letter of Protest File 18-204
Attachments:Rainbow 11-26-18.docx
Categories:Protest Forms
Please find attached our protest letter addressing Rainbow Creek File 18‐240 for tonight’s City Commission meeting. It is
different than the Zoning Commission Letter of Protest sent 11/17.
It appears the fast pace of this issue is causing some issues with getting info to various commissions. Our letter of
protest to the zoning commission, sent 11‐17‐18, was not listed in the staff report at the 11/20/18 meeting. As of this
writing none of those letters are included in the packet for tomorrow’s meeting Commission nor are the minutes and
submitted materials from the Zoning Commission meeting posted on the website.
I have concerns our elected officials are not getting information in a timely fashion allowing them time to do due
diligence to make informed decisions.
November 25, 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 City Commission
Attachments: Letter of Protest 11-20-18
Speaking notes for E.J Hook from 11-20-18 Zoning Commission meeting
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.
I would like to begin with two quotes from the November 20. 2018 Zoning Commission meeting.
From Madison Engineering referring to the reason for the R-4 request—
“Develop to a level to have a return in investment. That is why higher density is required here”
(00:37:25)
Clearly this expresses the intent of the request – maximize profit through re-zoning for a single
individual.
From Staff referring to Baxter Meadows Master Plan (PUD) –
“Newly annexed lands are not expected to follow the same development pattern” (01:20:25)
This statement contradicts both the tenets of the Community Growth Plan and the UDC.
From the Community Growth Plan—
“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.”
“Promote the interest of the community at large, while respecting and protecting the interests
of individuals or special interest groups within the community.”
“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.”
“Development should be integrated into neighborhoods and the larger community rather
than a series of unconnected stand-alone projects.”
” All uses should complement existing and planned residential uses.”
“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.”
“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.”
From the UDC—
“Use of this zone (R-4) is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed use districts and/or served
by transit.” (emphasis mine)
“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.”
(emphasis mine)
From UDC Residential Mixed-Use zoning district—
“Support or add to an existing neighborhood context”
“Enhance an existing neighborhood’s sense of place and strive to make it more self-
sustainable.”
“Emphasis the need to serve the adjacent local neighborhood as well as the greater Bozeman
area”
“Encourage thoughtfully developed master planned communities”
I add the REMU language because it is relevant to addressing the core issues in this matter. I see those
as—
• Character and prevailing use of existing neighborhood;
• Applicant’s expectation of a reasonable Return on Investment
• The City’s desire to increase density/address housing issue.
The solution lies in finding the balance between these three core issues.
In an attempt to be brief and not rehash specifics raised in earlier letters and dialogue I will couch the
remainder of this letter using the Spot Zoning criteria as a guide.
Criteria 1 - The proposed use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area.
The proposed use is significantly different. Prevailing use is R-1, residential low density with no
commercial activities including offices. R-4 zoning allows uses significantly different than the prevailing
uses. Madison Engineering stated that the proposed development under R-4 zoning is three 12-unit
buildings with over 70 parking spots which may include offices under the R-4 zoning allowable uses. As
visual evidence of the significant differences, I include Figure 1, a picture of the Sundance apartment
complex 12-unit building, and Figure 2, Madison Engineering site plan for the three 12-unit
arrangement.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1 – 12-Unit apartment building (appx distance to building is 130 feet)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2 – Madison Engineering proposed site plan (Baxter Lane at bottom, existing homes at top)
R-4 zoning does not meet the City’s UDC which states—
“Use of this zone (R-4) is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed use districts and/or served
by transit.” (emphasis mine)
“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.”
(emphasis mine)
To allow R-4 zoning will necessitate a significantly different interpretation of the UDC. This
interpretation was included in the Staff report and dialogue interpreting “adjacent” to “near-by” as part
of the recommendation to approve.
The City evaluated existing R-4 adjacent to R-1 zoning. Nine instances were noted. Re-zoning this parcel
to R-4 would be significantly different than all the existing adjacency zones. It would be among the
smallest (if not the smallest), the only one bounded on three sides by existing and occupied R-1 zoning
and one of the very few that will not have separation of R-1 from R-4 defined by a road. Figure 3
illustrates this. I have circled the applicant property and the two existing small R-1 – R-4 adjacencies. A
quick drive-by of the two existing adjacencies revealed the subject property has opportunities the other
two comparable small adjacencies do not. The subject property has existing medium and high-density
zoning nearby which is not built out. Resolution 4978 was passed by the City Commission last week
(11/19/18) opening future opportunities. Last, there is opportunity in the unannexed county land
immediately to the west.
Figure 3 – Existing R-1 -- R-4 adjacencies and Resolution 4978
Criteria 2 –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 City has ceded this criterion is met. This is reconfirmed by the Madison Engineering comment
“Develop to a level to have a return in investment. That is why higher density is required here”. It is
further evidenced n Figure 3.
Criteria 3 –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.
Special legislation is required to approve R-4 zoning for this parcel. It requires the City to disregard its
own UDC in terms of appropriate use and to set new precedent in interpretation the its Community
Growth Plan. These points are additive to those above, many of which have relevance to this criterion.
As a last point of consideration, I was surprised by the by the Zoning Commission’s change of stance.
The original R-5 request was not recommended by a 3 – 1 vote. R-4 was recommended by a 3 – 0 vote.
In allowable uses listed there is a difference as R-5 allows retail and restaurants, R-4 does not. For this
parcel, the retail and restaurant uses are not permitted via R-5 zoning because the subject property is
not on a street corner. Therefore, there is no substantive difference between the original request of R-5
and the current request for R-4 yet there is a substantive difference in the Zoning Commission’s
recommendation. (UDC Table 38.310.030 B)
For us, the public, this is our last chance to actively participate. Once the Zoning decision is made that
zoning will provide guidance through the UDC for the site plan review process and beyond. I urge the
Commission to take the time to ensure due diligence in making this decision. If you need more time,
take it.
In summary, the City’s UDC states that R-4 zoning is not appropriate for this site. The allowable uses in
R-4 are too broad and do not complement nor respect existing development as stated in the City’s
Community Growth Plan. This is especially true for the allowable use of apartments. I request the City
deny the request for R-4 zoning.
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
*This letter is submitted based on an incomplete access to information due to the tight timeline
between meetings and the interceding holiday resulting in only two business days to respond and
submit. Information not available to the public includes status and copies of Letters of Protest, timely
access to City staff, and access to the Meeting minutes.
Attachment: Letter of Protest 11-20-18
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).
• 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:
“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.
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.
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
Attachment: Speaking notes for E.J Hook from 11-20-18 Zoning Commission meeting
EJ Hook
4634 Danube Lane – since July 2011
Concur with what I have heard thus far
Part of the reason I chose to live where I do is because it was a planned community. It afforded the
predictable lifestyle I wanted. I had choices supplied by thoughtful and intentional neighborhood level
zoning that provided options on density, access, proximity, and character. Those choices guided my
decision.
Taking the larger view the City has continued that concept of zoning large parcels and increasing density
in measured increments as proximity to service centers and transit become positive attributes. This is
reflective of the Community Growth Plan and demonstrates the benefit of thoughtful and intentional
zoning decisions. This large parcel zoning concept is easier and more successful when working with
evolving communities and neighborhoods. This is the case in the area we are discussing. As further
demonstration, last night the City Commission consented to consider an amendment to the Growth
Policy – figure 3-1, Future Land Use map – proposing changing the future designation of 160 acres NW
of the Cottonwood and Oak intersection from residential/rural to residential emphasis - mixed use and
community commercial - mixed use. While not reality yet this demonstrates the continued practice of
zoning large parcels to realize the intent and spirit of the Community Growth Plan.
In the Community Growth Plan it states
“Development should be integrated into neighborhoods and the larger community rather than a
series of unconnected stand-alone projects.”
Given the demonstrated and continuing focus on developing the area using a large parcel zoning
approach I fail to see how zoning this property R-4 integrates into the neighborhood or the larger
community. I think the request represents an unconnected, stand-alone project in the context of this
larger view and current practice. The only goal this zoning may achieve is bringing it closer to meeting
the spot zoning criteria.
I do realize that Bozeman is the fastest growing micropolitan area in the country putting pressure of
our entire community and its’ leaders to address the issues inherent in this growth rate. I believe
small, one-off, reactionary solutions such as the one proposed do not appropriately nor adequately
address the challenge. I believe by adopting a pro-active rather the reactive approach the larger goals
espoused in the Community Growth Plan will be realized.
My point is this – Using the larger view perspective with the sports fields as a center point the subject
property area is bounded on the south and east by existing, defined large parcel zoning and, on the
west, a large parcel zoning re-designation effort is being actively pursued. Those zoning districts
contain or will contain higher density housing and business options.
On the north the prevailing use and zoning is R-1 including all the properties immediately surrounding
the subject property. In keeping with spirit and intent of the Community Growth Plan and the
precedent of large parcel neighborhood zoning in the area the request for R-4 zoning on this small
parcel should be denied.
Thank you for the opportunity to carry my concerns to you directly.