HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-18 Protest - A. and K. Becker - Mountain Vista Zone Map Amendment T5! �S
December 7, 2018
Bozeman City Clerl
121 North Rouse Avenue
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
RE: Zone Map Amendment to rezone an existing lot totaling 2.63 acres from R-2 Residential Two-
Household Medium Density to R-4 Residential High Density for the property described as being
located at the intersection of West Babcock Street and Michael Grove Avenue.addressed as 2928
West Babcock Street, Bozeman, MT, 59715.The legal description of the property is Tract 24 located in
the W 1/2 of W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SW%of Section 11,Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M,
City of Bozeman,Gallatin County, Montana, 59715.Application number 18-438
To: City of Bozeman
Department of Community Development
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT. 59771-123C
Please accept this letter as an official PROTEST to the above mentioned action on the property
uescribed. My name is Andrew Becker, my wife and I, Katie Becker, own the property located at 202
Donna Avenue, Bozeman, MT, 59718. Our property is legally described as Babcock Meadows Sub Phase
26, S11,T02S, R05E, LOT 46, Plat J-314.
This Zone Map Amendment application shows direct opposition to MCA statutes regarding zonma,
contradicts the City of Bozeman's adopted growth policy, and most importantly is a clear example of
spot zoning, which has been deemed illegal in the Montana Supreme Court.
It is my understanding that the City Planners,Zoning Commission, and City Commission review the
application against the above statutes in order to make a recommendation regarding the adoption of
the zone map amendment.
In regards to the substantive standards set forth in MCA 76-2-304,this zone map amendment would
not:
Conserve the value of buildings and encourage appropriate land use (2)(e)
Single family home values in the surrounding neighborhood will be negatively impacted in value by
proximity to high density housing.
Maintain the character of the district(2) (d)
The immediate vicinitv of the subject property is almost entirely surrounded by single family homes,
with the designation of R3
Promote Compatible Growth(2)(v
R3 and R4 zoning aren't necessarily compatible. Upzoning a parcel into an R4 island amidst a sea of R3
aesignated homes creates potential for a slew of parking and traffic issues. I would point to the R4/R3
zoning that exists at the intersection of Michael Grove and Durston. Michael Grove is essentially a one
way street most months of the year, and sometimes nearly impassable in the winter months due to a
huge overflow of on street parjang.
Effect on motorized and non motorized transportation systems(2)(b)
With the relative limited size of the subject property,its proximity to an established walking trail, and
proximity to Babcock,the negative impacts of an increased flow of traffic from this development wouie
far outweigh the benefits.
Reasonable provision of adequate light and air(2)(a)
Without a stringent height restriction on the proposed development, neighboring properties to the
West and East of the property will be negatively impacted by the decrease in solar access at sunrise and
sunset.
Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation,water,sewerage,schools,parks,and other public
requirements(1)(b)(iii)
A traffic study should be conducted to adequately assess the impacts of the surrounding arterial and
collector streets.
Promote public health, public safety,and the general welfare(1)(b)(ii)
A site plan needs to be developed to assess the risk involved for neighboring properties with regards to
fire access, ambulatory care, etc.
Secure safety from fire and other dangers(1)(b)(i)
See above,without a proper site plan, a zoning determination would be difficult to assess since many of
the concerns outlined have direct correlation to the orientation of the building on the site.
Made in accordance with Growth Policy(1)(aI
An underlying principle of Bozeman Adopted Unified Development Code (BUDC)38.300 is to provide a
variety of housing types and arrangements within a community,while providing a basic level of
predictability. This is a very important premise and cannot be understated. The immediate vicinity of
the subject property in question is surrounded by single family homes,and areas that are designated R-
1, R-2,and R-3. Since the adjacent properties as defined by 76-2-305(within 150')are a different
classification (113)a basic level of predictability would indicate that the property in question would be
zoned similarly, or stay the same designation that it currently is. Rezoning or"upzoning" would
constitute a blatant case of "spot zoning".
Spot Zoning
Soot zoning has 3 basic principles that have been defined by the Montana Supreme Court, if these
criteria are met,they will be considered "spot zoning" .
(1) Is the proposed used significantly different from the prevailing land use in the area?
—'ie prevailing land use in the area consists of single family homes that are situated on
properties and lots designated for such use.
(2) Is the area requested rather small in comparison to the number of landowners benefitedrrorr,
the change. The singular landowner of developer that has requested a zoning to change a
singular lot 2.3 acres in site. This lot represents a single piece of property larger than the
adjacent lots,which will only benefit one person.
(3) Would the change be in the nature of"special legislation"designed to benefit only one or few
landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowner or the general public. This example
is a resounding yes, and also cannot be understated. The 15-17 adjacent landowners are at risk
financially from decreased property values associated with proximity to high density residential
properties, are at risk from possible traffic congestion and parking concerns, and do not benefit
at all from a zone map amendment to R4. The basic premise of this criteria is to analyze the
BENEFIT to the surrounding landowners, not the benefit of the proposed developer.
In summary,we respectfully request the City Commission, Zoning Commission,and Citv Planners adhere
to established principles defined by State and Local laws and DO NOT adopt the proposed zone map
amendment to R4 high density housing. Rezoning into an R4 zoning classification would be a disservice
to the character of the existing community and a departure from responsible zoning practices.
Respectfulit,,
Andr w ecker Katie Becker