HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-21 Public Comment - Meadow Creek HOA Board of Directors - Buffalo Run DevelopmentFrom: David Parker
To: Martin Matsen; mihelich@bozeman.net; Chris Saunders; Mitch Reister; Shawn Kohtz; Lance Lehigh; Jennifer
Madgic; Cyndy Andrus; Terry Cunningham; Michael Wallner; lpomeroy@bozeman.net; Derek Williams
(derek@bridgerdevelop.com); Agenda
Subject: Meadow Creek HOA Position regarding Development Action at Buffalo Run
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:22:45 AM
Attachments: Ltr to City Commissioners 03_08_2021_FINAL.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Interested Parties,
Please find attached the Meadow Creek HOA's letter concerning proposed annexation and
zoning action at Buffalo Run. We believe this letter lays out our continued concerns that R4
designation would entail--but we also propose some reasonable solutions to those concerns
recognizing the need for additional housing in Bozeman.
Please reach out should you have any questions.
Respectfully,
David Parker on behalf of the Meadow Creek HOA Board of Directors
1
March 9, 2021
Sent Via Email to:
Bozeman City Mayor Andrus
Bozeman City Deputy Mayor Cunningham
Bozeman City Commissioner Madgic
Bozeman City Commissioner Pomeroy
Bozeman City Commissioner Wallner
Bozeman City Manager Mihelich
Director of Community Development Matsen
Community Development Manager Saunders
Public Works Director Reister
City Engineer Kohtz
Engineer III Lehigh
Developer Williams
RE: Meadow Creek HOA’s Opposition to proposed Buffalo Run Annexation and Zone Map
Amendment Application #21076, filed 2/26/2021, which proposes R-4 high-density zoning; and
Meadow Creek HOA’s Alternate Request for Consideration of either Lower Density or
Variable/“Transitional Zoning,” to Graduate Zoning Density from R-2 to R-4 between Meadow
Creek and Fowler Avenue
Dear Bozeman City Commissioners and Staff:
This letter serves as formal opposition by the Meadow Creek HOA board—on behalf of our
residents--to the R-4 high-density zoning application for the proposed Buffalo Run development.
Along with detailing why we oppose this application, we discuss why the Board did not support
R-5 zoning with covenant restrictions, and suggest alternatives acceptable to the Meadow Creek
community, including either a lower zoning designation or “transitional zoning” that gradually
transitions zoning densities from moderate density (R-2) adjacent to Meadow Creek to high-
density (R-4) adjacent to Fowler Avenue along with creation of a “Missing Middle Housing”
neighborhood as a buffer between these moderate and high-density zones (See diagram attached
in Appendix A). We believe these are far preferable to straight R4 zoning.
The Meadow Creek neighborhood is zoned R-3, but in fact was developed as a low-density
neighborhood of detached single-family homes. Meadow Creek has 186 total lots, only 5 of
which remain unbuilt. Out of 186 total lots, 180 are single-family homes and 1 is a tri-plex.
Meadow Creek’s composition is 99.95% low density single-family homes, consistent in fact with
R-1 or R-2 zoning. Structures within Meadow Creek do not exceed two stories, and many
families with small children and retirees live in Meadow Creek. It is our position that neither R-5
nor R-4 zoning are comparable to the existing community.
With respect to the Developers’ prior R-5 zoning application, we need to set the record straight.
2
It has been suggested that the Board was unreasonable in failing to accept concessions the
Developers offered by way of restrictive covenants on the prior application. Specifically, the
Developers offered to limit density to 150 new dwellings, if R-5 with restrictive covenants was
agreed to by the Board. The implication now being that the Board blew their chance and cannot
fairly complain about the density of R-4 development since Meadow Creek could have achieved
lower density by agreeing to the Developers’ prior R-5 proposal.
This is neither accurate nor reasonable. Meadow Creek was never consulted by either the
Developers or the City prior to the Developers submitting their R-5 application. All other parcels
adjacent to Meadow Creek are zoned R-3 or are farmland. Only after the Zoning Commission
recommended against approving R-5, because R-5 did not meet required zoning criteria, did the
Developers contact the Meadow Creek Board and begin a dialogue, which we appreciated.
The Developers presented their restrictive covenant proposal to the Board exactly one week before
the City Commission Meeting. In that one week time period, the Board scrambled to create
educational materials explaining to the neighborhood what a “Declaration of Restrictive Covenants”
is, disseminated the Developers’ proposal, held a follow-up Zoom meeting to further explain and
answer questions, and attempted, but failed, to gain neighborhood consensus on the Developers’
proposal. There was simply inadequate time to accomplish what the Developers expected the Board
to make happen in only one week.
The Board was also advised by legal counsel that the City does not enforce private covenants and
that the enforcement mechanism is private litigation paid for by the HOA. This was another fact
the Board made known to the neighborhood for consideration, as it is the homeowners who
would bear this expense. It was decided that the Meadow Creek HOA should not bear the burden
of monitoring and enforcing private covenants through litigation. Zoning through appropriate
City planning processes, with a zoning designation matching as closely as possible the actual
density, was considered the preferable way development should occur. Finally, an R-5
designation on the City zoning map, even if limited by restrictive covenants, was also considered
as setting a misleading precedent for future development – the zoning map would reflect an R-5
high-density parcel immediately adjacent to an R-3 (and “as-built” R-1) neighborhood, even
though Buffalo Run may have been developed at less than the maximum density allowed.
Given the single week time constraint to educate and gain neighborhood consensus, the lack of
neighborhood consensus, and the financial onus of private covenant enforcement, the Board did
not act unreasonably in rejecting the Developer’s proposal for R-5 zoning.
The Developers now respond with an R-4 zoning request. We believe R-4 zoning does not meet
the City’s zoning criteria and should be denied in favor of a Lower Density Zoning or Variable
Zoning.
Blanket R-4 zoning for this “island project,” which sits in the middle of undeveloped farmland
and does not meet any of the required zoning criteria, is wholly inappropriate. The Board
believes the Meadow Creek neighborhood would support either 1) a lower zoning density of the
whole parcel; 2) or might support a “transitional zoning” concept for the parcel, whereby an area
would be zoned R-2 in a strip of platted lots adjacent to Meadow Creek, and the rest of the parcel
3
would be transitionally zoned at increasing densities from moderate to high, with R-4 zoning
immediately adjacent to Fowler Avenue, which is designated on the City’s Transportation Plan
as a future minor arterial.
Although paving of Fowler to County standards is enormously important and necessary for any
significant development on Fowler Avenue, a blanket high-density zoning of the whole Buffalo
Run parcel is still excessive. Buffalo Run is not adjacent to any PRESENT major or minor
arterial roads. There is no collector road that accesses the Buffalo Run parcel from the east
towards 19th
. The only access to Buffalo Run from the east is Kurk Avenue, which runs through
Meadow Creek. Kurk Avenue is not an arterial or even a collector. Kurk Avenue is a local
street, is 33-feet wide, without bike lanes, and without a sidewalk on the north side. Fowler’s
status as an arterial road should be established in fact before high density development occurs
along it. Kurk should not be expected to bear high-density development traffic alone for the
foreseeable future.
Moreover, whole parcel R-4 zoning in this location is inappropriate for the same reasons that R-5
zoning was inappropriate. Neither R-5, nor R-4 zoning meet the City’s published zoning criteria,
a conclusion which the Zoning Commission previously reached with respect to R-5 zoning based
on the same required facts.
Per Bozeman Municipal Code 38.300.100, “Intent and Purpose” of Residential zoning districts,
an R-4 “Residential high density district” is “appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use
districts, commercial districts, and/or served by transit to accommodate a higher density of
residents in close proximity to jobs and services.”
R-4 zoning of this parcel does not meet any of these four criteria:
1) The parcel is not adjacent to mixed-use districts, instead, it is adjacent to
County farmland on three sides and a detached single-family home neighborhood
on the other;
2) There are no close commercial districts; the nearest commercial district is a
small commercial park located between Discovery Drive and Enterprise
Boulevard, which is over a 1-mile walk from the nearest corner of the parcel;
3) The parcel is not served by transit, nor is there any plan to expand transit to
this area;
4) There is no close proximity to jobs and services; the closest business park is
over 1 mile away and at least a 30 minute walk, the closest grocery store is Town
and Country, 2.4 miles away and a 45 minute walk, and the closest restaurants are
on the MSU campus, 2 miles away, and at least a 40 minute walk.
As such, this parcel meets none of the stated criteria for R-4 high-density zoning. Because the
parcel is not within easy walking distance to jobs, shopping or restaurants, and is not served by
public transit, it can be anticipated that if it is zoned R-4, the large number of residents allowed
by such zoning will not walk or take nonexistent transit – they will drive their automobiles to
access jobs and services. In fact, the walk score of Buffalo Run is 0 out of 100, which means all
4
errands/trips require a car (https://www.walkscore.com/score/5400-fowler-ln-bozeman-mt-
59718). This does not support the City’s goals of promoting walkable neighborhoods and
reducing automobile pollution and traffic.
R-4 zoning of this parcel also does not support the City’s 2020 Climate Plan and traffic
mitigation goals, which focus on compact development as a way to reduce the distance people
need to travel for work and shopping, through measures like City infill, pedestrian travel, bike
lanes, and utilization of transit 1
– none of which are possible here. To the contrary, R-4 zoning
in this location will exacerbate these problems by locating high-density development in an
isolated area where residents will be forced to drive to access anything.
The Meadow Creek HOA Board recognizes that Bozeman is growing and needs housing. We
also recognize that blanket opposition to any new development outside existing City limits is
both unrealistic and infeasible. We want Bozeman to grow and thrive, but we desire Bozeman to
grown smartly, without destroying its unique and desirable characteristics as a livable,
micropolitan city.
Indeed, the character of Bozeman as an outdoor-friendly, “small-town” feeling city is one of the
reasons why Bozeman rivals Bend and Boulder as one of the fastest growing, most desirable
places to live. We believe that part of this thoughtful growth is not restricting new development
to dense, multi-family block buildings, apartments and condominiums. Pushing individuals
favoring less dense development beyond Bozeman’s boundaries, in fact, undermines the City’s
Climate Action Plan as this would require additional commuting and carbon emissions. We
believe a mixed approach to residential housing stock to be the most appropriate.
The Board believes there would likely be neighborhood support for R-3 zoning of the whole
parcel. Such zoning is consistent with every other development adjacent to Meadow Creek and not
on an arterial road.
If the Developer or the City is unwilling to consider R-3 zoning, then variable/transitional zoning
should be considered. Based on feedback from the neighborhood, the Board believes it could
obtain some neighborhood support for this concept. We believe a “buffer” of R-2 housing
immediately adjacent to Meadow Creek, which is a detached single-family neighborhood, then
zone R-3 in the middle, transitioning to R-4 adjacent to Fowler Avenue, makes the most sense
for the Buffalo Run parcel if a variable zoning approach is used.
Variable zoning would provide gradual transition from low to high density, would provide a
variety of diverse housing types, and would allow for construction of “Missing Middle
Housing,” all of which are all stated development goals of the City in the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan.
It is a City growth goal to “Promote housing diversity, including missing middle housing” (N-
1.1), to “Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time”(N-
1.11) and to “Promote the development of “Missing Middle” housing … as one of the most
critical components of affordable housing” (N-3.8)
1 Bozeman 2020 Climate Plan, Chap. 3, Solution G, page 83.
5
The 2020 Community Plan explains, “Missing middle housing is housing constructed in
buildings which are of a size and design compatible in scale and form with detached individual
homes. Example housing types include duplex, triplex, live-work, cottage housing, group living,
row houses, townhouses, horizontally layered apartments, flats, and other similar
configurations.” (City of Bozeman Community Plan, Appendices F-3). (Emphasis added.)
As set forth in the Community Plan, “Missing Middle Housing” is intended to serve as a buffer
and transition zone between existing single-family neighborhoods, such as Meadow Creek, and
areas of higher-density development, such as apartment or condominium complexes. (See
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, Appendices, Missing Middle Housing Diagram, F-3.)
This is exactly how the Buffalo Run parcel could be zoned, which would be consistent with the
City’s development goals, and would lessen the traffic impact on Kurk Avenue as new high-
density housing would be located next to Fowler Avenue with moderate density housing located
next to Meadow Creek and Kurk Avenue.
We appreciate the opportunity to communicate our thoughts concerning development
surrounding our community. We love Bozeman and our quiet community. We also recognize
more people want to make Bozeman their home, too. Please help us strike a careful balance
between the need for growth while protecting the existing communities and families that have
already made a commitment to Bozeman.
Respectfully Submitted,
Meadow Creek HOA Board of Directors
6
Appendix A: Missing Middle Housing