HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-21 Public Comment - D. Brawner - Buffalo Run App. 21076 Protest ��5fo-i rs (i brG✓� � � ,d �i
Diane L. Brawner Revision to include the new Application number and new points. Hand
106 Village Downtwn Blvd delivered to the City Clerk and Chris Saunders office in the Alfred Stiff bldg.
Bozeman, MT, 59715 on Monday March 22 at 9:30 AM for the 6 PM Zoning meeting.
March 19, 2021
City of Bozeman Dept. of Community Development
ATTN: Chris Saunders Zoning Commission
To Chris Saunders of the Zoning Commission, (copies also to the City Commission, and the
Department of Community Development) regarding Application 21076:
1 am again addressing you in writing to protes the resubmission of a proposed R4 rezoning,
development, and annexation of the 20.79 acres adjacent to my 40 acre parcel that borders
the proposed development along Fowler and my additional 40 acre parcel that borders the
Meadowcreek subdivision along Kurk and 27th
I am the sole owner of those property/parcels which are currently in the city payback districts.
My 2 parcels are legally described as: S23 T02 S R05 E, C.O.S. 1861 Tract A NE4SW4
40.773AC 06-0798-23-3-01-50-0000 and S23 T02 S R05 E, C.O.S. Tract 1 Section 23 2S
5E 40.735AC COS 2074 06-0798-23-3-01-10-0000
I realize that development in the Bozeman area is inevitable. In fact, I have complied with
THREE past requests for city easements and with developers on 3 sides of my property (along
my entire east border for the Meadow Creek subdivision and parts of my northern and
southern borders.) But I feel very strongly that unrestricted, poorly planned, or rapidly-
implemented development such as this proposed R4 (revised from an R5 proposal just a
month ago) is ill-advised, is spot zoning that is out of character, and dangerous to the future
and well-being of our community.
I wish to emphasize the following issues:
1. There is no question that the Buffalo Run developer is requesting spot zoning and the
Supreme Court of Montana has constituted that such zoning is illegal in the Little vs Board of
Country Comm'rs decision which they justified as follows:
Three factors must exist for the spot or island zoning to constitute unlawful spot zoning:
(1) the proposed use is significantly different from the prevailing use in the area;
(2) the area in which the requested use is to apply is rather small from the perspective
of concern with the numbers of separate landowners benefited from the proposed
change;
(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.
The proposed change in zoning to "high density R4 designation" for Buffalo Run meets all 3 of
those criterion, and should be rejected by the Zoning commission.
2. 1 also protest this proposed rezoning in a rural property area to an R-4 residential mixed-
use high density district by an out-of-state developer when the surrounding area is still rural,
and the extant developments nearby in the Meadow Creek Subdivision effectively function
single family homes and R1 zoning. The Grand Cielo subdivision to my north boundary has
been approved as a mixture of R3 and R4, but the R4 portion is restricted to the portion of the
subdivision only along the northern portion that borders the area much closer to Stucky Rd and
urban access. I point out that all land use from Fowler to the west, and including my property
and all others to the north and south of me to the east of Fowler is restricted to rural farming.
Not only will this out-of-character spot zoning to R4 development be life-changing for me since
I hay and run cattle on my property, but there are other very important considerations. Some
were brought up by a large number of Meadowcreek subdivision home owners and other
neighbors who spoke eloquently in protest to this development before the Zoning Commission
and the City Commission in January pointing out the many reasons how and why this
proposed Buffalo Run subdivision will impact their lives and homes. I will allow them to re-
cover those points.
3. Another important issue that was only touched on in January by Rene Gavin, and as
anyone including myself who currently lives or drives on the stretch of Fowler between Stucky
and Blackwood knows, even with the minimal development on Fowler now, it is hazardous to
get from Fowler to Stucky (and back) with the amount of traffic on Stucky at that uncontrolled
intersection. Both are county roads not built to city standards, yet bear an increasingly large
number of vehicles especially along Stucky. That will only increase exponentially if a huge
number of new residents are allowed by the development of an R4 subdivision called Buffalo
Creek. Derek Williams et al, the out-of-state developer who is proposing Buffalo Run
(Application 20112) insists, that by minimally improving Fowler (paving only), his subdivision
traffic will be routed from Buffalo Run down Fowler to Stucky for access to main arterioles
(19th) and thereby avoid heavy traffic through the Meadow Creek subdivision. But the
developers of Buffalo Run are now being cagey and refusing to announce their new density
plans for the R4 rezoning unlike what they initially proposed for their R5 zoning application
(when they proposed 188 units). Derek bluntly stated at a recent meeting with Meadow Creek
that he needs to make money in this subdivision, so he needs to pack that development with
units. But he has announced to the HOA of Meadowcreek that he will concentrate his highest
density of units near Fowler to appease the single family homeowners that border his eastern
border so that they will not face 4 story apartment buildings out their front windows. And he
also tried to calm their worries that in so doing the as many as 1500 additional car trips per day
would otherwise be traveling through their subdivision toward Graf and 19th would be routed
down Fowler instead. So now he proposes paving Fowler possibly from Blackwood to Stucky
but without bringing it up to city standards.
4. In addition, the sewer system and water system and infrastructure of the Meadowcreek
subdivision (and therefore, my property) will be seriously affected. The existing sewer system
is maintained entirely by gravity flow. There are no pumps. Kurk Drive is supplied with only an
8 inch pipe, and the sewer grade is shallow (10 ft deep); the ground slopes quickly. The sewer
pipe size and drainage system were designed by the City based on the requirements for that
specific area, and are meant to serve that district all the way to Patterson Rd. They were not
designed to include service for the proposed Buffalo Run subdivision so there are no stubs that
extend to Derek Williams' 20 acres.
Therefore, even if hook up was feasible via Kurk Dr and the Meadowcreek subdivision, it could
not handle the needs of the large Buffalo Run subdivision via gravity flow, and the only option
is to connect to sewer (and water) via Fowler all the way to Stucky.
5. As noted in my last protest, there has been an historical conflict and a precedent ruling set
by the City and County in response to a 40 acre development proposed, but unable to be
completed by developers of the property owned by a New Mexico group along Stucky road
near Fowler (next to the Rafferty property) 5 years ago. At that time the City said that those
developers would be required to put their water mains and sewer down Stucky Rd to 19th. The
City also told the developers that they would be required to improve Stucky Rd to City
standards with paving, curbs, and sidewalks from their development to 19th because Stucky is
a collector road as well as a County Rd (as is Fowler Rd). The county decided that they would
not allow the City to install improvements or City services on a county road unless the City was
willinq to take over the road and maintain it. The City and County could not agree. This is all
delineated in the Executive Summary of the Report submitted 5 years ago. The developers
had to abandon the project due to exorbitant costs of bringing Stucky up to City standards.
And, yes, I have learned that, according to the County Commission, these standards
have changed under George Durkin, the new county engineer, and that the County is now
planning to allow City facilities to be placed beneath county roads, a policy that was not
allowed under the former engineer. However, it appears that this new policy is haphazardly
construed without standards or policies set as to who maintains those city amenities
once they are installed and after the 2 year warranty expires on the work. It won't be the
developer because he'll be long gone (does the name Ainsworth ring a bell?). And since the
warranty will have expired for the Engineering company that did the work, they will refuse to
cover costs of repairs. It should not fall on the backs of the hapless HOA and property owners
to bear the cost of those repairs. So I foresee serious issues cropping up between the city and
the county as to who takes responsibility for the legalities/repairs that will arise in the event of
problems or issues. All of this must be decided before any permits are issued for any
development like Buffalo Run because as of now none no policy or standards exists. Tese
worries are very real since Engineering friends tell me that inspections on work like this are
very lax. If an engineering firm has not met city standards and it's not caught through
inspections, it's the citizens who will be caught in the middle while litigation takes forever
and/or engineering firms contest things through courts.
6. And it still remains that-Fowler is an unimproved county road that suddenly will collect and
absorb a tremendous amount of traffic for the large number of units proposed by the
development of Buffalo Run in their bid for spot zoning. It will require City upgrades, and this
precedent must apply to the proposed Buffalo Run division and the developer, who must be
required to fund costs of not only bringing City services to their specific property along a
County road, but also must bring that access road, now a poorly maintained, 2 lane gravel
road, to City standards, after which the City must maintain that road. And as I stated
previously, the blind-ending intersection at Fowler and Stucky is already a hazard for drivers
where it is difficult to make a left hand turn from Fowler to Stucky, or cross traffic from Stucky
to Fowler. It's an accident-prone area on unimproved county roads with no plans, as the city
has said, to extend Fowler to the north through University land.
Sol,sign myself3as eatly concerned and in protest,
Diane L. Brawner, Adjacent Property Owner