HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-21 Public Comment - D. Brawner - Buffalo Run App. 21076 ProtestFrom:Diane Brawner
To:Agenda; Tom Rogers
Subject:correction on my letter of protest against Buffalo Run application 21076
Date:Friday, March 19, 2021 4:16:23 PM
Attachments:Revised Zoning Board re Fowler March R4 rezoning.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.
I have sent letters of protest to Chris Saunders, the City Commissioners and the
County Commission on March 6 before I received the new application number that
Derek Williams has for the revised zoning and annexation from R5 (application
20112) to the new application 21076.
Attached is my revised letter to Chris Saunders and the Zoning commission
members. PLease include it as a formal protest in the upcoming Zoning Commission
meeting on March 22nd,
Diane Brawner, PhD
Diane L. Brawner 106 Village Downtown Blvd
Bozeman, MT, 59715
March 6, 2021 City of Bozeman Dept. of Community Development
ATTN: Chris Saunders Zoning Commission
To Chris Saunders of the Zoning Commission, the City Commission, and the Department of Community Development regarding Application 21076:
I am again addressing you in writing to protest 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 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 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 and dangerous to the future
and well-being of our wonderful community. Therefore I protest the proposal to rezone this new 20+ acre development 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 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 other to the north and south of me to the east of
Fowler is restricted to rural farming. Not only will this out-of-character R4 development be life-changing for me since I hay and run cattle on my property, but there are other very important considerations to which a large number of Meadowcreek subdivision home owners spoke eloquently before the Zoning Commission and the City Commission recently pointing out the
many reasons how and why this proposed Buffalo Run subdivision will impact their lives and
homes. One of the most prescient problems, as anyone including myself who currently lives or drive on the stretch of Fowler between Stucky and Blackwood knows, even with the minimal
development on Fowler now, it is nearly impossible 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) traffic his subdivision traffic will be routed from Buffalo Run down Fowler to Stucky for access to main arterioles (19th) to avoid heavy traffic through the Meadow Creek subdivision. And he proposes paving Fowler from his border the 0.8 mile to
Stucky but without bringing it up to city standards. This is unacceptable as well because he
plans to install the development’s connections to city water and sewer at Stucky by going down the center of Fowler, a county road, from the south end of his proposed subdivision north to Stucky, approximately 0.8 mi.
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 where they proposed 188 units. Derek bluntly stated that he needs to make money in this subdivision, so he needs to pack that development with units. This is anathematic and completely out of character with the existing development and lack of it in the area.
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.
This reality again emphasizes the real crux of this problem because of an historical conflict and a precedent ruling set by the City and County in response to a development proposed, but
denied, to developers of the property owned by a New Mexico consortium who had applied to
develop their 40 acres 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). However, an impass arose between the County and City when at that time the County determined that they would not allow the City to install improvements or City services on a county road unless the City was willing to take over the road and maintain it. City and County did not agree, and the improvement costs for the developer were prohibitively high for those
huge improvements, and they had to scrap their development project. This is all delineated in
the Executive Summary of the Report submitted 5 years ago, the county refused to allow a development close to Stucky and Fowler based on the fact that the developers from New Mexico could not afford to bring Stucky up to City standards which was a demand of the
County, i.e., the county insisted the city would have to take over maintenance and care of Stucky, which the city refused to do. This should apply to Buffalo Creek subdivision as well.
For New Mexico developers, this is no longer an issue since they have access to sewer and water through the Grand Cielo development. However, a precedent has been set here for expected improvements along County roads and the requirement for the City to maintenance
them. 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. 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 0.8 miles of
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.
Lastly, the Buffalo Run development 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.
Greatly concerned,
Diane L. Brawner, Adjacent Property Owner