HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-21 Public Comment - D. Brawner - Buffalo Run App. 21076 Protest (2) Diane L. Brawner
106 Village Downtown Blvd
Bozeman, MT, 59715
March 19, 2021
Bozeman City Commission and Commissioners
ATTN: Cyndy Andrus, Mayor; Terry Cunningham, and I-Ho Pomeroy
Regarding Application 21076, a development application for Buffalo Run.
This is a resubmitted letter because the one I sent you on March 6 included the old
application number. I have rectified that here. Also, I have since learned more pertinent
information that applies directly to the County so I include it here.
Thus I am again addressing you in writing to rp otest the resubmission of a proposed R4 high
density rezoning and annexation application for 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 271h . I have written to Chris Saunders
separately, but I want to draw your attention here to what involves possible conflicts both
previously and possibly in future situations between the City and County, and point out some
issues that should be more carefully considered.
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 wish to prevent this high density R4 development for sound reasons that I delineate below. I
realize that development in the Gallatin Valley area is inevitable. In fact, I have complied land
did not protest) the THREE past requests for city easements and worked with different
developers on 3 sides of my property (along my entire east border and parts of my northern
and southern borders.) But I rp otest the proposal to rezone and develop this new 20+ acre
development in a rural property area as an R-4 residential mixed-use high density district by
this out-of-state developer when the surrounding area is still rural, and the developments
nearby are all single family homes—essentially functioning as an R1. The proposed R4 zoning
is not appropriate for this part of the valley and does not exist there now. It is spot zoning.
Not only will this be life-changing for me since I use my land for agriculture purposes (hay and
grazing cattle), as do all of my neighbors to the south and west, but there are other very
important considerations to which a large number of Meadowcreek subdivision home owners
spoke eloquently before the Zoning Commission in January as to the many reasons how and
why this proposed Buffalo Run subdivision will impact the quality of their lives. I will not repeat
those here because I know they will. However, there are very important issues that I have
since discovered that were not covered at that 4.5 hour Zoning Commission meeting on
January 11th, 2021. 1 address those here:
Derek Williams, the developer who is proposing the development (Application 20112) has
resubmitted his rezoning application from earlier this year downgrading his request from an R5
to an R4 high density zoning. However, he has become cagey about announcing what his
density of development will entail. Initially he proposed 188 units. Now he claims that he
needs to make a profit on this and will not say if he is decreasing that density with his R4
proposal. And he and his partners are the only ones who will profit at the expense of
landowners adjacent to him. He has informally proposed to a very disgruntled HOA of the
Meadow Creek subdivision that to appease them he is willing to place R3 type buildings along
the border near the Meadow Creek subdivision at the east end of his 20 acres, but will quickly
graduate to extra high density R4 apartments as he "approaches Fowler".
These are my concerns:
1. As anyone including myself who currently lives or drive on the stretch of Fowler between
Stucky and Blackwood knows, Fowler dead-ends at Stucky, and it is currently very difficult to
get safely from Fowler to Stucky (and back) with the amount of traffic on Stucky at that
uncontrolled intersection. Fowler and Stucky are county roads not built to city standards, yet
bear an increasingly large number of vehicles. The Buffalo Run development will increase
traffic on Fowler exponentially since the developer is trying to appease Meadow Creek
residents (who fiercely oppose R4 zoning) by placing the highest concentration of his high
density dwellings near the west property line of the 20 acres virtually assuring that residents
will preferentially exit the development onto Fowler for access to main arterioles (19tn)
And he proposes paving Fowler from his border (or possibly to Blackwood—that's unclear) to
Stucky but without meeting city standards.
2. This brings up several other issues because the developer plans to install his development's
connections to water and sewer at Stucky by going down the center of Fowler from the south
end of his proposed subdivision north to Stucky, approximately 0.8 mi. In a recent conversation
with Chris Budeski, PE, a well-respected and well-informed professional engineer with
Madison Engineering with many years of extensive knowledge of development in this valley,
Chris asserted that connecting to City services at Fowler and Stucky is the only option for
Buffalo Run subdivision because:
1. the sewer system in the Meadowcreek subdivision is maintained entirely by gravity
flow. There are no pumps.
2. In addition, Kurk Drive is supplied with only an 8 inch pipe, and the sewer grade is
shallow (10 ft deep); the ground slopes quickly.
3. 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, hook ups via Kurk Dr and the Meadowcreek subdivision 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.
There exists an historical conflict and a previous ruling set by negotiations between the
City and County in response to a development proposed, but abandoned, by 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 19t" because
Stucky is a collector road as well as a county road. That was written in a copy of an Executive
Summary of which I have a copy.
And, yes, I have learned that the standards have changed under George Durkin, the new
county engineer, and that the county is now allowing 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 may be 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. Who will be responsible to maintain them? It won't be the developer because he'll
be long gone (does the name Ainsworth ring a bell?). It shouldn't fall on the backs of the HOA
to bear the cost of any repairs, and the warranty will have expired for the Engineering company
that did the work. I foresee serious issues cropping up between the City and the County as to
whom takes responsibility, who covers legal fees and repairs that will arise in the event of
problems or issues. All of this must be decided and placed into the record before any permits
are issued for any development like Buffalo Run because as of now none no policy or
standards exist. Engineering friends assure me that inspections are very lax for this type of
work. 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 through courts.
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, the County and the City.
For all of the above reasons, the city should not issue a permit to develop a totally out of
character R4 high density development of that property.
Greatly concerned,
Diane L. Brawner, Adjacent Property Owner