HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-21 Public Comment - L. Miles - Buffalo Run App. 21076 on behalf of Meadow Creek HOA Board of DirectorsFrom:Laura Miles
To:Cyndy Andrus; Terry Cunningham; lpomeroy@bozeman.net; Christopher Coburn; Jennifer Madgic; Agenda
Cc:Bruce Parker; David Parker; Steve Krezminski; Matt Hausauer
Subject:Meadow Creek HOA Position regarding Development Action at Buffalo Run - Zone Map Amendment App #21076
Date:Tuesday, April 20, 2021 10:12:48 AM
Attachments:Board Letter to City Commission 04_20.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 Mayor Andrus and Commissioners Madgic, Cunningham, Pomeroy and Coburn:
Please find attached to this e-mail the Meadow Creek HOA Board of Directors’ formal
opposition to Zone Map Amendment Application #21076 (“Buffalo Run”), which the MeadowCreek HOA Board respectfully submits for the Commission’s consideration in addition to the
legal opinion submitted by the Board's counsel Alanah Griffith of Griffith and Cummings, PC.
We believe this Board position letter explains our continued concerns about R4 designation
and what that would entail--but we also propose some reasonable solutions to those concernsrecognizing the need for additional housing in Bozeman.
We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the attached.
Please reach out should you have any questions.
Respectfully;
Laura Miles on behalf of the Meadow Creek HOA Board of Directors
1
April 20, 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 Coburn And via U.S. Mail to:
Attn: City Commission
PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771
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
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.
As an initial matter, 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 compatible with the existing community. The parcel sought to be zoned high density is an “island” parcel on a dirt road surrounded by
County farmland and a low density single-family neighborhood. There is no transit and no plan
to connect future transit. There are no jobs within walkable distance. There are no commercial or mixed use districts either adjacent to or within walkable distance. There are no other high density zones adjacent to or within walkable distance. Nor is any shopping, commercial, or transit slated be built soon; the closest zoned mixed use district is at the corner of 19th and Blackwood
Avenue.
To the contrary, the parcel for which the developer seeks high density zoning and annexation is located on a dirt County road, in the middle of agricultural County land, and only touches the City boundary on one side, the side adjoining Meadow Creek. This makes this parcel a peninsula
or “island” parcel cut off from the City’s developed transportation grid with none of the
necessary road infrastructure planned or budgeted for in the City’s infrastructure budget, as was stated at the March 22 Zoning Commission hearing by Chairman Thompson as follows:
2
“There are no plans in the City budget for the next 5 years to address the
challenges that will exist here”
“From a fiduciary responsibility perspective, the city looks at areas 5 years out.”
“We don’t have funds reserved to cover the costs of roads, sidewalks, infrastructure”
“This area is totally off the City’s radar in terms of the 5 year plan”
[City Zoning Commission recorded hearing, George Thompson testimony
[timestamp 3:21:00 – 3:48:00].]
The only paved road that currently abuts this parcel is Kurk Avenue, which is a local street through the detached, single-family home neighborhood of Meadow Creek. Any high density zoning of the Buffalo Run parcel (either R-5 or R-4) is excessive, regardless of whether Fowler Avenue is ultimately paved to County standards, something that is extremely important for any significant development on Fowler, but which will require County cooperation to occur. Moreover, the future potential timeline to fully improve Fowler and Stucky to City standards (with sidewalks, bike lanes, curbs and gutters) to make it safe for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-vehicle traffic, is even more remote and speculative, because all of the other land surrounding Fowler and Stucky is County land, is being actively used in agriculture, and is not in development. Full development of Fowler into the City’s grid is also blocked and likely to stay blocked by a parcel to the north of Stucky owned by MSU. 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. Nor should the City entertain the idea of taking away dedicated park land from Meadow Creek’s neighborhood park in order to construct a new paved access road through Meadow Creek’s existing and already undersized park, as the City Staff Report lists as a new recommended term of annexation. (Staff Report, Recommended Terms of Annexation, #12, #16, pgs. 20-21). Per Bozeman Municipal Code 38.300.100(E), “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.” Not a single one of these criteria are met in this location, as follows:
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;
3
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. This does not support the City’s goals of promoting walkable neighborhoods and reducing automobile pollution and traffic.
The fact that 100% of all trips in and out of Buffalo Run will need to be by automobile was one of the concerns raised by one of the Zoning Commissioners during the Zoning Commission debate period. Specifically, Chairman Thompson stated “This would be high density sprawl” . . . “This is an island of density with no other amenities to it that is only accessible by car”. . . “can’t bike there … can’t walk there” And, “The Buffalo Run project has large potential
future costs to City because it is so far from major arterials & collectors” [See City Zoning Commission recorded hearing, Zoning Commissioner George Thompson comments on record [timestamp 3:21:00 – 3:48:00].
The Zoning Commission recommendation was 3 to 1 to recommend R-4 high density zoning of this location. It was not unanimous. Respectfully, the Zoning Commission erred in making this recommendation because it failed to follow the criteria for where high density zoning is appropriate, in favor of voting for simply more housing units to meet demand.
Of note, the Zoning Commissioner Chairman who voted not to recommend approval of R-4 stated on the record his reasons for opposition that were specific to the Staff Report discussion of the growth plan criteria. These were Chairman Thompson’s closing remarks at the Zoning Commission meeting in opposition to R-4, prior to the vote:
“[I want to review] the MCA Zoning Criteria list once again: “Item #1 A (accordance with growth policy): o Technically this is an urban development, but it is certainly not in the spirit of what we intended when we have the area so far removed from the core part of town. For so high density, it goes against the whole spirit of
the Growth Policy.” o When you look at the growth of the City, you have sprawl, & now we have to figure out how to connect it.” · “Item D: Facilitate transportation & other public requirements.”
4
o “We just don’t have any way to see how we are going to pay for any
improvements & the problems that are going to happen. There’s no
consideration for those & I think that’s somewhat irresponsible on our part.” o “This will require City & County agreements & we can’t agree on much.”
· “Item F: Effect on motorized & non-motorized transport:”
o “This flies against everything we’re trying to do here in the City - trying to get multi-modal transportation to jobs to work environments. There is absolutely no connectivity in place at the present time & there is nothing in the City budget”
· “Item G: Promotion of compatible urban growth:”
o “This is simply not in harmony with what you would consider to be urban growth.” o “This project is solely an island.” · “Item J: Preserve value of buildings:”
o “There will be a negative effect.”
· Regarding the SPOT zoning criteria: o “Proposed use is significantly different.” o “This project is just a stand-alone.” o “No amenities or connectivity for the City.”
[City Zoning Commission recorded hearing, Chairman Thompson’s closing remarks, [beginning at timestamp 4:03:00.] These are significant comments and should be given consideration, given that Chairman
Thompson was one of the creators of the Bozeman growth policy. In Mr. Thompson’s opinion,
“I helped create the City’s Growth Policy. This project is not in the spirit of the City’s Growth Policy. . . .
I am so uncomfortable that this is not in the spirit of the Growth Policy. It defies it. It goes against everything that we worked hard to do …
I don’t see any future development proposed in this area. No jobs. There
is nothing to support this density of housing in this area. This is not what we should be trying to be about in Bozeman.”
[Zoning Commission Meeting, George Thompson testimony [Timestamp 3:21:00-3:48:00]
While Meadow Creek understands the pressure for housing that the City is under, zoning still should be thoughtful and strike a balance between not destroying the public safety and value of existing neighborhoods, while allowing the City to grow and house new residents. Approving nothing but high density development, anywhere at all, including isolated “island” parcels that
are not even on paved roads, let alone connected to transit or commercial districts, is not smart growth and violates the City’s published growth policies and criteria.
5
R-4 zoning of this parcel also does not support, but directly undercuts, the City’s other published
goals, such as the the City’s 2020 Climate Plan and its 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. (Bozeman 2020 Climate Plan, Chap. 3, Solution G, page 83.) 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. 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 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. R-3 zoning would still serve the City’s housing shortage goals by providing flexibility for a
variety of housing types, including multi-family dwellings on smaller footprints (therefore
denser), and would allow fulfillment of City goal of increasing affordable housing by allowing the developer to design multi-family missing middle housing. R-3 still allows for relatively high density, such as at South Rows, while at the same time matching more appropriately the look and type of housing next to single family homes than would large block apartment complexes with
minimal setbacks. This goes to the “light and air,” “compatibility” and “character of the district”
provisions of the zoning amendment review criteria. (Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, 76-2-304(1)(a), (c), (d).) In addition to the City goal of encouraging high density development, encouraging appropriate
transition zones between single family neighborhoods and high density neighborhoods is also a
published City goal entitled to be given weight. All of the following are also published City growth goals, 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) It is one of the zoning amendment review criteria
that the Commission must consider “compatible urban growth.” (76-2-304(1)(c).)
1 Bozeman 2020 Climate Plan, Chap. 3, Solution G, page 83.
6
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. (See Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, Appendices, Missing Middle Housing Diagram, F-3 – Attached) Zoning the Buffalo Run parcel R-3 adjacent to Meadow Creek will fulfil the City’s goal of
enabling “gradual and predictable increase[es] in density” and compatible growth by creating
appropriate transitional zoning between a single family neighborhood (Meadow Creek) and a new medium density R-3 neighborhood (Buffalo Run). Whereas R-4 would be locating high density adjacent to low density, which is not transitional or compatible.
Most importantly, R-3 zoning for the parcel in question meets the legal criteria stated in the Bozeman Municipal Code and the zoning amendment criteria in the 2020 Community Plan, whereas R-4 zoning does not.
The Board submits that this Commission should reject the developer’s proposed annexation and
R-4 zoning application, or alternatively, should utilize Section 38.260.120.D to propose and consider an R-3 zoning designation. 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