HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-21 Public Comment - D. Brawner - Buffalo Run App. 21076Diane L. Brawner106 Village Downtown BlvdBozeman, MT, 59715March 6, 2021City of Bozeman Dept. of Community DevelopmentATTN: Chris Saunders Zoning CommissionTo Chris Saunders of the Zoning Commission, the City Commission, and the Department ofCommunity Development regarding Application 20112: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 bordersthe proposed development along Fowler and my additional 40 acre parcel that borders theMeadowcreek subdivision along Kurk and 27thI am the sole owner of those property/parcels which are currently in the city payback districts.My 2 parcels are legally desciLbed as:S23 T02 S R05 E, C.O.S. 1861 TractA NE4SW4 40.773AC 06-0798-23-3-01-50-0000S23 T02 S R05 E, C.O.S. Tract 1 Section 23 2S 5E 40.735AC COS 2074 06-0798-23-3-01-10-0000I realize that development in the Bozeman area is inevitable. In fact, I have complied withTHREE past requests for city easements and with developers on 3 sides of my property (alongmy entire east border and parts of my northern and southern borders.) But I feel very stronglythat unrestricted, poorly planned, or rapidly-impfemented development such as this proposedR4 (revised from an R5 proposal just a month ago) is ill-advised and dangerous to the futureand well-being of our wonderful community.Therefore I protest the proposal to rezone this new 20+ acre development in a rural propertyarea to an R-4 residential mixed-use high density district by an out-of-state developer when thesurrounding area is still rural, and the extant developments nearby in the Meadow CreekSubdivision effectively function single family homes and R1 zoning. The Grand Cielosubdivision to my north boundary has been approved as a mixture of R3 and R4, but the R4portion is restricted to the portion of the subdivision only along the northern portion thatborders much closer to Stucky Rd and urban access. I point out that all land use from Fowlerto the west, and including my property and all other to the north and south of me to the east ofFowler 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 importantconsiderations to which a large number of Meadowcreek subdivision home owners spokeeloquently before the Zoning Commission and the City Commission recently pointing out themany reasons how and why this proposed Buffalo Run subdivision will impact their lives andhomes.One of the most prescient problems, as anyone including myself who currently lives or drive onthe stretch of Fowler between Stucky and Blackwood knows, even with the minimaldevelopment 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 alongStucky. That will only increase exponentially if a huge number of new residents are allowed bythe 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 minimallyimproving Fowler (paving only) traffic his subdivision traffic will be routed from Buffalo Rundown Fowler to Stucky for access to main arterioles (19th) to avoid heavy traffic through theMeadow Creek subdivision. And he proposes paving Fowler from his border the 0.8 mile toStucky but without bringing it up to city standards. This is unacceptable as well because heplans to install the development's connections to city water and sewer at Stucky by going downthe center of Fowler, a county road, from the south end of his proposed subdivision north toStucky, approximately 0.8 mi.The developers of Buffalo Run are now being cagey and refusing to announce their newdensity plans for the R4 rezoning unlike what they initially proposed for their R5 zoningapplication where they proposed 188 units. Derek bluntly stated that he needs to make moneyin this subdivision, so he needs to pack that development with units. This is anathematic andcompletely 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 Meadowcreeksubdivision (and therefore, my property) will be seriously affected. The existing sewer systemis maintained entirety by gravity flow. There are no pumps. Kurk Drive is supplied with only an8 inch pipe, and the sewer grade is shallow (10 ft deep); the ground slopes quickly. The sewerpipe size and drainage system were designed by the City based on the requirements for thatspecific area, and are meant to serve that district all the way to Patterson Rd. They were notdesigned to include service for the proposed Buffalo Run subdivision so there are no stubs thatextend to Derek Williams' 20 acres.Therefore, even if hook up was feasible via Kurk Dr and the Meadowcreek subdivision, it couldnot handle the needs of the larae Buffalo Run subdivision via gravity flow, and the only optionis 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 anda precedent ruling set by the City and County in response to a development proposed, butdenied, to developers of the property owned by a New Mexico consoriiium who had applied todevelop their 40 acres along Stucky road near Fowler (next to the Rafferty property) 5 yearsago. At that time the City said that those developers would be required to put their watermains and sewer down Stucky Rd to 19th. The City also told the developers that they would berequired to improve Stucky Rd to City standards with paving, curbs, and sidewalks from theirdevelopment to 19th because Stucky is a collector road as well as a County Rd (as is FowlerRd). However, an impass arose between the County and City when at that time the Countydetermined that they would not allow the City to install improvements or City services on acounty road unless the City was willing to take over the road and maintain it. City and Countydid not agree, and the improvement costs for the developer were prohibitively high for thosehuge improvements, and they had to scrap their development project. This is all delineated inthe Executive Summary of the Report submitted 5 years ago, the county refused to allow adevelopment close to Stucky and Fowler based on the fact that the developers from NewMexico 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 ofStucky, 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 andwater through the Grand Cielo development. However, a precedent has been set here forexpected improvements along County roads and the reouirement for the City to maintenancethem. Fowler is an unimproved county road that suddenly will collect and absorb atremendous amount of traffic for the large number of units proposed by thedevelopment of Buffalo Run. It will require City upgrades, and this precedent mustapply to the proposed Buffalo Run division and the developer, who must be required tofund costs of not only bringing City services to their specific property along 0.8 miles ofa County road, but also must bring that access road, now a poorly maintained, 2 lanegravel road, to City standards, after which the City must maintain that road. And as Istated previously, the blind-ending intersection at Fowler and Stucky is already ahazard for drivers where it is difficult to make a left hand turn from Fowler to Stucky, orcross traffic from Stucky to Fowler. It's an accident-prone area on unimproved countyroads.Greatly concerned,Diane L. Brawner, Adjacent Property Owner