HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-21 Public Comment - S. Casto - Canyon GateFrom:Sean Casto
To:Jacob Miller; Agenda
Subject:Canyon Gate 21-337 public comment - opposition
Date:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 2:47:39 PM
Attachments:Letter to Zoning Commission_Application 21337 Comment and Recommendation_11.16.21.pdf
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.
RE: Canyon Gate Development Project No: 21-337
Dear Mr. Miller and Zoning and City Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning associated with theCanyon Gate development (Project No 21-337), located the at the corner of Story Mill andBridger Drive.
We understand and welcome that this property will proceed with the annex application andultimately be developed, but as immediate neighbors to this development, we disagree andchallenge the proposed B-2M and R5 zoning designations requested by the applicant forthe following reasons and hope the City work with the Applicant to address:
Spot Zoning
This application is a clear example of spot zoning and should be deemed impermissibleand subject to law, ordinances, and precedent set forth in previous court cases pertainingto spot zoning. The issue of whether a rezoning constitutes spot zoning was most recentlydiscussed by the Montana Supreme Court in Plains Grains LP v. Board of County Comm’rsof Cascade County and Little v. Bd. Of County Comm’rs, in which the Court determined thatthe presence of the following three conditions generally will indicate that a given situationconstitutes spot zoning, regardless of variations in factual scenarios.
1. Is land use significantly different from prevailing land use in the area? Yes, it isclear that the requested B2M and R5 zoning is clearly different from prevailing landuse in the area of R1 thru R3 and M1.
2. Is the area requested for rezone rather small in terms of the number of separatelandowners benefited from the proposed change? Yes, the rezoning would onlybenefit one landowner, that of the owner of said property.
3. Would the change be in the nature of “special legislation” designed to benefitonly one or a few landowners at the expense of surrounding landowners or thegeneral public? Yes, the change in this designation would benefit only onelandowner, owner of said property, at the expense of the surrounding communityand general public.
Spot zoning should be ruled invalid as an "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonabletreatment" of this parcel of land by a local zoning ordinance as indicative of this application.As you recognize, the planning community is against this type of zoning, and createsinconsistent and unpredictable development types and lacks community character. Thisrezoning is providing unjustified special treatment that benefits the developer/applicant,while undermining the pre-existing rights and uses of adjacent property owners. Again, thisis a clear instance of spot zoning.
Proposed Zoning Is Inconsistent with Goals of the UDC and BCP
The R5 development is inconsistent and incongruent with the feel and character of theneighborhoods and Bridger canyon area and more importantly, against the goals of theBozeman Community Plan (BCP). This parcel is surrounded by three sides by R-1, R-2 andR-3 (R-S) zoned development. This in-fill development should match the existing
development patterns for this area to make a cohesive community feel. The amount ofresidents in these 24 acres would exceed the entire general north east Bozeman area(northeast of Rouse and Griffin – around 1000 acres and about 750 residents.
The proposed B-2M zoning is also inconsistent with the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP). This type of development is meant for city centers and these locations. There is not enoughcapacity of workers/residents to be employed at such a development without the need forthem to commute to this area from across town. This is in contrast to the “walkability” goalof the BCP. This is also in clear contrast to Section 38.300.110 Intent of zoning, whereasthe intent of B-2M is for use of commercial node. This is a residential neighborhood and notfitting of such development. This type of B-2M commercial development, with the possibilityof a hotel, has no place in this type of neighborhood. We recommend and welcome a B-1zoning along Story Mill road, which is more fitting and appropriate for this area.
Conclusion
Recognizing that this parcel will be annexed and developed, which we encourage and areexcited about, I implore the City consider the above items and impose on the developerduring this annex and zoning process the following recommendation to ensure a safe andsmart development of this Property:
1. Zone the property as R-1 (low density), R-2 (moderate density) and/or R-3(medium density) zoning at the maximum to match the abutting neighborhoods.
2. Zone commercial area to a maximum of B-2M.
3. Design roads that meet the needs of the immediate area as well as the proposeddevelopment.
We thank you for your service in your role.
Sincerely,Sean Casto 1451 Maiden Spirit StreetBozeman, MT 59715
November 16, 2021
Mr. Jacob Miller
Bozeman City Planner
Zoning Commissioners
City Commissioners
20 East Olive Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
RE: Canyon Gate Development Project No: 21-337
Dear Mr. Miller and Zoning and City Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning associated with the Canyon
Gate development (Project No 21-337), located the at the corner of Story Mill and Bridger Drive.
We understand and welcome that this property will proceed with the annex application and
ultimately be developed, but as immediate neighbors to this development, we disagree and
challenge the proposed B-2M and R5 zoning designations requested by the applicant for the
following reasons and hope the City work with the Applicant to address:
Spot Zoning
This application is a clear example of spot zoning and should be deemed impermissible and
subject to law, ordinances, and precedent set forth in previous court cases pertaining to spot
zoning. The issue of whether a rezoning constitutes spot zoning was most recently discussed by
the Montana Supreme Court in Plains Grains LP v. Board of County Comm’rs of Cascade County
and Little v. Bd. Of County Comm’rs, in which the Court determined that the presence of the
following three conditions generally will indicate that a given situation constitutes spot zoning,
regardless of variations in factual scenarios.
1. Is land use significantly different from prevailing land use in the area? Yes, it is clear that
the requested B2M and R5 zoning is clearly different from prevailing land use in the area
of R1 thru R3 and M1.
2. Is the area requested for rezone rather small in terms of the number of separate
landowners benefited from the proposed change? Yes, the rezoning would only benefit
one landowner, that of the owner of said property.
3. Would the change be in the nature of “special legislation” designed to benefit only one or
a few landowners at the expense of surrounding landowners or the general public? Yes,
the change in this designation would benefit only one landowner, owner of said property,
at the expense of the surrounding community and general public.
Spot zoning should be ruled invalid as an "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable treatment" of
this parcel of land by a local zoning ordinance as indicative of this application. As you recognize,
the planning community is against this type of zoning, and creates inconsistent and unpredictable
development types and lacks community character. This rezoning is providing unjustified special
treatment that benefits the developer/applicant, while undermining the pre-existing rights and
uses of adjacent property owners. Again, this is a clear instance of spot zoning.
Proposed Zoning Is Inconsistent with Goals of the UDC and BCP
The R5 development is inconsistent and incongruent with the feel and character of the
neighborhoods and Bridger canyon area and more importantly, against the goals of the Bozeman
Community Plan (BCP). This parcel is surrounded by three sides by R-1, R-2 and R-3 (R-S) zoned
development. This in-fill development should match the existing development patterns for this
area to make a cohesive community feel. The amount of residents in these 24 acres would exceed
the entire general north east Bozeman area (northeast of Rouse and Griffin – around 1000 acres
and about 750 residents.
The proposed B-2M zoning is also inconsistent with the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP). This
type of development is meant for city centers and these locations. There is not enough capacity
of workers/residents to be employed at such a development without the need for them to commute
to this area from across town. This is in contrast to the “walkability” goal of the BCP. This is also
in clear contrast to Section 38.300.110 Intent of zoning, whereas the intent of B-2M is for use of
commercial node. This is a residential neighborhood and not fitting of such development. This
type of B-2M commercial development, with the possibility of a hotel, has no place in this type of
neighborhood. We recommend and welcome a B-1 zoning along Story Mill road, which is more
fitting and appropriate for this area.
Conclusion
Recognizing that this parcel will be annexed and developed, which we encourage and are excited
about, I implore the City consider the above items and impose on the developer during this annex
and zoning process the following recommendation to ensure a safe and smart development of
this Property:
1. Zone the property as R-1 (low density), R-2 (moderate density) and/or R-3 (medium
density) zoning at the maximum to match the abutting neighborhoods.
2. Zone commercial area to a maximum of B-2M.
3. Design roads that meet the needs of the immediate area as well as the proposed
development.
We thank you for your service in your role.
Sincerely,
Sean Casto
1451 Maiden Spirit Street
Bozeman, MT 59715