HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-21 Public Comment - D. Sauther -Public Comment on Canyon Gate -- #21337From:Diana Sauther
To:Agenda
Cc:Ross Knapper; Jacob Miller
Subject:Public Comment on Canyon Gate -- #21337
Date:Thursday, December 16, 2021 10:39:20 AM
Attachments:Letter to City Commissioners - 12-15-21-min.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.
Please provide a copy of the attached letter to each City Commissioner and enter it into the
public record for the Canyon Gate re-zoning request (#21337).
Best,
Diana
--
Diana Sauther
Top Hand Realty Advisors, Inc. 403 W. Main Street, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59715 Office: 406-586-0356 Cell: 406-599-3433 Fax: 406-551-1008 Diana@TopHandAdvisors.com www.TopHandAdvisors.com
Diana Sauther
1865 Boylan Rd.
Bozeman, MT 59715
December 15, 2021
Re: Canyon Gate Re-Zoning Request -- #21337
Dear City Commissioners,
In the past two months, I have studied the issues regarding HomeBase’s request to rezone 25
acres of land in our neighborhood. This letter replaces my earlier communication, as I have
learned much more since my first letter.
The City has a duty to secure from fire and other dangers (Criteria B), promote public health,
public safety and general welfare (Criteria C), facilitate the provision of transportation (Criteria
D), consider the effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems (Criteria F),
consider the character of the district (Criteria H) and the parcel’s peculiar suitability for
particular uses (Criteria I). Staff relies upon outdated information in assessing these criteria, as
detailed below – much has changed in this area of town since the 2017 master plans were
approved. In fact, the City cannot meet its duties for B, C, and D and the request fails on
criteria F, H and I. Therefore, you must deny the application.
In considering these issues, it is important to recognize the unique location of the Canyon Gate
parcel. It is at the mouth of Bridger Canyon, at the outskirts of City limits and just ½ mile from
land designated on the Future Land Use Map as “No City Services.” It is flanked by the Story
Hills and the Bridger foothills, home to myriad wildlife who are dependent upon the water
sources of Bridger Creek and Rocky Creek, and who move regularly between the various habitat
provided by these open and protected spaces as well as the Nature Sanctuary and larger park in
Story Mill Park, the Bridger Creek golf course and the East Gallatin Rec Area.
The area lies on the “wrong” side of the railroad tracks, separated from the city and all
emergency services. There are three roads leading from the Canyon Gate parcel into town,
which all have at-grade railroad crossings: Rouse, L/Wallace and Griffin (access the N 7th).
The City’s own plan, published just last year, entitled “Pole Yard Urban Renewal District Plan
– 2020” cites the at-grade railroad crossing on L/Wallace and lack of guaranteed emergency
access as a condition that endangers life or property (page 23, item “n”). This same condition
exists on all the roads leading to the Story Mill district: L/Wallace, Rouse and Griffin.
Health and Safety
Clearly, the most significant issue is safety. Neither the application, the staff report nor the
City’s long-range plans address the fact that this parcel lies on the “wrong” side of the train
tracks from all emergency services. Staff inexplicably concludes that criteria B and C are met,
despite acknowledging that Bozeman Fire Department stated that it would take them 20
minutes to get to us if a train is blocking the road (page 37 of staff report). This is five times
longer that the NFPA Standard 1710 of a 4-minute travel time (p. 17 of Bozeman 2017 Fire &
EMS Master Plan). Clearly, a 20-minute response time puts both life and property in danger.
This is an existing clear and present danger to everyone living in this isolated corner of town.
The staff report references the 2017 Fire & EMS Master Plan in citing the City’s ability to serve
this area. That plan notes that geographical barriers like rivers and train tracks impact the ideal
service areas for each station – but it does not make any provisions for the tracks when
mapping Bozeman’s services areas. In fact, in mapping the proposed station locations within a
4.5-minute Response Reach, the TRAIN TRACKS ARE NOT EVEN SHOWN ON THE MAP. The only
references to trains in the entire master plan are to note that tracks run through Bozeman and
are the source of most of the hazardous materials calls they get, and the general concept that
tracks can impact ideal service areas.
In 2017, perhaps that was acceptable. At the time, there was significantly less development on
the “wrong” side of the tracks, and no high-density development. Accordingly, there were
fewer than 10 calls to this area of town in all of 2016. There were also fewer trains. I moved to
this side of town in 2016 and I don’t ever remember waiting more than a couple minutes at the
tracks.
Since then, there has been significant development in this isolated corner of town, and new
high-density zoning has been approved for 15 acres in the Stockyard Properties. Worse, the
train traffic and train length have increased. Currently, Montana Rail Link reports an average of
20 – 30 trains per day running through Bozeman’s intersections. With increasing frequency,
these trains come to a complete stop, blocking all three road crossings (at L/Wallace, Rouse and
Griffin). When this happens, trains sit – not moving – for 20, 30, even 45 minutes. Going
forward, in just the next 5 years, Montana Rail Link anticipates very substantial growth in train
traffic to 30 – 40 trains per day, and also expect that many more will exceed 10,000 in length
(i.e., 2 miles long). Please refer to Dan Kaveney’s letter for additional information.
None of this is addressed in the City’s long-range plans, or in the Applicant’s proposal, or in the
City staff’s report.
It is, however, a common knowledge among anyone who regularly travels these roads. As of
12/15/21, a total of 548 people have signed a petition acknowledging this problem. Please
refer to Daniel Gaugler’s letter for the petition and details.
Even if nothing else changes, we already have a problem. A neighbor, Nick Drew, captured this
in video last week. He was stuck at Rouse, with cars backed up from the train tracks to Griffin,
because a train sat – unmoving -- blocking the tracks. While stuck, he watched an ambulance
with lights and sirens come racing from Griffin onto Rouse – only to be blocked by the train.
There it sat, nose to the train and lights still going, stuck and going nowhere. I urge you to look
up his letter and see the video for yourself. It is heart-breaking to think who might be in the
back of that ambulance, cut off from the hospital services they need. This is a current, very real
problem.
If we compound this problem with additional development on the “wrong” side of the tracks,
more people will be put at risk like this. We are fortunate that the number of calls to our area
remain low, according to the just-released BFD 2020 Annual report. The “heat map” on page 7
shows few fire/EMS calls in our area. But it also shows that the highest incidence of calls are in
areas of higher density development (Main St downtown, N 7th, Oak, etc). This makes sense –
the more people in an area, the more calls for emergency response.
Staff fails to recognize this. At the Zoning Commission meeting, staff argued that the 20-minute
response time is an existing factor that would not be impacted by new development. In fact,
the risk would be compounded by adding high density development in two ways: 1) the
number of people impacted and higher number of calls for service, and 2) the types of
structures involved. The 2017 Fire & EMS Master Plan categorizes high-rise buildings as “high-
hazard occupancies,” as determined in the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook. Adding such
structures, with multiple floors and many, many, occupants, with little or no setbacks to other
similar structures, could lead to a much more dangerous conflagration if a fire were to break
out and fire trucks were 20 minutes away. Conversely, the 2017 Fire & EMS Master Plan
categorizes 1, 2 and 3-family dwellings and scattered small businesses as “low-hazard
occupancies.” (page 35) This fact alone argues compellingly for zoning of R3 and B1 or less in
this location, unless or until emergency service access can be guaranteed.
There is still more risk. Adding large commercial development that is intended to serve a
broader trade area (which is the intent of B2M zoning according to the UDC 38.300.110), as
well as high-density residential development would, of course, significantly increase traffic on
Rouse, L and Griffin as people attempt to travel between the neighborhood and the rest of
town and beyond. This additional traffic will mean even longer back-ups when trains are
blocking the track crossings, further snarling traffic up and down Rouse, Bridger, Oak, Griffin, L,
and so on. The worse the traffic congestion, the worse the emergency response time.
And this could impact not just those of us in the neighborhoods on the “wrong” side of the
tracks, but every neighborhood served by the new Law and Justice Center currently under
construction at the corner of Oak and Rouse. Are you aware that traffic already regularly sits
bumper-to-bumper and not moving when trains stop on the tracks at Rouse?
I took this photo on Sept.
13, 2021, from the
northbound lanes of
Rouse at the Tamarack
intersection, after a train
had stopped on the tracks
and blocked the crossing
for 25 minutes.
As you can see, even after
we had cleared the tracks
and arrived at Tamarack,
traffic was still backed up
for many blocks down
Rouse.
How will this impact the fire and police that are to be housed in the new Law & Justice Center
currently under construction? Was this taken into account when the location was selected?
You have already approved 12 acres of B2M, 3 acres of REMU and 9 acres of R3 at the
intersection of Bridger and Story Mill, so we know the current conditions will worsen. Adding
even more density to this mess is unwise.
Perhaps most important: This problem cannot, in practical terms, be remedied. In 2016, MDOT
evaluated a possible grade separation at the railroad tracks across Rouse, and determined that
an overpass would be impossible. (Source: 2016 Montana Rail Grade Separation Study.
Montana Dept. of Transportation). The City’s engineers in the Public Works Dept think an
underpass would be “tricky” due to groundwater and soil issues.
There seems to be no simple solution to the problem. Thus, the only responsible course of
action is to limit further development on the “wrong” side of the tracks unless and until a
solution is in place. The City is required to provide for the health and safety of residents --
and it cannot in this location. On this issue alone, the application clearly fails and the city
must deny it.
Transportation
The staff report asserts that transportation is addressed “primarily by the City’s long-range
facility plans, the City’s capital improvements program” and development standards. This is
inaccurate.
The 2017 Transportation Master Plan is the City’s current plan. It is based upon the 2009
Future Land Use Map, which showed the entire area out here as residential or suburban
residential, except for a strip of industrial along Bridger west of Story Mill and a small bit of
Community Commercial Mixed Use near the historic Story Mill.
Screenshot of
2009 Future
Land Use Map,
from 2017
Transportation
Master Plan
Clearly, today’s reality is far different than 2009 or 2017:
• Half of The Legends subdivision, which is served by the residential road Northview, didn’t
even exist when the 2017 master plan was created. It is now nearly built out.
• Story Mill Park has been developed and is already loved and well used, attracting people
from throughout the City and region
• The 2017 plans were adopted prior to the current increase in train traffic and trains blocking
the roads, and do not even contemplate MT Rail Link’s current plans for 30 – 40 trains per
day within the next 5 years.
• Additional changes are on the horizon, including the new 9-acre R3-zoned Bridger View
subdivision now under construction, and recently re-zoned high-density B2M and REMU
development approved for 15 acres in the Stockyard Properties.
• The Cannery District has continued to grow with multiple new buildings.
• The pandemic has caused an explosion in Bozeman’s population and tourism, creating
greater traffic to Bridger Bowl and the M trail, etc.
All of these have and will have significant impacts on traffic volumes, none of which are
factored into the application or staff’s report. For all these reasons, the proposed high-density
zoning on the wrong side of the train traffic bottleneck presents serious potential traffic
impacts not just to the neighborhood, but to the extended community. This presents serious
impacts to the new Law & Justice facility now under construction at that intersection, just one
block from the railroad crossing.
And this is after the improvements to Rouse, and before the already approved Bridger View and
Stockyards Properties developments add 25 acres of medium- and high-density residential and
commercial development, with all the additional traffic they will create.
Clearly, the existing traffic infrastructure is inadequate. And yet, we know it will get worse as
current development is completed. Adding ANOTHER 25 acres of B2M, REMU, R5 and R3 high-
density development to the mix would be illogical. For all the reasons outlined above with the
existing, known problem with the trains, additional high density on the wrong side of the tracks
would increase congestion on both sides of the tracks at all 3 track crossings and nearby feeder
streets: Rouse, Oak, Griffin, Bridger, L, etc. This is a clear violation of Section 38.100.040 of the
UDC, which specifically states that the purpose of these regulations is to promote public health,
safety and general welfare by, in part, “lessening congestion in the streets and highways.”
And yet the Applicant has the gall to assert that their requested zoning change will be “neutral
on transportation systems.” That is shockingly ill-informed.
Reasonable governance requires a full transportation study to include the train situation and
possible strategies to mitigate the impact that additional development out here may have.
Finally, page 5 of the application falsely states that “Canyon Gate will primarily utilize Story Mill
and Northview Street for access.” In fact, the Canyon Gate parcel has no direct access to
Northview St. Open Space owned by the Legends HOA lies between the Canyon Gate parcel
and Northview. The Applicant must know this; even the renderings in the application dead-end
at their property line. The staff engineer in his 10/6/2021 memo stated,
“The applicant is advised that the future street grid must have a potential future
connection to Northview Street at the adjacent developments (Legend’s Subdivision)
Northview/Alley intersection (BMC 38.400.010).”
Such connection will not be forthcoming. The Applicant has no right to another owner’s land,
and the Legends HOA has informed both the Applicant and the Zoning Commission that it will
not allow a road across its Open Space. The idea that Applicant assumed they could, without
even asking the neighboring landowner, is offensive.
The parcel does not meet the intent of either B2M or R5 zoning.
B2M
Section 38.300.110 of the UDC states that the intent of a B2M district is to provide “a range of
commercial uses that serve both the immediate area and the broader trade area” and that “use
of this zone is appropriate for arterial corridors, commercial nodes and/or areas served by
transit.” Given that the subject parcel is located on the outskirts of town, ½ mile from land
designated “No City Services” on the Future Land Use map (indicating the City does not intend
to annex it), on the “wrong” side of the train tracks with all the traffic snarling that obstacle
presents, this location cannot serve a broader trade area. There is no transit service in the
area. And although Bridger/Rouse is a principal arterial road, it is limited by the at-grade train
crossing. Clearly, this location is not conducive to serving a broad trade area.
Additionally, zoning B2M in an existing neighborhood would run counter to N-2.1 of the of the
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan: “Ensure the zoning map identifies locations for neighborhood
and community commercial nodes early in the development process.”
R5
Section 38.300.100 of the UDC states that R5 is “appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use
districts and/or served by transit to accommodate a higher density of residents in close
proximity to jobs and services.” There is no transit service in the area and worse, the Applicant
has proposed plopping 5 acres of R5 in the middle of R3 next to R1, with access to be provided
via R1 residential streets. This is totally antithetical to the intent of R5 per the code, and
violates N-2.2 of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan: “Revise the zoning map to support higher
intensity residential districts near schools, services and transportation.”
This part of town has plenty of commercial already.
The staff report asserts that the requested commercial zoning will provide the community with
goods and services. Perhaps this is in response to the application, which falsely asserts “the
Vicinity Maps illustrate a lack of commercial amenities serving the residences of this area…”
In fact, there is already a significant amount of commercial available within one mile:
• Coffee: Ghost Town, Bumble Bean and The Daily
• Gas station and convenience market
• Bars: Filling Station, Valhalla, Dean’s Zesty Booch, Devil’s Toboggan,
• Restaurants: Seven Sushi, Lot G, Pizza Campania,
• Salons: Capelli’s, Bloom, The Barbershop, Spruce & Honey Waxing Parlor,
• Gyms: Epic Fitness, The Mountain Project, Altitude Athletics, Lone Mountain
Gymnastics,
• Retail: Sitka, Fawn & Co, Paper & Grace, Natural Baby Co, Bozeman Oil & Vinegar, The
Wax Museum record store, Uphill Pursuits,
• Lawson’s Greenhouse
• Services: Clearwater physical therapy, Mint Dental Studio, Bridger Eyecare, Lone Peak
physical therapy, Foothills Vet Hospital, ENSO massage and natural medicine,
automotive repair, Rocky Mountain furniture repair,
In addition to all of this, the newly approved 15 acres of B2M and REMU zoning in the Stockyard
Properties will offer even more commercial uses within just 2 blocks of the subject parcel.
Clearly, the neighborhood’s commercial needs are well served.
Given our housing crisis, preference should be given to zoning more residential – not
commercial.
Our community needs more housing, particularly the “missing middle.”
The City’s 2019 Community Housing Needs Assessment says that local residents prefer single-
family homes and townhomes with small yards. (p. 62) The Community Housing Needs
Assessment specifically highlights the need for townhomes and duplexes to provide more
options for residents looking to purchase, and also points to a lack of duplexes and triplexes
being built in recent years compared to prior periods. The City can help address this need
through zoning – and the subject parcel is the perfect location for such development, in a
family-friendly neighborhood, near parks and trails. This is in direct support of the Bozeman
2020 Community Plan: N-1.1 “Promote housing diversity, including missing middle housing”
and N-3.8: “Promote the development of “Missing Middle” housing (side by side or stacked
duplex, triplex, live-work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouses/townhouses, etc.) as one
of the most critical components of affordable housing.”
R3 zoning would be significantly more dense than the existing primarily R1 and RS
neighborhoods in the area, and thus would also support:
o N-1.2: “Increase required minimum densities in residential districts.”
o N-1.11: “Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over
time.”
According to the City’s housing report, luxury condos – like those built by HomeBase downtown
-- are preferred by second-home owners, not full-time Bozeman residents. Allowing more of
this type of development prices locals – those that live and work and contribute to our
community full-time – out into the unregulated county and beyond, creating exactly the type of
sprawl that density is supposed to help prevent. It is not enough to simply say we need more
housing and more density – you must create the RIGHT TYPE of housing if you want to solve our
housing crisis.
I am not aware of a single HomeBase project to date that has addressed Bozeman’s housing
needs.
Recent ads for rental units in HomeBase buildings downtown ranged from 189% - 411%
higher than the average market rents cited in the City’s Community Housing Needs
Assessment.
In the Zoning Commission meeting, the Applicant stated that he envisioned buildings like Black-
Olive in the proposed R5 zoning. Last month, a 1-bedroom apartment in Black-Olive was listed
at $2350/mo. In order to be affordable (no more than 30% of the renter’s income) a renter
would need to make $94,000/year to afford this apartment. According to the Community
Housing Needs Assessment, that is nearly 1.5 times the area median income for a two-person
household with both people working. And that is one of the cheapest options available in a
HomeBase building. One-bedroom units in One11 Lofts are currently listed for $2,250 - $2,500
per month.
https://www.connectbozeman.com/vacancies?sort=Square+Feet
Approving more luxury apartment and condo buildings, like the Applicant’s One11 Lofts and
One11 Lofts 2.0, Black Olive, 5 West, The Merin, Block M, etc. does not meet the needs of
Bozeman’s working population and families. In fact, it pushes them out of town and creates the
sprawl you are hoping to avoid. And in the process, you ruin the quality of life for the residents
who remain, dwarfing their established neighborhoods with massive monoliths and creating
traffic and parking problems. It is a lose-lose proposition for everyone – except the developer
and their investors, who profit handsomely at everyone else’s expense.
Ads for Apartments in HomeBase buildings last month:
Ads for condos for sale in HomeBase buildings last month:
The City is required to consider the character of the district (Criteria H) and its peculiar
suitability for particular uses (Criteria I).
This parcel is located in the mouth of a canyon, between habitat in the Story Hills (designated
“No City Services”) and the foothills of the Bridger Range (Gallatin National Forest), near
Bridger Creek which serves as a vital water source. This is an active and dynamic wildlife
corridor, with moose, deer, black bear, wild turkeys and numerous other species.
Area subdivisions have been carefully planned to allow for this fact, preserving habitat and
wildlife corridors throughout not just this neighborhood, but also the Bridger Creek Golf
Course, East Gallatin Rec Area, and the nature preserve in Story Mill Park. All of these open and
protected areas are linked and actively used by numerous wildlife species.
This is a special and unique corner of Bozeman. Injecting massive, high density development
into the area would decimate the character of the district and is utterly at odds with the growth
plan goals.
• The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan
o Goal N-4: “Continue to encourage Bozeman’s sense of place.”
o N-4.1: “Continue to recognize and honor the unique history, neighborhoods,
neighborhood character, and buildings that contribute to Bozeman’s sense of
place through programs and policy led by both City and community efforts.”
o page 73, section d: Some land has a unique physical attribute that makes it more
appropriate for one use than another.
o EPO-2: “Work to ensure that development is responsive to natural features.”
o EPO-2.3: “Identify, prioritize and preserve key wildlife habitat and corridors.”
• Section 38.100.040 of the UDC states that it is the purpose of these regulations to
promote the general welfare by, in part, “requiring development in harmony with the
natural environment.”
Injecting high density, commercial development into this habitat fails to meet these
requirements and goals.
Given the unique location of this district – separated from town by the railroad tracks, isolated,
and in a canyon at the outer edge of City limits – it is unsuitable for the B2M zoning requested,
which the UDC specifically states is intended to serve a “broader trade area”.
The proper zoning for this parcel, in line with both Criteria H and I (assuming the necessary
infrastructure challenges can be addressed) would be:
o R3, to allow for a combination of single, duplex and rowhouse type
development, which is the model preferred by full-time Bozeman residents. This
type of inventory is sorely lacking in Bozeman, and that lack of supply is one of
the factors fueling our housing crisis. Although significantly more dense than the
existing neighborhood, R3 would be in better harmony with the district’s unique
character and location, and less potential conflict with wildlife assuming that any
site plan ultimately provided adequate open space for wildlife corridors, as all
the other area developments have provided.
o If there is to be ANY commercial on this parcel it should be B1, which the UDC
says is intended for “smaller scale retail and service activities frequently required
by neighborhood residents on a day-to-day basis…while still maintaining
compatibility with adjacent residential land uses.” This could be zoned as a small
corner at the intersection of Bridger and Story Mill, although two of the other
corners are residential – a single home, and the new Bridger View affordable
housing project – and there is already a plethora of commercial in the immediate
area. Residential is clearly the more compelling community need.
The Future Land Use Map should not be a defacto rubber stamp for zoning.
Jacob Miller, the City’s planner, said in his presentation to the Zoning Commission that the
designations for this parcel were changed on the Future Land Use Map at the request of a
single land owner during the Community Plan 2020 Update – the same parcel owner who then
turned around and sold the parcel for development. There was no individual notice to affected
landowners of this change in the Future Land Use Map, as none was required. It was a city-
wide project with public notice to all residents via media. I am sure it is frustrating to learn that
residents were unaware of the change, as I know how hard City staff worked to get public input
into the Community Plan 2020 Update – but the reality is that many folks are too busy working,
raising their families, etc. to pay close attention to such processes.
Now that the affected folks have been individually noticed, more than 70% have filed formal
protests against it. This should not be ignored or discounted, just because the Future Land Use
Map for all of Bozeman was approved. For all the reasons cited above, it seems that proper
analysis of the impact of this change was not done at the Future Land Use Map stage, and thus
must be done now.
Further, Mr. Miller explained in his presentation to the Zoning Commission that the intent of
making this change to the Future Land Use Map was to “replace and provide the commercial
zoning that was withdrawn from the Story Mill area when the park was introduced.” But this
seems to be incorrect, as the 2009 Future Land Use Map that preceded the 2020 version shows
the park area to have been designated “residential” and even the current zoning map on the
City website shows still shows the park as R2 and R4 today. The 2009 Future Land Use Map
does show some Community Commercial Mixed Use on what is now the new Bridger View
development, and that is now zoned R3 residential. But the loss of that 9 acres of commercial
is more than made up for with the new 15 acres of B2M and REMU in the Stockyard Properties
development. And additional B1 and B2 remains across Story Mill Rd. at the historic mill site.
I should note that multiple of the maps in the staff’s presentation to the Zoning Commission
are outdated. Inaccurate, outdated maps are used to show commissioners:
• Larger Vicinity Municipal Zoning (page 8)
• Near Vicinity Municipal Zoning Presently in Effect (page 9)
• Proximity of adjacent zoning designations (page 44) – doesn’t show the Cannery District
as being a developed core
• Existing land uses within ¼ miles (page 48) – incorrectly shows the Bridger View
subdivision as vacant land and the Stockyard properties as incorrect uses including
single household residential
• Zoning within ¼ of project site (page 50) -- shows Story Mill Park as R2 and R4, and the
Stockyard Properties as R4 and B1 (now B2M and REMU).
Additionally:
• page 49 purports to list the zoning districts within ¼ mile of the subject property, but
erroneously lists R-2 and B-1, while failing to mention the B2M and REMU.
• Inaccurate zones are cited again in the text on page 55 to erroneously support staff’s
assertion that no spot zoning is occurring.
The community has voiced widespread opposition to this project.
You have received an outpouring of opposition to this re-zoning. In addition to formal protests
from 70% of the landowners within 150’ of the parcel, you have received 292 letters/emails of
public comment as of 12/15. Of those 292, only 4 are in support of the project.
At Zoning Commission, only 12 “citizens” spoke in support of the project. We later learned that
at least 11 of the 12 are employees of or affiliated with HomeBase. (See Dan Kaveney’s
12/15/2021 letter for details.) None disclosed their affiliation with the applicant, presenting
themselves simply as concerned citizens. Certainly the fact that they have financial ties to the
project or the applicant is relevant and should be disclosed. Failure to do so is unethical, if not
an outright manipulation of the public comment process. This is particularly true when the
Applicant gets unlimited time to present his proposal, while we citizens are limited to just 3
minutes. Please consider new procedures/requirements to safeguard the public process on
future projects.
Let’s set the record straight.
Finally, I would like to correct the record regarding the Applicant’s alleged attempts to reach
out to area neighbors.
I am not a member of the HOA board and thus was not present at the first meeting. Those who
were present describe it in very different terms than what Mr. Holloran described to the Zoning
Commission members, but someone who was present should tell you that first hand.
As to the second meeting, Mr. Holloran told the Zoning Commission, “We participated in a
community homeowners association forum, and we had a number of our team members that
were participating in that, that lasted two or three hours, a lot of back and forth questions that
we felt we addressed.” I was at that meeting. It was nothing like what Mr. Holloran alleged. In
fact, the HOA board of directors invited all HOA members to a Zoom call, saying “Your HOA
would like to host a virtual meeting where we, as neighbors, will have an opportunity to discuss
the nearby development.” The meeting invitation went on to say, “The development team
intends to hold a separate, interactive meeting that we all will be invited to in the coming
weeks. The HOA will send information about this meeting when we receive it.” Thus, everyone
on the call expected that it was just we HOA members on the call, talking amongst ourselves.
The call was hosted by an HOA board member, who walked through the HomeBase slides and
repeated what HomeBase had presented to the board members in that first meeting. Once
that was done, all participating HOA members began to discuss issues, concerns and possible
actions to take. The discussion and strategizing was well underway when one participant finally
identified himself as both a member of the HOA and an employee of HomeBase. It felt like an
infiltration – he had waited until we had begun to discus strategy before revealing his affiliation
with HomeBase. He was the only person to identify himself as being with HomeBase, although I
later learned that the HOA board member hosting the call is married to a principal at SMA
Architecture and Design, the firm hired by HomeBase. Perhaps Mr. Holloran regarded her as
part of his team – I don’t know. But the reality of that meeting was certainly very different than
what Mr. Holloran described to the Zoning Commission, and most definitely not an example of
good community outreach.
Thus it is rich, indeed, to hear Mr. Holloran complain to the Zoning Commission about backlash
and angry discourse from the neighbors. The reality is that no input was sought, nor welcomed
when offered unsolicited. Questions raised were met with non-answers that defied basic
business practices and believability, such as ‘It’s too early, we haven’t done any analysis as to
the number of buildings or number of units. We’re just asking for zoning.’
And for the record, that invitation to a “separate, interactive meeting” with the HomeBase
team never came. Instead, a group of us from the Legends reached out to Mr. Holloran after
the Zoning Commission meeting and invited him to meet with us. That meeting was actually
productive and Mr. Holloran said he was open to collaboration. Of course, this was after the
Zoning Commission had recommended denial of the project. In that meeting, the HomeBase
team made clear their enthusiasm for their proposal and their excitement for presenting it to
you. We disagree with their zoning request, so we suggested that future meetings should wait
until after you make your decision on zoning.
In summary
To be clear, I support annexation and development. This is an infill parcel inside City limits. It
should be annexed and developed at the proper zoning once the necessary infrastructure
improvements are in place. For all the reasons cited above, I urge you to zone this residential
rather than commercial – we have a housing crisis, not a lack of commercial development. I
further urge you to use your zoning authority to create the type of housing our community so
desperately needs: rowhouses, townhouses, duplexes and homes with small yards. There is
significant demand for this “missing middle” type of housing, and no inventory – and thus the
prices have sky-rocketed. Such R3 zoning would also be better scaled to the unique challenge
of the train issue, although a comprehensive traffic and safety analysis would still be necessary
to ensure public health and safety. And finally, appropriate open space should be required in
keeping with the unique location and character of this location at the outskirts of town and in
an active wildlife corridor near a vital water source.
I appreciate and respect your commitment to our community – being a City Commissioner is a
tough, time-consuming and -- I imagine -- often thankless job. Thank you for your service and
dedication, and thank you very much for your time and consideration of this remarkably long
letter.
Best,
Diana Sauther