Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-24 Public Comment - G. & S. Vidmar - Haprper's Corner Annexation ce Greg and Shannon Vidmar 2210 Watts Lane Bozeman, MT 59718 June 13, 2024, Bozeman City Commission 121 North Rouse Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Re: Written Protest to Harper's Corner Annexation,Application 423127 for R4 (Residential High Density) zoning Dear City Commissioners: Gregory B.Vidmar and Shannon M.Vidmar are the owners and joint tenants in common with right of survivorship of the residential home located at 2210 Watts Lane, Bozeman, MT. We have lived at this property for 22 years. Our property is in direct view and with-in 100 feet of the proposed Harper's Corner Annexation, Application 23127. We protest and are opposed to this application for R-3/ R4 zoning because it does not meet the criteria according to the Montana Code Annotated, 76-2-304,item 2d. This proposal will significantly change "the characteristics of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses. The application does not taper the development in setbacks or appreciable height off Hidden Valley Road. In addition,at the January 23, 2024 commission meeting, the developer was asked to meet with the adjacent landowners and work with our concerns about the proposed Harpers Corner Annexation and make some compromise in his next application.The developer has turned in a revised request, however,the letter he turned in on May 7, 2024 is filled with errors. Yes, he wrote a narrative,but only his "intent"is stated,and many of his recollections of our Feb 8th meeting are not accurate. On February 8, 2024,Jon Knokey and Drew Russell met with a group of the adjacent landowners at Ray and Mary Seed's house to discuss the Harpers Corner Project. We voiced our concerns mostly setbacks,high-density height,traffic,water and they explained their history as developers. On February 16,we as a group sent Jon Knokey an email (see attached 1) suggesting a compromise. Jon Knokey answered our email and wrote up a narrative that summarized his idea of the meeting which had numerous misleading statements. In response,the adjacent landowners revised our request and sent Jon Knokey a second email on March 7 (see attached 2) with suggestions towards a compromise. Jon responded saying that he would do many of these items in the preliminary plat stage and that we just had to trust his "intent"at this stage of the process. We again responded to Jon Knokey and asked to put these items in writing in a way that stays with the property in the future regardless who the owner is. We suggested to have a legal agreement written up that is recorded on the Harper's Corner property stating areas of setback, height, and density restrictions. Jon responded again saying that if he did that any future zoning would override these restrictions and he would not go down this road. Based on this we hired legal council to research the ideas of placing restrictions on a property and make sure these restrictions would stand up to future zoning and be enforceable (see attached 3 - letter from Erin Arnold). I sent Jon Knokey an email with Erin Arnold's letter asking him to consider this option along with other options including the entire application R-3. On April 15, 2024, 1 followed up and talked to him twice on the phone after he reviewed the letter and he said that he would not pursue this action and that it is what it is. Jon said he will not continue down this path and that if we protest the development, he will NOT bring us to the next level of discussions. We ask you as commissioners to consider the effort we as adjacent property owners have gone to trying to find a compromise with the developers when you vote. Our goal was to find a settlement and support Jon Knokey's application. However,based on his many written errors, this did not happen so our hand to protest is forced. Yours sincerely, �A LM Gre oiy B. Vidmar Shannon M. Vidmar From: Mary Seed <mary.s.seed(@g_mail.com> Date: Friday, February 16, 2024 at 11:20 AM �� � To: Greg Vidmar<vidmarconstructionPlittleappletech.com>, <taptout(@gmail.com>, Brandon Beamer <brandon.beamer(a)gmail.com>,<beamer.christy(@gmail.com>, Deanna Campbell <d,campbe11999QgmaiI,com>,Jon Knokey<ion,knokey(@g_mail.com> Subject: proposal for Harper Corner Dear Jon and Drew, Thank you for meeting with the neighbors last Thursday. We found it helpful, and it also left us with some unanswered questions.Therefore,we met in person with Deputy Mayor Morrison and spoke on the telephone to Commissioner Madgic and Elizabeth Cramblet to clarify our questions. Here's what we learned: 1. The Planning Department has worked with split or tapered zoning in the past and it is possible to make adjustments to the roads and infrastructure in order to help you with your layout during the planning designing stage.According to Commissioner Madgic, this is not uncommon. 2. It is possible to set up an Annexation Agreement which specifies in advance the amount of open space and building height limits on Hidden Valley Road and the southwest corner adjacent to Deanna Campbell's property.The Annexation Agreement is binding to the property, if you decide to sell the property at a future date. The city recently approved an Annexation Agreement for the Canyon Gate Project. Elizabeth Cramblet would be a good resource. 3. If the property is not zoned,The City Commissioners can assign zoning but this is rarely done.They could assign R3 just as well as REMU. With this information, we would like to propose that you apply for R4 zoning on the 20 acre tract on the eastside of Harper Corner and R2 zoning on the 20 acre tract westside of Harper Corner.We would like an Annexation Agreement outlining the amount of open space, which includes protection of the creek, and a height limit and setbacks for buildings close to the open space to the west,and the southwest of the Harper Corner property. Our intent is a win/win for you,the developers and the surrounding property owners.We look forward to hearing from you. Please refer any questions to Greg by phone,406-580-7463 or email, vidmarconstruction(@littleappietech.com. Mary and Ray will be out of town and will have limited service for the next 3 weeks. Sincerely, Ray and Mary Seed, Greg and Shannon Vidmar, Brandon and Christy Beamer, Dale Lilleford, Deanna Campbell Page 1 of 1 From:Greg Vidmar<ujrlrni�rronstruction Ca)little appletech com> AT " Date:Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 8:01 AM To:Jon K<icn.knokey a gm2il com> Subject: harpers corner application Jon, Thank you for taking the time to talk to me yesterday evening, So I now understand that you dropped off or e-mailed the most current"Harpers Corner Preliminary Annexation Statement" from the e-mail 2./29/2024, to the city planners Monday 3/4/2024 asking there( Elizabeth Cramblet and others) to review the contents and how to include your" plan intentions"into the application you are turning in the next week or so for the property zoning request. As of yesterday you mentioned you have not heard anything back and your reason for turning this in was so that you got assurance from the city prior to filling out the application and that your"plan "items were worded correctly and that the city would accept/honor your requests. One major point you made was that you want to design the development with a 100 foot set back from Hidden Valley road and parts of the southern border but you want to be absolutely sure your are giving credit for the portion of this property over the required set of 65 feet goes toward the open space requirement for the development. Further more you did say that once you get answers from the city and revise your application as noted you would make it available for us the adjacent property owners to review prior to the next city Commission meeting. We appreciate you being as transparent as possible. The position of the majority of the adjacent property owners is that if you are able to put all of your plan intentions per the "Harpers Corner Annexation Statement"in writing with this application , as we understand that will continue with the development of the property forever. Then you will have our support. Otherwise we reserve the right to protest and/or renegotiate. We believe our position is based on the last few weeks of negotiations with You and Drew and communications with the city commissioners. As YOU stated in your last e-mail we need to work together. Thank you Greg Vidmar CC:watts lane neighbors Shannon and Greg Vidmar -- Mary and Ray seed Deanna Campbell Dale Lillejord Brandon and Christy Beamer Don Kent/Kevin Kent AlUI-eAmLc N i fr3 GALLIK & BREMER, P.C. Attorneys at Law 777 East Main Street, Suite 203 Post Office Box 70 Bozeman, Montana 59771-0070 April 12, 2024 Mary Seed BY EMAIL ONLY 2380 Watts Lane Bozeman, MT 59718 marv.s.seed(&gmail.com RE: Harper's Corner Development Dear Mary, You asked for an opinion whether the landowner of the proposed Harper's Corner Zone Map Amendment(ZMA) can place private restrictions on the use and development of the real property, notwithstanding the pending annexation and ZMA. The short answer is "yes." The developer is free to place such restrictions on the real property,just like any other landowner. A landowner can place restrictions on their real property to limit the intensity of development, such as setbacks, height restrictions, and building density. This can occur before or after annexation or a zone change. The restrictions can be created by written agreement and recorded in the land records, similar to the covenants routinely recorded by homeowners' associations. Potential conflicts with zoning do not preclude private covenants. Instead, covenants routinely include a clause that, in the case of a conflict with applicable zoning,the more restrictive provision controls. This also is a common clause in zoning regulations. i Furthermore, zoning and private covenants do frequently conflict. Private covenants are often more restrictive, prohibiting a use or standard that is allowed by zoning. The zoning does not abrogate the private covenant.2 Instead, enforcement then falls on the private parties to the covenants. The need for private enforcement does not preclude the covenants in the first place. The Bozeman Municipal Code, Section 38.100.100, states in relevant part:"This chapter is not intended to affect any existing private agreement or condition such as a deed restriction or covenant. If any provision of this chapter is more restrictive or imposes a higher standard than any such private restriction,the requirements of this chapter control." z See e.g. State ex. Rel. Region H Child&Family Servs. v. District Court, 187 Mont. 126, 130,609 P.2d 245,247 ("[Z]oning ordinances cannot destroy, impair,abrogate or enlarge the force and effect of an existing restrictive 1 J�U Here, the developer and neighboring lot owners could enter an agreement containing the desired restrictions and recorded on the real property. The agreement could indicate the restrictions are enforceable as covenants, run with the land, and are enforceable by the parties' successors and assigns.3 While such agreement may be undesirable or onerous for the developer, it is legally possible. Should this opinion raise any questions, please contact me at your convenience. SINCERELY, GAL I,JK &l3N.L;NI Fit, Pk, I E��AUrnudd,xii.)JILe�Y.at Law r, I covenant."In addition,both the United States and Montana Constitutions prohibit the government from"impairing the obligation of contracts." s See e.g. Reichert v. Weeden, 190 Mont. 95,618 P.2d 1216(1980). 2