The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-17-24 Public Comment - G. Vidmar - Harper's Corner Annexation and ZMA • r ln-l�-2H My name is Greg Vidmar. I live at 2210 Watts Lane, Bozeman, MT. My property is within 100 feet of the Harpers Corner Annexation. I am requesting the City Commissioners read the corrected statements below in red to Jon Knokey's outline. To the best of my knowledge it is the actual truth. Bozeman City Commission 121 North Rouse Bozeman, MT 59718 Harpers Corner Annexation and ZMA,Application #23127 My name is Jon Knokey, and I am the applicant for Harpers Corner Annexation and ZMA, Application #23127. 1 would humbly like to make a request and share an update. First the request: would it be possible to reschedule our hearing for the next available Commissioner meeting to allow us to incorporate a meaningful change to our application? Second, we would like to inform you that a substantial amount of effort and outreach went into creating a fair and meaningful compromise that will make Bozeman proud. Here is the outreach and communication schedule: February 8th: Met with Watts Lane neighbors at the home of Mary and Ray Seed. Jon and Drew told us we should trust them because they were good guys. However, they then said they were still applying for R-4 regardless and that if we protested their application they could sell the property to a large developer who would not be willing to work with us. I considered this intimidation and an ultimatum. February 16:The neighbors emailed their desire for a twenty-acre split from R-2 to R-4 February 16: Appreciating that R-2 over 20 acres was not an economically feasible option due to unknown civil costs, we decided to jointly pursue an Annexation agreement with the City of Bozeman. Unknown civil costs are unknown no matter what the zoning is. It does not only apply to R-2 zoning specifically. February 26: We met with the city to discuss the Annexation agreement and sent the jointly agreed narrative outlining our desire to impose R-2 height restrictions along Hidden Valley as well as enhanced setbacks(this was included in the pre-read). At this date, the narrative Jon is referring to was NOT jointly agreed upon 100% by Watts Lane neighbors. Only parts of it were. At this point the narrative states mostly Jon's "intent". March 8: The city reversed course, stating they would no longer allow the Annexation Agreement. March 9: 1 informed the neighbors we would not pursue a private agreement due to obvious litigious issues. A zoning designation was the agreed upon correct course. Jon said we could not do a private agreement and if we did the zoning would supersede the agreement. Ask Jon to i explain "obvious litigious issues". Jon did not explain what this means. I would also like to clarify Jon said R-4 zoning or nothing in an email. That was his compromise. March 18: 1 sent the narrative and presentation to the neighbors— requesting feedback and to discuss a path forward. Ask Jon to read his narrative. He gave both property owners and you, the City, an ultimatum, basically R-4 or nothing. March 20: Mr. Vidmar and I met with Commissioner Morison at City Brew to discuss further options. A zoning designation was the agreed upon correct course. Ask Commissioner Morrison what his recollection of the meeting was. Jon said that he would not budge on R-4. Jon said that zoning would supersede my idea of a private recorded agreement. Mr. Morrison said he was unsure of this so I was given the homework to find out the facts, which led in part to hiring legal council a week later. April 15: A letter from Erin L. Arnold of Gallik & Bremer, P.C. was sent to Jon confirming that a private agreement was possible and would not be superseded by zoning. April 19: Jon responded to the letter and said he was aware all along that he could place restrictions on the property but wanted "nothing to do with it". May 1: A subset of neighbors sent a letter from a lawyer. The journey is such that on February 16,the neighbors stipulated, in an email,that support for the application would require that half the property be zoned R-2 and the other half R-4. There was an agreement that R-4 was viable on the 20.06 acres to the east, where the property meets the neighboring REMU. Read our response to Jon (attached 4). We did not require R-2/R-4 we proposed it. We also suggested R-3 was possible and the fact is Jon responded with R-4 or nothing. Furthermore,the neighbors shared that R-2 was the needed designation on the western approach, nearest to Hidden Valley Road. Otherwise,the protest would remain. It was not until May 1 that we received feedback that R-3 is an acceptable outcome, including nearest to Hidden Valley Road. This was welcomed. The fact is that we requested and R-2/R-4 split as a first choice and has been the case since our letter to Jon on February 16, 2024. R-3 was mentioned in this letter also. We have not changed in our request since then.The R-3 on the ENTIRE property was our second choice as a compromise stated in the letter dated May 1, 2024. from Erin L. Arnold of Gallik & Bremer, P.C. This provided the opportunity to find common ground. We would like to propose the following changes to our application: * Legal description:S27, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 408A, PARCEL 2,ACRES 20.06 will be requested at R-3. * Legal description:S27, T01 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 408A, PARCEL 2, ACRES 20.06 will be requested at R-4. - -1 R3 R4 II Ceocode:06-0904-27-3-05-10-0000 Geocode:06-0904-27-3-05-10-0000 Assessment Code:OORF056119 Assessment Code:OORF056119 Certificate of Survey: 108A Certificate of Survey:408A Legal Description:S27.T01 S,R05 E. Legal Description:S27,T01 S.R05 E.C.O.S. C.O,S.408.A,PARCEL 2.ACRES 20.06 408A.PARCEL 2.ACRES 20.06 We stand ready to design the project to allow for even further benefits for the neighborhood including a graduating density. This will take place during the Subdivision Review process. Ask Jun to put these density specifics in writing, Conversely, we have compromised our application from REMU to R-5 to R-4;to the final proposal: the R-3 to R-4 split. This will allow the density to taper from REMU at the eastern boarder to R-4 the R-3 as we move westward towards Hidden Valley Road. To the best of my knowledge, the project, never applied for I-,LIVIU. We asked Jon to taper the height, setbacks, and density in writing. With each step, the City Planning Department has recommended the criterion for Zoning. The community benefits remain unmistakable. Our revised application will be in clear accordance with the direction form the commission, as well as input from neighbors. This is not 100%true or clear, as it is not what the neighbors told Jon. Ask Jon to explain what he means by "community benefits remain unmistakable". The revised application is not in "clear accordance" from input from the neighbors. A full zoning of R-3 on the entire property was our compromise (second choice) after the requested R-4/R-2 split. This course of action is the compromise the Commissioners sought. I respectfully request to reschedule our hearing for the next available Commissioner meeting. This letter is a partial compromise but full of misleading statements that Jon wrote trying to make himself look better after he gave us and the City an R-4 or nothing ultimatum. We asked for R/2 zoning because of the height and the density tapers. From the beginning we asked for something in writing that would stay with the property regardless of who develops the property. Jon states in his revised narrative that 5 adjacent neighbors are in support. Please ask him if this support is in writing. If Jon lives up to his stated intensions of the development, will it really "make Bozeman proud"? If Jon sells the property or does not live up to his intensions as written in the narrative, we will end up with something that is not a compromise. Warmest Regards, Jon Knokey Sincerely in truth, Greg Vidmar