HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-24 Public Comment - R. Seed - Harper's Corner Annexation Raymond B. Seed
2380 Watts Lane
Bozeman, MT 59718
June 17, 2024
Bozeman City Commission
121 North Rouse Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Re: Written Protest to Harper's Corner Annexation, Second Amended Application 23127,
for R4 (Residential High Density) and R3 (Medium Density)Zoning.
Dear City Commissioners:
Raymond B. Seed and Mary S. Seed are Grantors of the Raymond and Mary Seed Family
Trust, which includes the residential home located at 2380 Watts Lane, Bozeman, MT. This
property is directly across from the proposed Harper's Corner Annexation;Application 23127.
We protest this application for R-4/R-3 zoning because it does not meet 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 proposed Harper
Corner Annexation is 40 acres with 3 of its four sides, the North, South and West sides of the
property, abutting and surrounded by County land with 1 to 20 acre lots, hosting primarily single-
family dwellings. The properties are zoned agriculture (AS) by Gallatin County, and have
livestock, including horses, cattle, sheep, llamas, etc. The properties on these 3 sides of the
proposed Harper's Corner Annexation are not in the Bozeman Planning map and will not be
annexed.
We previously submitted comments regarding the applicant's first amended Harper's
Corner ZMA to the Commission on January 23, 2024. The Commission denied that ZMA request,
and recommended that the applicant try to work with the surrounding community to develop a
proposal that could be acceptable to all.
Many members of our neighborhood, including a majority of the properties within 150 feet,
then met with the developers (John Knokey and Drew Russell) at our home on the evening of
February 8, 2024. The discussions were both interesting and important; and I will address them a
bit later. Those discussions were, in the end, not fruitful.
The applicant then applied for an amended ZMA to the Commission, but with no
modifications to the application. The applicant subsequently withdrew that request, only a few
days before the scheduled meeting of the and has now submitted a second amended ZMA. In this
second amended ZMA, the applicant requests split zoning on the property such that Tract 1 (to the
west) is zoned R-3 (Residential Medium Density) and Tract 2 (to the east) is zoned as R-4.
We have again retained an attorney (Erin Arnold) to advocate on our behalf in this matter,
and you will have received her letter prior before the scheduled hearing on June 18`"
I am submitting this letter to add some further comments as follow:
1. The meeting of our neighboring homeowners with Mr. Knokey and his partner Drew Russell
at our home on February 8t", 2024 was not a short one. Participation was good. Mr. Knokey
was pretty charming, and presented a relatively rosy picture of their aspirations for the
development, but when pressed for (a) details, and (b) a mechanism for ensuring that an
actually enforceable agreement could be achieved, he declared that his offers at this meeting
represented "aspirational" intentions, and could not be recorded in any binding fashion. He
also told us that this was the best deal we could achieve, and that if thwarted he and his partner
"would sell the property to someone much worse" and we would all be song.
That did not go over very well.
A second round of discussions ensued. Mr. Knokey was again fairly charming, and he and his
partner (but mainly Mr. Knokey this time) again painted a rosy picture of their (now
hypothetical)plans and aspirations. And then he again refused to make any commitment(s) in
any binding form. And this time he threatened to sell the property to "someone worse than
us"... and we (sic) would be sorry").A third round of this cycle then ensued, and this time the
threat was that they would"flip"or sell the property to the 86 developers—apparently thinking
that would somehow scare us. By this point, the 86 developers were sounding like an
increasingly better bet. The 86 developers would appear likely to be suitably funded, and
professional, and to have done their homework with regard to projected costs and delays
inherent in a development that will be dependent upon roads and utility connections that do
not yet exist, and might take a while to arrive. They might likely not engage in these types of
threats and shenanigans, as they would likely want to develop long-standing relationships and
continue to be Developers in Bozeman and in the Gallatin Valley.
And we had all begun to see the pattern.
(1) Charm and schmooze, and present an attractive picture.
(2) Lie. (Binding documentation of agreements can indeed be accomplished here.)
(3) Threaten, ideally with "dire" consequences for all, if we do not cave.
(4) Return to Step 1 above, and repeat the cycle as necessary.
That is gaslighting.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse or manipulation in which the abuser attempts to
sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim's rnind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain
power and control over the other person,by distorting reality and forcing them to question their
own judgement and intuition. (Newport Institute, 2024)
We are a pretty seasoned bunch, and the attempt to scare and/or confuse us was not fruitful.
2. Gregg Vidmar, who is currently the President of our Homeowners Association on Watts Lane,
next agreed to undertake a further extended effort to discuss and try to work something out
with Mr. Knokey. Gregg is a builder, and runs his own successful company. He is familiar with
many of these issues. He is also an admirably honest and diligent individual; and he expended
significant effort over the next couple of weeks to try to reach a potentially useful agreement.
To no avail.
3. And then, surprisingly, Mr. Knokey and his partner next attempted to turn these same unsavory
tactics against you,the Commissioners.They requested and were granted an additional hearing
before the Commissioners, and submitted written documents on the Harpers Corner
development in advance of the next scheduled Commissioner's meeting of May 7"' , 2024.
Those documents were then accordingly posted to the website in advance of the meeting. And
then they were next apparently withdrawn, on short notice, and the discussion of this Harper's
Corner Zone Map Amendment at the Commissioner's meeting of May 7"' , 2024 was abruptly
cancelled. Many of us had, of course, made arrangements to attend that meeting(which would
have been the third overall formal City development meeting on this issue so far, and the
second before the Commissioners).
Their written submittal in advance of that canceled meeting was top-headed (or Titled) as
"Harper's Corner Narrative,March 21 st,2024"and it should of course still be archived on your
website. We also have copies. There are a number of untrue statements and assertions; but
fortunately those are not the principal concern here as one element of this submittal by Mr.
Knokey and his partner is of greater import.
On the third page of this submittal, they wrote a"bullet" (the 8t" of 9 "bullets") as follows:
• We discussed our plan should the Commission not support our zoning request. This
included pursuing one-acre parcels in the County or building a storage facility or
investing in another potential use that did not require the substantial burden of civil
costs.This route would not be advantageous to the City of Bozeman. But, in accordance
with the economics, we would have minimal options. This would negate the Hidden
Valley Standard Collector Street, the Catamount Minor Arterial, and the Ferguson
Standard Collector.
That appears to potentially represent a threat to you, the Commissioners, and to the broader
community both within Bozeman and in the County. Specifically,they appear to be threatening
to obstruct the construction of three needed arterial and/or collector roads that might be
important or even vital to potential further development plans across the valley.
So now it appears that you have also been threatened; and perhaps also charmed or schmoozed
as well. And have they also lied? Can they actually construct an unattractive eyesore, and can
they obstruct needed roads (arterials)whose significance would extend far beyond the vicinity
of the currently proposed Harper's Corner Development?
It does not appear that they can easily obstruct the westward extension of Catamount; which
would pass to the south of their property in question. And can they create other unfavorable
developments on their property that would be detrimental to all surrounding properties? That
would appear, again,to potentially represent spot zoning(albeit in an unusually aggressive and
negative manner), and perhaps to epitomize spot zoning yet again. Certainly it represents an
attempt by two individuals to press for special treatment for the benefit of only one or two
people(or so),and to the detriment of many.And by means that are now becoming increasingly
unsavory. They withdrew this submittal, on very short notice, ahead of the planned meeting
of the Commissioners.
4. On page 4 of that same submittal, Mr. Knokey and his partner make an interesting statement
as follows: "As of this writing,we have the known support of half of the neighbors,all adjacent
to Harpers Corner. We want very much to work with the five remaining neighbors on the other
side of Hidden Valley Road".
"Known support"may be an interesting phrase here. We know that they do not have the support
of the neighbors who are again protesting. And of some of the neighbors a bit farther afield
(more than 150 feet). We also know that Mr. Knokey has had difficulties in tracking down the
owner of the manufactured homes park abutting the north edges of the proposed development
properties. Gregg Vidmar, who has lived here for a long time, knows the owner and so had no
difficulties in contacting him. He was told that he is pleased with the current situation of his
property, and will neither support nor oppose the zoning that eventually emerges.
We note that the manufactured homes park is an unusually outstanding operation of its type.
The people living there are not just passing through. Lot sizes are large, and they have created
a community, with a park and a play area for children, and signage etc. to promote safety of
children with regard to traffic risk in their community. They also have an admirable 4H
involvement, and we meet regional finalists from their community each Year at the County
Fairgrounds. It is a special place, and it would be a terrible shame to allow Mr. Knokey and his
partner to construct tall buildings (R-4 or R-3) closely along the southern border of this
neighborhood. It is not just a"park", it is a neighborhood. People live there; real people.
We also note that this manufactured homes park might represent an example of affordable
homes that also afford a good lifestyle; representing something that the Commissioners are
attempting to create. Might this be a model for at least one type of additional option?
5. If Mr's. Knokey and Russell underestimated the costs, difficulties, and timelines involved in
developing this proposed project site, that is not the fault of the Commissioners, nor the City,
nor the larger surrounding neighborhood and community. It was the developer's duty to do
due diligence in that regard. And the resulting burden should fall to Mr. Knokey and his
partner; otherwise the resulting special treatment might appear similar to resemble "Spot
Zoning"in both form and function,even if not in full detail;preferential treatment to the benefit
of only one or a few individuals,and to the significant detriment of the much larger surrounding
community; and through no fault of their own.
6. And now we face yet another request for a ZMA from these two gentlemen. This time their
missive represents "cheery picking"; the selection of the facts that suit them, and the ignoring
of less convenient facts and truths. They claim that we (the local community and surrounding
neighborhood)have somehow"accepted"R-3 zoning in principle,and they are now requesting
R-3/R-4 zoning; R-4 for the eastern 20 acres, and R-3 for the western 20 acres. They further
claim that we have somehow "accepted" R-3 zoning for the western 20 acres, and R-4 for the
eastern 20 acres, and that they have accordingly met our requests.
That is disingenuous. We have never offered to accept R-4/R-3 zoning, and R-3 would never
be acceptable as a"transition"juxtaposed up against the Ag (AS) properties to the west.
We did offer to possibly accept R-4 zoning on the eastern property, and R-2 on the west: as our
"preferred" compromise solution; with a"worst-case" (and potentially acceptable) solution of
R-3 for the full 40 acres; but we are far from having universal buy-in in our neighborhood for
that R-3/R-3 alternative, in part because we now have well established doubts about Mr's.
Knokey and Russell and their willingness to work honestly and in good faith with our
neighborhood on platting, spacing, architecture, etc. given the fractious history to date and
their failure to establish any basis for trust. R-3 zoning would not represent a usefully"tapered
transition" to the agricultural fields, open grounds, and the meandering creek and its
accompanying localized wetlands (both of which likely must be protected) currently adjacent
to their northern, western and southern boundaries.
R-4 (east) and R-2 (west) provides (1) a suitable compromise, (2) a suitable "tapering"to the
adjacent Ag (AS) properties on the west side of the proposed development, and (3) a suitable
transition from the R-5 and/or REMU likely to arrive eventually at the east edge of the eastern-
most 20 acres. That would appear to be an optimal compromise for all parties, in our view,
and would also appear to satisfy current policies and to promote transitional compatibility with
existing properties, and would likely avoid spot zoning.
7. Our neighborhood and community have now been dragged through this for more than five
months (since January 23, 2024), and it is not much fun for any of us. We would request some
relief from the Commissioners, as this is wearing on all of us, and our families as well.
We continue to be grateful for the continued diligence of the members of the Bozeman City
Commission on this complicated and challenging matter. We all recognize that the outcome here
may likely set one or more local precedents, and it is our hope that they will be good ones.
Yours sincerely,
Raymond B. Seed