Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-16, Stober, Pine Meadows Subdivision March 30, 2016 D City Of Bozeman APR 0LI 2016 Department of Community Development P.O. Box 1230 uI._i_ �rML�v-r 0 F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 RE: Pine Meadow Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application Number 16-041 Dear Planning Board and City Commissioners: I'm going on record to oppose the design of the 17 small (and 1 big one) lots that is being proposed for this subdivision. I bought my property on Valley Drive over 30 years ago knowing that covenants were in place that would not allow development that was not "beautiful and harmonious" with what was already here. There exist now 8 houses on half-acre lots on the west side of Valley Drive, the Smith Subdivision, and the proposed 18 homes on the east side would certainly not be "beautiful and harmonious". Honoring the covenants that exist (12' setbacks on each side of each house), with the exception of the one large proposed lot, each house would be limited to no more than 26' wide. Assuming each house has a two-car garage, can you imagine what they'll look like? In prior meetings with City officials, they have made it plain that they will not enforce our currently existing covenants, the covenants that the developer was aware of when he purchased the property. Fair enough. But it seems that the City will not respect those covenants, either, which I find somewhat disturbing. From what I understand, the City is insisting upon the density that the 18 lot proposal provides, thereby putting the developer in the uncomfortable position of being open to lawsuits defending the covenants. Is that what the city is all about? Pitting neighbors against neighbors in civil actions? Is that a good use of an already over-stressed legal system? At a meeting with the developer and his real estate agent, the realtor, when asked, said he "didn't know if larger lots would sell". I have a feeling his answer was based more than a little in the fact that the commission from 17 lots (one lot is the developer's own) would be more than from 11 or 12 lots. I think it's very obvious that there are all kinds of buyers out there, and I have no doubt that buyers could be found for larger lots, for people that would prefer to have a larger yard, some "elbow room". I assume that some of you own homes where covenants exist. Perhaps you bought your home because of the covenants. Now I ask you to imagine the City forcing a development on your neighborhood that would be in violation of your covenants. I'm not asking for the City to enforce our covenants, just that you respect them, and allow the developer a variance to allow for larger lot sizes. This would help ease some of the concerns of the existing Valley Drive residents, while easing the developer's mind concerning legal action to enforce the covenants. My preference would be for half-acre lots,just like what is on the west side of Valley. That would truly be "harmonious". If that is just not possible, than perhaps 12 lots, allowing for the existing covenants to prevail (as they legally do), could be acceptable. All in all, a lot of us in Smith Subdivision have been losing sleep over this issue. I believe all of us knew that eventually, the parcel on the east side of Valley would be developed, but having a development that doesn't meet our covenants "shoved down our throats" is not something that we had envisioned. Furthermore, although the City has maintained that they will not force-annex us, it was presented, to me at least, by the developer as something of a threat (in fairness, he may not have meant it that way): annex now, and accept an obligation of almost $75,000 (later reduced to nearly $50,000 when the City relaxed its requirement for sidewalks on the west side), or pay more when you eventually will be forced to annex. And by the way, your property may be flooded by rain and snow-melt runoff if you don't agree to annex and pay up now. I don't know how you would have reacted to something like this, but I can assure you it did not go over well with me. We in the Smith Subdivision currently have "affordable housing", something the City refers to often, and we live within our means. Facing the prospect virtually "buying" my current home all over again, is not pleasant. I'm nearly 60, and don't have the "working years" left to do that. For the 4 out of 8�f us in the Smith Subdivision that are already retired, I can only imagine what they're going through. Plain and simple, many of us are faced with losing our homes if we are annexed. I drive a 29-year old truck. A new car would be nice, but I can't afford one. I can't afford to help subsidize this development and submit to the ongoing higher City taxes and fees, either. I think all of us in the Smith Subdivision are in the same boat, which incidentally we might need if the developer floods our properties. I'm not against the development if it's done in a manner consistant with the covenants that are on the land, but the City needs to allow a density variance to the developer so that can happen. I would also like to be assured that the drainage issue will be addressed nd the developer will be required to build such that we who own property on he west side of Valley will not be adversely affected. Thank you, jil ,tfi Stober 395 Valley Drive Bozeman, MT 59718