Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-21 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Application 20350, 20351 Bridger Meadows Public CommentFrom:Marcia Kaveney To:Agenda Subject:attn: Sarah Rosenberg ,Application 20350, 20351 Bridger Meadows Public Comment Date:Sunday, June 20, 2021 5:49:48 PM Attachments:Screen Shot 2021-06-20 at 1.10.37 PM.png 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. Dear Ms. Rosenberg-Thank you for receiving public input on the Bridger Meadows Proposed Subdivision. I'd like to express some concerns I have about the subdivision and the relaxations requested. My main concern is the overall density of the proposed subdivision. This proposal is too dense to be supportive of the Bozeman Community Plan where protecting the ecosystem is animportant theme. This is a very unique and special area and will be changed forever once houses are built on it. Often a proposal for 16 residences might go unnoticed UNLESS however, the property alsoincludes a nationally listed wetland such as this one (see attached photo). As you can see the proposal looks like it will be building right on top of a small portion of the wetland (notethe lime green portion) and I believe this is illegal without mitigation elsewhere. Therefore the density of homes proposed needs to be decreased, not maximized. Decreased densitywill allow for greater protection for the current resident wildlife and their corridor of safety that this parcel has provided for decades. My opinion on this is supported by the experience ofliving nearby in Legends II where the city allowed increased density of lots in the final phase by allowing the addition of homes between Boylan along the floodplain. We now have annualnegative interactions with bears in garbage cans and bird feeders. We also have people occasionally trying to alter the streamflow to avoid flooding which once cost the HOA $10Kto try to repair. The city planning dept and commission erred by not foreseeing this likely problem. However, with Bridger Meadows, the city can benefit from this experience byanticipating human/wildlife conflicts and limit the housing to the easternmost section of the parcel. In addition to bears, we also have regular traffic from moose and deer, as well asnesting sandhill cranes. Consideration of maintaining a healthy urban wildlife interface should be a priority with this parcel as well as protecting the ecosystem according to theBozeman Community Plan. I am also concerned that with increased density comes increased pollutants into the wetlands. Commonly used agro-chemicals for lawns will undoubtedly leach into the very high watertable on this parcel and will likely have an effect on both the wildlife and water health of the adjacent wetlands and eventually nearby Rocky Creek. Perhaps there is a clause in the zoningto limit density when a wetland is involved? In regards to the relaxations the developer is asking for, I generally think no relaxations should be given considering the building boom that has been happening for the past 30 years. Incentives are not needed. Favors are not needed. The housing being proposed on this parcel will have little effect on the overall housing crisis. Nothing about this development proposalwill be an improvement to the nearby residents. Therefore, no relaxations should be given. While I understand that the developer has made some adjustments in response to the DRC, I am still strongly opposed to the following relaxation requests for the following reasons: Code Section 1. 38.400.010.A.8: I oppose the relaxation of this code. Channeling all cartraffic for 16 homes onto Birdie Drive will add congestion to an already congested street. The emergency entrance to Commercial Drive should be opened up to regular traffic or reduce thenumber of houses. Code Section 2. 38.400.010.A.9. I oppose the allowance for a cul-de-sac. In the application, the developer agreed to not allow parking in the cul-de-sac but that is unrealistic for a hiddencul-de-sac with no likely enforcement so it will become a fire hazard . No cul-de-sac will be needed if the density is decreased. Code Section 4. 38.400.080: Sidewalk elimination on one side. I oppose this relaxation. Itforces foot traffic into the street. If the parcel is too narrow for a sidewalk on either side, then it is too narrow for this subdivision. Code Section 6. 38.410.100.A.2. Reduce watercourse setback. I agree with the DRC that thisrequest does not support the Bozeman Community Plan. I would like to see an even larger setback required, and as I said earlier, decreased lot density. Please note that people will notstay out of the wetland area. Living in Legends II has shown that to be true. If there's water, people will go to it. The wildlife will not frequent it nearly as much. There needs to be a muchbigger buffer between the wildlife and the humans. Expect the sandhills to stop coming once houses go in. As I previously mentioned, residents can expect frequent visits from bears inspring and fall and that rarely ends well for the bears. I hope more attention will be given to protecting the existing wildlife corridor by requiring a reduced density in the lot allowance, especially on the western upland portion between thepond, trail, and forest. Thank you for taking public input. I am available for questions if anyone on the DRC would like to discuss my comments. Sincerely,Marcia Kaveney 1496 Boylan Rd.