HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-21 Public Comment - F. Boom - Bridger MeadowsFrom:Faye Boom
To:Agenda
Subject:20350 and 20351 Bridger Meadows application public comment
Date:Wednesday, July 7, 2021 11:58:57 AM
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.
Attn: Sarah Rosenberg
I oppose Bridger Meadows' application for a subdivision for the following reasons:
a. 38.400.010.A.8 requires a second emergency access. Bridger Meadows is asking that the
requirement be waived. The only access shown on the map is a proposed street exiting toBirdie. Birdie is already overwhelmed, especially in winter, with the business parking on both
sides of the street. There are times when two cars cannot get by each other because of the carsand trucks parked on the street. Emergency vehicles would have a hard time getting through
this maze to the occupants in Bridger Meadows. The residents of this proposed subdivisionwould be left vulnerable. Also, the street that would connect the proposed development to
Birdie is posted as a "Private Drive". Lacking permission from the development on thatprivate drive, Bridger Meadows should not be able to use it as a way in and out of its
development.
There is apparently a proposed "gated"access through Bridger Center, the commercialdevelopment along Bridger Drive. In my opinion, a gated access is not an emergency access
and likely would not be maintained to the standards of normal streets. Stopping to open a gatewould waste valuable time in an emergency. Bridger Center already has direct access to
Bridger Drive so the only advantage would be to Bridger Meadows. Rather than being a"good neighbor", it seems Bridger Meadows wants to inconvenience the existing population
for its own gain.
b. 38.400.020.A.2 requires a 60' right of way requirement. Bridger Meadows is requesting areduction to a 50' right of way. There is only one street planned to go through this proposed
subdivision. That means all traffic and parking would be on that one street, which wouldresult in congestion and difficulty for traffic on a narrow right of way. In an emergency,
traffic could be snarled and result in not being able to get in or out of the development. Alsoemergency vehicles, being larger than family cars, would have difficulty reaching their
destinations.
c, 38.410.100A.2 requires a minimum 100 foot setback from the Gallatin River and 35 feetfrom any other watercourse. Bridger Meadows is requesting that setback be reduced to 50 feet
from the river. Setback requirements are vital to the health of a river. To keep allowingvariances along the course of the river would be "death by a thousand cuts". There seems to be
a proposal to fill in wetlands, which should be prohibited in any event. Additional pesticiderunoff from the nearby lawns would be detrimental to the river and to the wildlife. There is
already a brackish body of water close to the river that would be made worse by constructing buildings and streets close to it.
Bridger Meadows proposes leaving an unusable area as a "wildlife refuge". Then he wants to
create a "federally protected" wildlife refuge so that he does not have to maintain the land he
owns. This is a low lying tract of land with a high water table. The whole area should be awildlife refuge, as it is now.
According to the proposed plan, there would be a street constructed behind current homes on
Boylan Rd. and next to a trail used by hundreds of citizens of Bozeman. Building that streetwould interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the trail and I request, at the very least, that an
adequate set-back be required between the trail and the street. Also, the height of the proposedstreet in comparison to existing homes and the closeness to them would result in car headlights
shining into the bedrooms of existing homes. If there must be a street, I suggest that thebackyards of the homes face the existing trail and that the street be on the other side of the
homes. That way the trail and the existing homes would be somewhat protected and the newhomes would be on higher ground with less likelihood of water in their basements or crawl
spaces. The pesticide runoff from the lawns would be farther from the river. It would alsomake the variance for the watercourse setback unnecessary.
Thank you for listening.
Faye BoomBozeman, MT
582-4915