HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-21 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Bridger MeadowsFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Agenda
Subject:Bridger Meadows Preliminary Plat comments
Date:Saturday, July 17, 2021 4:52:51 PM
Attachments:Screen Shot 2021-07-17 at 9.59.31 AM.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 Commissioners,I am writing to you about The Bridger Meadows Preliminary Plat Application. This particular project has beenweighing on me because it is such a sensitive area and one of our few intact urban wetland corridors. Thedecisions you make around it will lend precedence to many projects in the future. The Bridger Meadows Preliminary Plat Application is incompatible with its neighbors to the north, with theon-site wetland it’s proposed to be built next to, as well as it’s proximity to an existing wildlife corridor. Inaddition, the proposed right of way to the site appears to currently be involved with litigation. Any review ofthe plan will be premature before this important issue has been resolved. As things currently stand thedeveloper has received preliminary approval for several relaxations from city development standards fromboth the Design Review Board and the Planning Board. This might have been appropriate if the developmentoffered something of value (such as affordable housing) to the community, but it doesn’t. For all thesereasons, and out of respect for the Community Plan, city development standards, and in the interest ofprotecting urban ecosystems I’m urging you to vote to REJECT The Bridger Meadows Preliminary Platproposal when it comes before you this coming Tuesday. We do not need infill for infill’s sake alone. In the planning board meeting of June 21, there seemed to be anair of obligation to help Tom Murphy develop this land. Ownership of this property does not give Mr. Murphyblanket entitlement to build on it, nor does it obligate the city staff to relax city standards in order to allowhim to build on it. Mr. Murphy knew what he was getting into when he purchased a property dominated by awetland and without clear access. I commend the city for rightly refusing Mr. Murphy’s request to invokeeminent domain in order to grant him access from Boylan Rd.(Violating one party’s private property rights inthe service of enhancing the value of another party’s private property is hardly a defensible use of eminentdomain). The city is under no obligation to “help” with the development of this property. This is particularlytrue because the proposal will have no positive effect on our housing crisis as there is no shortage of luxuryhomebuyers and builders. And although you will hear a pretty picture painted by the developer for protectingthe wetlands, there is a hidden disregard to the entire ecosystem that needs to be addressed. The current lotsare too large and too dense for this particular property because a wider buffer is needed between the housesand the wetlands to give adequate protection. Please review the attached screenshot of the US Fish andWildlife National Wetlands Inventory. Bridger Meadows includes the only Freshwater Emergent Wetlandarea between Story Mill Park and Cherry Creek (green strip next to open water on map). This small butimportant parcel connects these two larger areas with nearby Bridger and Rocky Creeks as natural corridors. The existing Meyers Lake on the west side of town shows no backyards abutting the lake as well as 3 sides ofthe Flanders Mill Ponds area. There is excellent public feedback on the video recording of the June 21 Planning Board meeting when theydiscussed this project. I hope you will all take the time to listen to it before you make your decision on thisproject on Tuesday, July 20. I disagree with Planning Board Chairperson Henry Happel who dismissed the neighbors concerns as NIMBY-ism and implied the onus was on them for buying property next to an undeveloped lot. There is a reasonableassumption by property owners, myself included, that an undeveloped parcel will be developed according to
normal city standards and that we can count on the city staff to follow those standards. I also disagree with Planning Board member Jennifer Madgic, who, while acknowledging this proposal to bean example of “painful infill”, supported it anyway because…”so much of our community was built on wildlifehabitat, wetlands, and…within close proximity to our rivers and floodplains.” I think her argument boils downto the idea that since things have been done wrong in the past it’s acceptable to continue doing them wrong inthe future. It’s not at all persuasive. We don’t need to swallow painful infill or to keep making the samemistakes our predecessors did. We can avoid these “painful” infills by denying the requested relaxations. I’msure many of us can draw distasteful parallels to Ms. Madgic’s point of view about correcting historic errors. I appreciate Planning Board member George Thompson for standing behind his concerns about negativeimpacts and an unclear title when explaining why he voted no to this development as proposed. As a thirty year resident of Bozeman, I am in favor of smart development and I do believe this property couldbe developed sensitively. However, when a subdivision needs many relaxations from standards, then it isclearly not a good infill project. Or perhaps it’s time to reconsider the standards. For, what good are rulesand standards if they are not going to be followed? And what can current property owners depend on fromthe city when purchasing homes? If the city commission votes to deny but still wants to encourage revision to allow for infill then I urge you toplease require the following:
· The backyards should not back up to the watercourse but rather back to the other neighboringback yards.
· Density should be limited to the northwest meadow and southeast meadow – the only clearbuilding locations.
· The lot size should be no larger than 6000 sq ft to allow more room for a true wildlife refuge
· Plan for storm water drainage and runoff from yards to move away from the wetlands.
· Incorporate NO mosquito or weed spraying near wetlands or in back yards into covenants.
· Incorporate NO off-leash dogs, or pathways of any kind around wetlands into covenants- toprotect current wildlife habitat. * It is especially important to note here that true ecosystemprotection does not need to allow human interaction. This pond has not been viewable by the publicfor many years and does not need to be viewable now. However the road and sidewalk will allow forsafe viewing from a distance if placed between the houses and the wetland area.
· Incorporate NO bird feeders allowed on entire parcel as well as NO garbage cans outsideovernight into covenants (to prevent bear and raccoon problems as currently being experienced byLegends and Creekwood) Thank you for your time. Please let ‘s avoid “painful” infill so that we can instead make smart developmentdecisions. Marcia Kaveney