HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-21 Public Comment - T. Murphy - Bridger MeadowsFrom:Thomas Murphy
To:Agenda
Subject:Bridger Meadows Comments
Date:Monday, July 19, 2021 4:26:42 PM
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.
Agenda@bozeman.net
Attn: Sarah Rosenberg
Subject: Application 20350, 20351 Bridger Meadows Public Comment
Dear Sarah and Commissioners,
I request that you welcome Bridger Meadows as a new neighborhood into
the city of Bozeman.
In collaboration with the Engineering and Planning Departments of
Bozeman, we have put in an extreme amount of work and effort in the
design of our neighborhood. Many iterations of designs and redesigns has
resulted in the current design which we feel provides the optimum balance
between the goal of providing much needed infill housing, and of protecting
our precious natural resources. We feel the nearly unanimous support that
we have received from city Planning and Engineering Departments, the
Design Review Board, and the Planning Board reflects this conclusion.
The PUD (Planned Urban Development) process was fundamental in us
being able to arrive to this point. My understanding of the PUD is that it is
designed to allow the city some flexibility in complicated development
situations. It provides a process of give and take in which the developer
provides design amenities that the city desires, in exchange for PUD points.
The points are used in the granting of relaxations of codes, that for one
reason or another are impeding the development. To receive these
relaxations a developer has first to reach the minimum threshold of 20
points. In our case, we far exceeded this twenty point minimum, as we have
achieved a total of 69.71 points to counterbalance a total of six relaxations.
This is fewer relaxations than what has been approved in other
developments, often with less PUD points provided.
The creation of this PUD was a collaborative effort by many in the Bozeman
community including Bozeman Parks, Planning and Engineering staff,
emergency service providers, local architects, and outside consultants. It
was a complicated, time consuming, yet thorough process. Every detail of
the project was scrutinized. Relaxations have been earned, not given.
Because not all projects fit the same mold, the PUD is an essential tool in
the Bozeman development process.
Unfortunately, it appears from public comment and editorials from the
Bozeman Chronical that there is a fundamental lack of understanding of the
PUD process. Demands that the city should never allow relaxations runs
completely contrary to the PUD process itself.
To me, the Bozeman Chronical editorial board should have done some
research on the process, before declaring that the city should never give
relaxations! It is rather alarming, even if they are attempting to boost their
readership by patronizing to the expected anti-growth crowd in times of
rapid growth.
Unfortunately, other damage has occurred due to falsehoods and
accusations:
One is that the Bridger Meadows neighborhood is closer to the East Gallatin
River than allowed by code This is untrue. We are quite far from the river
and at no point are we closer to the river than code allows.
A second accusation was that the city was allowing a narrower street than
allowed by code. This is another misinformed accusation. Shady Glen Lane
in Bridger Meadows will be the same physical width curb to curb as any
other city street, ie Birdie Drive. The relaxation request is for a reduction of
right-of-way (ROW) width, very different than street width.
Much of this misinformation has circulated among Bridger Creek HOA
members and appears in slightly altered forms, throughout much of the
public comment. I will try to respond to some of the other criticisms of our
proposed relaxations:
1. Relaxation for Emergency Access:
Sec. 38.400.010. - Streets, general.
8.
Second or emergency access. To facilitate traffic movement, the provision of
emergency services and the placement of utility easements, all developments must
be provided with a second means of access. If, in the judgment of the
development review committee (DRC), a second dedicated right-of-way cannotbe provided for reasons of topography or other physical conditions, the
developer must provide an emergency access, built to the standards detailed in
these regulations.
The development review committee (DRC) concluded that a second
dedicated right-of-way could not be provided for reasons of topography or
other physical conditions. So, an emergency access is warranted and one
could argue, not actually a relaxation since the project meets the criteria per
the code language.
Before approval and during design of the Bridger Meadows emergency
access, the DRC consulted with the Bozeman Fire Department regarding
the safety.
As a side note the Bridger Creek HOA was the primary entity that
continually fought any easement from Bridger Meadows to Boylan Road,
even after admonition of the then City Commission to work something out.
As to the criticism regarding lowered safety due to the Bridger Meadows
neighborhood for the residents of Village Greens. On the contrary, with the
new neighborhood adjacent to the back of the Village Greens homes fire
hydrants will be located on both the front side and the back side of their
homes greatly increasing fire safety.
The proposed emergency access also makes the Bridger Center
Commercial Development safer by providing another, independent access
where currently only a very long dead-end cul-de-sac exists. The
emergency access route proposed with Bridger Meadows generally
provides another looped access to many properties in the immediate area
that currently have only dead-end access.
One other point that should be noted regarding fire safety. Prior to the
purchase of the property by Bridger Center LLC the Bridger Meadows
parcel was in the county and was in a similar situation as the old county
Cannery district. That is, it had no city fire protection. The closest fire
department for this parcel was in Billings! I was once told by the Bozeman
fire chief, that because of insurance reasons, the department could not
enter my property to fight fires. They would have limit themselves to
spraying water from adjoining city property. This is an unsafe condition that
the Village Greens Townhomes faced for years.
This was not just a hypothetical worry either because this Bridger Center
parcel lies to the west of Village Greens (winds generally come from the
west). The property was full of homeless camps and local youth’s tree
houses. After purchasing this property, Bridger Center LLC removed 22
yards of debris from these camps. You really would not have believed the
quantity of empty beer cans we found there! So, the fire risk was very, very
real. Fortunately, when Bridger Center later annexed into the city it meant
the city could now provide the site with fire protection.
2. Relaxation for Cul-de-sac:
Sec. 38.400.010. - Streets, general.
9.
Culs-de-sac. Culs-de-sac are generally prohibited. The review authority mayconsider and approve the installation of a cul-de-sac only when necessary due
to topography, the presence of critical lands, access control, adjacency to
parks or open space, or similar site constraints. Pedestrian walks must be
installed at the end of culs-de-sac where deemed appropriate.
The review authority determined that the approval of the cul-de-sac was
appropriate due to all of the reasons listed above.
Commentors have noted concern with the size of the ball of the cul-de-sac.
The Bozeman Fire Department dictated the size of the cul-de-sac for safety
purposes. Bridger Meadow’s cul-de-sac will likely be one of the largest cul-
de-sacs ever built in Bozeman. No Parking on the ball of the cul-de-sac was
also mentioned as a concern, however, since Bridger Meadows is basically
a single loaded street (lots on only one side only), parking capacity per lot
will be much greater than that on a typical city street, so parking will no be
an issue.
3. Relaxation for Right of Way (ROW):
38.400.020 A.2. Private streets
This is a reasonable request because:
1. The single loaded part of the street will only have a sidewalk on one
side of the street.
2. The street is a dead-end cul-de-sac, so the street will never have to be
expanded for increased traffic.
3. Reducing the ROW lessens the impact to the sensitive wetlands and
floodplain.
4 Reduced ROW does not affect parking at all because the street is
standard width.
5. The boulevard between Shady Glen Lane and Village Green’s will
not be smaller because of reduced ROW. The boulevard between curb and
property line will actually be 7 feet wide (2 foot wider than city standard),
plus another 1 to 3 feet to the existing trail, so snow storage is not an issue
either.
4. Relaxation for sidewalks on both sides of the street:
Sec. 38.400.080. - Sidewalks.
This is a common sense request because:
1. Houses are on only one side of the street
2. There is an existing trail on the non-home side of the street. A sidewalk
would be a redundant impermeable surface area that would unnecessarily
increase runoff.
3. The existing trail will be connected to the proposed development.
5. Relaxation for the reduction of Wetland Buffer:
38.410.100. - Watercourse setback.
A.2.C.4.
(d)
The setback must include connected wetlands. The buffer width must be extended by
a minimum of 50 feet beyond the perimeter of the connected wetlands.
Our request for relaxation for a reduction of this setback is on a lot-by-lot
basis. The relaxation is reasonable because the intent of this setback is to
protect wetlands. Unfortunately, strict adherence of this setback can have
the unintended consequence of causing wetlands to be destroyed by fill and
relocated outside the city.
We chose to ask for the reduction of this setback, keeping the wetlands
within the City of Bozeman, which we feel most residents would agree with.
This new infill neighborhood is only affecting 0.91 acres of wetlands on the
entire project. Although not required by regulation for the proposed level of
impact, we plan to mitigate by stockpiling the wetland biomaterial that we
remove, excavate about 0.20 acres of non-wetland areas within the existing
floodplain down to existing wetland elevations near groundwater, and plant
the wetland biomaterial in this area. This will increase floodplain carrying
capacity, as well as viable wetland habitat, to better than existing conditions.
6. Relaxation for the Block length requirement
38.410.040 B – Block Length
B.
Block length. Block length must not be designed, unless otherwise impractical, to be
more than 400 feet in length or less than 300 feet in length. Block lengths may be
longer than 400 feet if necessary due to topography, the presence of critical lands,
access control, or adjacency to existing parks or open space. In no case may a block
exceed 1,320 feet in length.
Our request for a relaxation for a block length more than 400 feet is
reasonable because block length is more applicable to grid pattern
developments and not cul-de-sacs. It does not affect safety at all.
Regarding concerns from Village Greens residents about having a street
next to them as opposed to the backs of houses: Personally, if I lived in
Village Greens, I would prefer to have the extra fifty feet between the
houses and resulting in more open sightlines, and more privacy.
Conclusion
I happen to believe that this may be one of the most reviewed and
rereviewed projects in the history of Bozeman. I would also venture to say,
that there have been very few projects in the City of Bozeman that have
proposed or provided a higher percentage of the total project acreage in
open space and protected wildlife habitat.
In conclusion, we have done everything in this preliminary plat submittal thatthe city has asked us to do. By using the Bozeman codified PUD process,we feel we have created a superior development than we could havewithout it. We hope that you as commissioners, will recognize, as has yourstaff and citizen review boards, that this new infill neighborhood deserves tomove forward.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
Bridger Meadows LLC
Virus-free. www.avg.com