HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-21 Public Comment - G. Garrigues - Bridger MeadowsFrom:greggarrigues@gmail.com
To:Agenda
Subject:Comment for 20350 and 20351
Date:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:47:21 AM
Attachments:20210720update_GarriguesComment.pdf
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.
Hello.
Please accept my public comment for the Bozeman City Commission regarding 20350 and 20351.
Thank you.
Best regards-
-Greg Garrigues
M: +1-406-581-1208
1 | P a g e
Bozeman City Commission
20-July, 2021
RE: Bridger Meadows Development Proposals 20350 and 20351
Dear Commission:
I am writing to respectfully request that the Bozeman City Commission deny Bridger Center, LLC’s development plan
proposals 20350 and 20351.
Section 1 – Request for denial:
I recommend denial of the application based on the Design Review Board’s initial findings of non-compliance of the plan
and the six variances now being requested that are not aligned with our City’s Development Strategy nor Intent. I
believe the Bozeman City Commission has an obligation, “To protect existing neighborhoods from the harmful
encroachment of incompatible developments,” and apply the UDC as intended and to not allow any of the variances
being proposed for the Bridger Meadows sub division as it is detrimental to the adjoining neighborhoods, and to the
well being of our community. The requirements for sensitive lands should be exceeded, not relaxed.
Sec. 38.100.050. - Interpretation as minimum requirements.
A. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this chapter are minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the
health, safety and general welfare of the community. In some instances the public interest will be best served when such minimums
are exceeded. Wherever the requirements of this chapter are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully adopted rules
or regulations, or wherever there is an internal conflict within this chapter, the most restrictive requirements, or those imposing the
higher standards, will govern. 1(Emphasis added.)
In my opinion Bridger Meadow’s land is not suitable for development, but also respecting the land owner’s right to
attempt to develop, he should be held to the constraints that the special features and conditions of this land presents.
The intentions of Planned Unit Development are outlined in 38.430.010. There is no hierarchy to the objectives, but
there are some indicators in the language. The intent will used words like “avoid” and “to protect” to indicate intent,
and in this case the UDC does not say “avoid” development of harmful incompatible neighborhoods, it says, “to protect
existing neighborhoods.” The Bridger Meadows subdivision will harmfully encroach on both the Village Green and Links
neighborhoods in its current form.
Sec. 38.430.010. - Intent.
A. It is the intent of the city through the use of the planned unit development (PUD) concept, to promote maximum flexibility and
innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. Specifically, with regard to the improvement
and protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, it is the intent of this chapter to promote the following community
objectives:
1. To ensure that future growth and development occurring within the city is in accord with the city's adopted growth policy, its specific
elements, and its goals, objectives and policies;
2. To allow opportunities for innovations in land development and redevelopment so that greater opportunities for high quality housing,
recreation, shopping and employment may extend to all citizens of the city area;
3. To foster the safe, efficient and economic use of land, transportation and other public facilities;
4. To ensure adequate provision of public services such as water, sewer, electricity, open space and public parks;
5. To avoid inappropriate development of lands and to provide adequate drainage, water quality and reduction of flood damage;
6. To encourage patterns of development which decrease automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation, thereby reducing traffic
congestion and degradation of the existing air quality;
7. To promote the use of bicycles and walking as effective modes of transportation;
1
https://library.municode.com/mt/bozeman/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH38UNDECO_ART1GEPR_DIV38.100IN
GE_S38.100.050INMIRE
2 | P a g e
8. To reduce energy consumption and demand;
9. To minimize adverse environmental impacts of development and to protect special features of the geography;
10. To improve the design, quality and character of new development;
11. To encourage development of vacant properties within developed areas;
12. To protect existing neighborhoods from the harmful encroachment of incompatible developments;
13. To promote logical development patterns of residential, commercial, office and industrial uses that will mutually benefit the
developer, the neighborhood and the community as a whole;
14. To promote the efficient use of land resources, full use of urban services, mixed uses, transportation options, and detailed human-
scale design; and
15. To meet the purposes established in section 38.100.040. 2 (Emphasis added.)
The UDC goes on to underscore:
Sec. 38.430.020. - Application and uses of a planned unit development.
D. All planned unit developments must complement or be harmonious with existing adjacent development. 3 (Emphasis added.)
In the staff report, it calls this project infill. This project is not “infill” by the same standards as an infill ADU in the
downtown. This is an oversized new development being shoe-horned between one of the gems of our community, the
East Gallatin Riparian Corridor, and existing neighborhood homes, without respect to either.
The city’s guidance as to why to allow a variance or relaxation, is to allow infill within existing dense areas. What is
being considered in 20350 and 20351 is a new development. When the adjacent Village Green and developments were
conceived, designed and approved by the city, it was with the understanding that they were being built with respect to
the UDC and future subsequent building adjacent would be as well. Instead, the developer of Bridger Meadows is
proposing six variances that will impact the quality of life, the quality of the function and quality of the adjacent
development.
Sec. 38.250.080. - Subdivision variances.
Procedure. The subdivider must provide during the pre-application process, and include with the submission of the preliminary plat, a
written statement describing the requested variance and the facts of hardship upon which the request is based. The relevant advisory
bodies must include their findings and conclusion regarding the requested variance in its recommendation. The city must then consider
each variance at the public hearing on the preliminary plat. A public hearing may not be held on a variance in association with a first
minor subdivision.
B. Review criteria. Per MCA 76-3-506, a variance to this chapter must be based on specific variance criteria, and may not have the effect of
nullifying the intent and purpose of this chapter. The city must not approve subdivision variances unless it makes findings based upon the
evidence presented in each specific case that:
1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or be injurious to other adjoining
properties;
2. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, an undue hardship
to the owner would result if strict interpretation of this chapter is enforced;
3. The variance will not cause a substantial increase in public costs; and
4. The variance will not, in any manner, place the subdivision in nonconformance with any other provisions of this chapter or with the
city's growth policy.
C. Variances from floodway provisions not authorized. The review authority may not, by subdivision variance, permit subdivision for
building purposes in areas located within the floodway of a flood of 100-year frequency as defined in title 76, chapter 5, Montana Code
Annotated (MCA 76-5-101 et seq.). Any variances related to floodways must meet the standards of 38.250.070.C.4.a.
D. Conditions. In granting subdivision variances, the review authority may require such conditions as will, in its judgment, secure the
objectives of this chapter. Any approval under this section must be subject to the terms of the conditions designated in connection therein.
Any conditions required must be related both in purpose and scope with the relief sought through the variance.
E. Statement of facts. When any variance from this chapter is granted, the motion of approval must contain a statement describing the
variance and conditions upon which the issuance of the variance is based.
2
https://library.municode.com/mt/bozeman/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH38UNDECO_ART4CODE_DIV38.430PL
UNDE_S38.430.010IN
3
https://library.municode.com/mt/bozeman/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH38UNDECO_ART4CODE_DIV38.430PL
UNDE_S38.430.020APUSPLUNDE
3 | P a g e
F. Planned unit development. Where the standards and requirements of this chapter are proposed to be modified through a planned unit
development, the applicable process is a deviation rather than a variance.
G. Limitations on approvals. For subdivision variances, the variance approval will be null and void if the final plat is not filed within the
time allowed for final approval by the city's decision.4 (Emphasis added.)
For background, Village Greens Townhomes (neighborhood) was designed in an orderly way, that is consistent and
congruent with the rest of the city, based on the front door and garage facing the street. The living spaces, living room,
bedrooms, etc. were massed toward the rear of the homes where there would be less street activity, late night and early
morning activity, and noise. Rooms would not flash with lights and windows could be open in the summer to let in some
fresh air. Looking at the other development patterns in the city, the downtown was developed with backyards facing an
alley allowing quiet space to face quiet space, and the additional buffer of the alley in between. New developments in
the city have followed this same best practice. In the Tree Street neighborhood, there are no alleys behind houses, but
rather trail a trail system that has a similar effect, and this has been replicated in the Legends, throughout Bridger Creek,
West of 19th and West Graf. What is being proposed is putting a road into the bedrooms and living rooms of an adjacent
neighborhood. The headlights flashing through houses at night and in the morning. Idling vehicles. Snow removal
noises, etc. This deeply personal impact on the daily lives of the Village Greens Neighborhood is what we hope the city
will protect us from.
-A neighborhood that had robust debate about traffic and layout is organized back door to back door, with alleyway adding to the buffer:
4 https://library.municode.com/
4 | P a g e
-West of 19th has a variety of street configurations, but all are laid out backdoor to backdoor, with trail or alley creating additional buffer and
privacy:
5 | P a g e
-Because this is a personal impact on actual people, I will point out that the developer’s own neighborhood is laid out in the consistent form of the
city; back door to back door with a trail between:
6 | P a g e
A comment was made by a member of one of the review boards and later quoted in the newspaper, effectively saying
that the people in the existing neighborhood just want frolicking deer in the adjacent lot forever. The comment was
offensive. Yes, we would all like frolicking deer and high stepping cranes in the adjacent field, but none of us are
delusional of the fact that there is an adjacent property that can be bought or sold. What we do know though is that the
property has wetland, key riparian land, has a required waterway setback and a UDC that will steer and direct future
development. It is the durability of these facets that gave us all confidence about what living in the homes in village
greens would be like in the future. Throwing out six of these UDC requirements would change ALL of these
understandings. Just like we knew what the constraints would be, the developer likely also knew these constraints
existed, and it appears that he decided to proceed anyway, attempting to influence the city, push the adjacent
neighbors around, try to hold Golf Course Partners hostage, all with an apparent hope of prevailing with a tremendous
windfall. We want infill. We want connected communities, we want the housing our city needs, but we also want to
have trust and faith in the rules and laws that form our city and protect our quality of life, our natural resources, the
safety of our houses and subsequently not just our property values, but the value of our property to us.
Section 2 – Specific Comment on Requested Variances:
Like a good cub scout, I will “do my best” at making a case for the reason why each of the six variances should be denied.
What the community asks of the Bozeman City Commission is to deny the proposal and send it back to the Planning
Board and request that they reassess the developers plan without the six variances. There is no good reason for ANY of
them.
We all know what not allowing these six variances likely means. It would likely mean that lots 1, 4, and 6-13 will all be
unbuildable; maybe more. Build the others and get the infill that the city is looking for and stay true to the commitment
that the city has made to its existing citizens. The land and the community cannot support what is being proposed and
that is fine.
Using the 20350 Design Review Board Staff Report as a frame work, I will offer comment.
1. RE: 38.400.010.A.8 The applicant should not be given any relaxation or waiver for a means for a second
public access.
Public health and safety should be paramount. There is no secondary means for access, so subsequently, construction
beyond what can be safely serviced by fire fighters should be denied.
2. RE: 38.400.010.A.9 The applicant should not be given any relaxation to allow a cul-de-sac.
Cul-de-sacs have an inherent problem with lack of on street parking, and the radius represented in the plan appears to
be smaller than code and that will compound the issue of turning. It is noted in the staff report that it should be
required that the cul-de-sac be marked with No Parking signs. This will force vehicles to park on street adjacent to the
bedrooms of Village Green Townhomes. It also draws into question the ability for fire safety personnel to access the
area safely and efficiently. This photo shows nearby Par Court, and there is one parking space in the entire cul-de-sac.
All other street parking compounds/accumulates further down the road. In the case of the Bridger Meadows
subdivision, lots 4 through 11 are narrow, and with driveways would have sparse parking as well, so the majority of on
street parking will be focused on the East Side of the road, in the living spaces of the Village Green Town Homes.
BMC 38.400.010. No parking is allowed along the cul-de-sac. No parking signs must be installed prior to final plat approval.
7 | P a g e
3. RE: 38.400.020.A.2 The applicant should not be given a relaxation of the required right of way as the
impact on the adjacent Village Green Townhome Community will be substantial.
The cities intent for development includes a non-hierarchical list of objectives, that includes,
“To protect existing neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible development”
Allowing the reduction of the right of way, and allowing the planned placement of the road at the back of the existing
community, will be a substantial encroachment on the quality of life of Village Green residents.
Placing the access road of this development directly adjacent to bedrooms of the existing community, will be a
detriment that has the potential to impact at all times of the day and year around. With the cul-de-sac- and driveway
inclusions on one side of the road, on street parking will be focused on the East side of the road. In the summer time,
proximity to voices, exhaust air, and noise will be substantial with Village Green windows open. In the winter, it will be
idling vehicles, bright lights in windows and snow removal noise. The typical arrangement of our communities in
Bozeman is back of house adjacent to back of house, or front to front. This current plan is designed to maximize privacy
of proposed new homes and minimize that of existing. This will directly impact the livability, desirability and value of the
existing homes.
There is also a requirement for “Street Lighting” in the design plan, which will introduce high intensity lights directly
adjacent to the backs of the homes of the existing community.
The reduced right of way will not provide adequate boulevard on either side of the road for snow removal. If a berm is
built up on the east side of the street, it will at some point encroach onto the GVLT Trail. Exceptionally concerning for
the Village Green Townhomes is the excess melt snow, which will very likely overwhelm the French drain (seen in the as
built plans) that surrounds their community causing basement flooding for the adjacent houses.
4. RE: 38.400.080 The applicant should be denied a deviation from the requirement of providing a sidewalk
on both sides of the street.
The plans indicate that the applicant’s intention is to only install a sidewalk on the west side of the street. Without a
boulevard strip and adjacent sidewalk on the east side, snow will encroach on the GVLT Trail both during the winter and
in the form of runoff in the spring, making the trail unusable. With sidewalk shoveling requirements, a buffer would be
maintained that would reduce runoff directly onto adjacent properties. The applicant also states in their proposal, that
that they plan to store NO snow on the southwest side of the street, concentrating the full amount of plowed and
removed snow opposite the houses that generated the snow, and directly adjacent to the Village Greens neighborhood,
which installed a Ground water French drain on the Northwest side of the trail. The concentrated snow loading from the
proposed development will overwhelm the French Drain and specifically flood 1050 Boylan Drive #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5.
Further, by reducing the width of the Right of Way from 60 to 50, reduces the amount of absorption space for snow and
other moisture. The proposed reduction would come from the side that would directly impact the neighboring Village
8 | P a g e
Greens Neighborhood. The topography of the grading on the applicant’s document (52a) Bridger Meadows Prelim PUD
Landscape Plan L000 Site Plan 05-14-2021 (bozeman.net) shows that the road bed will be 2 to 3 feet above the GVLT
Trail. First, an incline like this will make it unlikely the trail will be accessed from the road with any snow. Second, the
slope will accelerate the evacuation of snow into the Village Greens Neighborhood, and flooding.
5. RE: 38.410.040.B The applicant should be denied a deviation from the block length requirement as the
proximity of the proposed lots would reduce the access to light for the existing houses.
The density and orientation of the “long block” plan will screen light and landscape views from the existing Village Green
Townhomes. In the case of 1050 Boylan Drive, #1, new houses built on the proposed lots #4 through #12 will be built on
the horizon of the Sun’s ecliptic path and have a substantial potential to block a portion of 1050’s PV Solar Array’s daily
sunlight exposure. This potential encroachment could impact >10% of this one dwelling’s annual solar power
production.
6. RE: 38.410.100.A.2. The applicant should be denied a deviation from the required watercourse setback of
100 feet from the East Gallatin River or 50 feet from wetlands.
The riparian land that extends from the watercourse and makes up much of the 100-foot setback is the filter for our
rivers. A deviation from this distance does not support either the Bozeman Strategic intent, nor Montana States
Strategic Framework for Wetland and Riparian Area Conservation and Restoration (enclosed). DEQ’s Lynda Saull
previously address the city commission regarding this property and opined that, “wetland and riparian areas are
typically lost incrementally and continued loss can result in ecological and economic ramifications. When conserved,
these lands contribute positively to water quality, water quantity, habitat and flood risk reduction.”
The 50-foot setback variance is requesting to reduce the distance on most lots to 26 feet and one to only 13.4 feet. This
is not supporting the health of our wetlands and rivers. In a recent City Commission meeting, it was noted that Bozeman
wants to be a good neighborhood with the water that we provide downstream. Variances like this do not support that
position.
Applicants proposed reductions from 50 feet:
9 | P a g e
The city’s own GIS indicates that the substantial portion of the proposed development is key riparian (yellow):
Additionally, there is no viable storm water containment structure in any of the plans. The city’s staff report calls out
that ground water is too high for the once proposed storm water containment structure to be effective. Building on,
and paving over the land will amplify the speed and unfiltered volume of runoff that is sent into adjacent existing
properties, and into the East Gallatin River’s waterway. In the plan, the applicant proposed utilizing “rain barrels” for
catchment and mitigation. First, there is a reason that the City of Bozeman no longer offers a subsidized rain barrel
program. It is because there are numerous aspects of the MCA that infer that it is not legal to catch rainwater, which
are emphasized in the Gallatin Valley Closed Basin.
For the developer to propose that a critical infrastructure requirement variance be provided based on a house-by-house
ad hoc rain barrel system that is to be maintained by each homeowner – not HOA – feels deficient. Not to mention that
there is unsettled Water Law around rain collection and retention – see Northern Plains Resource Council. There is no
engineering standard for rain barrels, no size per square foot of roof space, and code or method for the city to enforce
the use of the barrels.
Stormwater - The subdivision will construct storm water control facilities to conform to municipal code. Each individual lot will have roof
drainage routed to rain barrels or on site infiltration facilities or to surface drain the runoff to the street to drain into stormwater storage,
infiltration and treatment facilities. The maintenance of the stormwater facilities is the responsibility of the POA as outlined in condition of
approval 7. Inspection of installed facilities prior to final plat will verify that standards have been met.5
If an un-engineered, un-regulated rain water collection was to be supported by the city’s approval of this variance, how
will that impact future and existing development? What would the DNRC say about an entire neighborhood collecting,
holding, and evaporating someone else’s water right in a closed basin? What would every house do with four or five 50-
gallon barrels of rain that belongs in a wild Montanan stream? Not to be overly snarky, but will the entire neighborhood
be watering their lawns with hand watering cans too?
Setbacks are also identified to reduce homeowner impacts on water. The developer proposes that the HOA Covenants
require that non-phosphate fertilizers be used in the setback. How will this be enforced? The setback from the East
Gallatin River exists to provide sufficient infiltration and filtration of fertilizer and other water harmful substances.
5 https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/988675/20351_PP_CC_Staff_Report.pdf
10 | P a g e
The water course setback requirement is not a new code and should be respected for the betterment of our community
and those downstream.
Section 3 - Closing thoughts:
As I have re-read the full proposal, it further hit me just how much bubble gum and glue that appears to be in these
proposals, and Bozeman citizens expect more than bubble gum and glue.
I read a comment from a concerned neighbor about how a “Green city street” is going to be accessed from a “Blue
Private-Street.” Then I saw BMC 38.410.120:
If mail delivery will not be to each individual lot within the development, the developer shall provide an off-street area for mail delivery
within the development in cooperation with the USPS. It shall not be the responsibility of the City to maintain or plow any mail delivery
area constructed within a City right-of-way. If cluster boxes are used, a dedicated area to pull up and access the boxes must be provided
The Blue Street does not have mail delivery going across it. How is mail going to get delivered? I also saw that the Golf
Course partners only requires the new subdivision to pay for part of the maintenance for part of the private road that it
will use. Are the people of the Links neighborhood expected to subsidize the maintenance of the access to Bridger
Meadows? The concept of the development is flawed.
In conclusion I would reiterate what Commissioner Madgic in her prior role as Gallatin County Planning Director in 2005
indicated to the previous owner of this property, development is of this property is limited. The proposal in front of you
is not the “right plan” for this property as the impacts on the environment, the community and the adjacent existing
homes is substantial. The community is not anti-development, it is all for the right development in the right place, and
in the case of this 12-acre plot, there is not enough space within the existing community and land features for what the
developer proposes. Do not allow the six variances and you will likely see plots 1, 4, and 8 through 12 become
undevelopable. There is still a development, the land is more open, the detriment to the existing neighborhoods is
reduced (not eliminated), and we can really see what the developer is being driven by.
Again, I ask that you do not approve proposals 20350 and 20351 and none of the associated the variances. Thank you.
Regards,
Greg Garrigues
greggarrigues@gmail.com
1050 Boylan Drive, #1
Bozeman, MT 59715
1113 South 5th Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e