HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-23 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Shady Glen 22-294 Comments for Community Development Board membersFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Agenda
Cc:Jennifer Madgic
Subject:Shady Glen 22-294 Comments for Community Development Board members
Date:Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:12:32 PM
Attachments:Screen Shot 2023-03-02 at 10.33.15 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 Community Development Board Members and City Commissioners-I am writing to you as a former naturalist, science teacher, outdoor educator, and alongtime (32 years) Bozeman resident. I have chaired the NENA wetlands committee,the Legends II HOA Creek and Park Committees, and was a former Legends II HOA Boardpresident. It is from this place of strong interest and education that I offer comments onthe Shady Glen PUD and hope you will take them into your consideration.There are many really good intentions and proposals in the Shady Glen application. Ithink the applicant is very close to having a really good proposal. However, the wetlandbuffer still concerns me even with the added precautions. 2020-Bozeman CommunityPlan (Theme Four) states a strong interest in protecting the wildlife corridors andhabitats. And while I truly appreciate the improvements that have been made by theowner of the subject property regarding the wetland buffer zone, I would still like to seethe full buffer zone of 50 feet observed. Or even a better compromise such as 45 feet. I am also a stickler for transparency and want to point out an important error in theapplicants cover letter regarding the "vote on 35 feet" as a compromise buffer distance. In the August 22, 2022 cover letter by the applicant’s design team, they falsely implyunder line item #5. Increased Wetland Buffer Width, that a compromise buffer distancewas voted on by the city commission. This simply is not true. I attended the applicant’scity commission meeting on July 20, 2021 when the vote took place and it did not pass. The amendment was indeed proposed by Commissioner Cunningham but it failed by asuper-majority of 4- 1. See attached screen shot and the link to the meeting below forverification. The implication of an agreed upon compromise distance is undeniably false.This matter should be revisited and not taken as a given. https://bozeman.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bozeman_710df319f356fec1b0008553a59f4c61.pdf&view=1 While I am absolutely supportive of preserving the wetlands instead of moving themaltogether and think this is a positive outcome for the town and the ecosystem itself, Ihave not yet read a justification to reduce the recommended/required protective barrierin order to maintain large lots. It would be my preference and recommendation, as
before, to reduce the lot sizes to accommodate the required barrier not the other wayaround. What constitutes a "reasonable" size lot? Smaller lot sizes can result in smallerhomes and are therefore often more affordable- something that would seemingly appealto the city. Smaller lots also have less turf to water and maintain- an important factor inour finite water supply.The wildlife barrier is there for a reason. It’s been determined by experts that 50 feet is asafer barrier for the wildlife and the water quality. The applicant proposes many fineadditions to offset run-off if they are adhered to but who will enforce? In Legends II wefound it is very difficult to enforce certain design requirements once they have beenbuilt. Will this fall on the city enforcement or the HOA? HOAs don't have many tools forenforcement besides liens. Fences, a smart addition to the PUD, will help prevent chasing of wildlife but will donothing for the barking. They also won’t keep cats from entering the preserve and killingbirds. But a greater distance might. The full buffer and its associated riparian native vegetation also assists in filteringhuman caused nutrient growth from fertilizers and pollution from asphalt runoff,herbicides, and pesticides. Added nutrients cause unwanted algal growth whichdeprives the water of oxygen and diminishes the health and productivity of theecosystem. Keeping all of the buffer intact keeps more native vegetation onsite which isessential for healthy insect populations and ultimately is in humans best interest for longterm survival. (Douglas Tallamy,Nature's Best Hope, 2018). i.e. The houses wereaddressed but where will the run-off from the street and the snow storage go? Encroaching on the wetland buffer is in conflict with Bozeman Community Plan 2020 inTheme Four and the following sections:
EPO-1.5 Work with partner organizations to identify and reduce impacts on at-risk,environmentally sensitive areas that contribute to water quality, wildlife corridors, or wildlifehabitat, specifically wildlife habitat as we continue outward growth.
EPO-2.3 Identify, prioritize, and preserve key wildlife habitat and corridors.
EPO-4.6 Develop a plan to mitigate conflicts between humans and wildlife through the useof proactive, non-lethal measures.
It is my understanding that a greater distance between people and habitat is a non-lethal andproactive measure of mitigating conflicts. Building within the buffer zone will undoubtedlyincrease potential conflicts between humans and the bears and moose that use that corridor. What measure is the applicant taking to insure that all the garbage containers will be bearproof containers? And what of the compost containers left out for pickup? Will compostcontainers in backyards be permitted?
I appreciate the work that you all do to keep Bozeman in line with it's Community Plan duringthis time of unprecedented growth. Thank you for considering my comments.
Marcia Kaveney