The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-14-23 Public Comment - J. & L. Barker - Shady Glen App.From:Jim Barker To:Agenda Subject:Shady Glen App. Date:Tuesday, March 14, 2023 2:47:14 PM Attachments:Dear Community Development Board Members and City Commissioners.docx 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 Sub Committee Attached is our letter of opposition to Shady Glen Application Jim & Linda Barker 2415 A Birdie Dr Dear Community Development Board Members and City Commissioners, I am writing to you in the hopes that you will consider my concerns and ultimately my opposition for the Shady Glen PUD. I’d like to begin with my concern for the future of Bozeman,and how it relates in particular to our city’s commitment to protecting sensitive lands. I am aware that the City of Bozeman is currently in the process of revising the Unified Development Code and at the same time has initiated the vitally important Sensitive Lands Protection Project, which recently conducted a survey asking 600 members of the community to share their concerns and hopes for the future of the Gallatin Valley. I understand that both of these efforts by the City have been initiated partly to set more stringent protections for development and to protect sensitive lands under private ownership in the Gallatin Valley that we are rapidly losing. Sensitive lands like wetlands, wildlife corridors, streams, habitat for wildlife, are all a part of this proposed development. If approved, this seems terribly inconsistent with the City's future trajectory toward more stringent requirements for the protection of sensitive lands. During the July 20, 2021 City Commission Meeting, Bozeman City Manager, Jeff Mehelich said, “(The City of Bozeman) UDC discourages fill of wetlands in any way.” I ask that he defend his comment. If this proposal were to be reviewed under the revised UDC’s, the Shady Glen Development likely would not come close to meeting the guidelines for development of Sensitive Lands. The City Commissioners have the authority and power to set the course for the future beginning with this project. Second, I want to voice my concern that the applicant has still failed to provide a viable 2nd point of public access in his new proposal. I’d like to share some of the commission member’s own comments before the vote from the July 20, 2021 City Commission Meeting. I ask that you, our elected city commission members: PLEASE DEFEND YOUR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS from the last vote which are as follows: City Commissioner, Jennifer Madgic: “I think our requirement for a 2nd point of access when a subdivision goes past a certain threshold is a good one and I worry about the precedence that this would set if we approve this relaxation.” “For good reason our community has decided that cul de sacs are not a way to promote traffic circulation and public health and safety. I don’t think a pattern of the past should be made again. The standard of today, of a 2nd point of access, is a good one.” “I do not feel that we, the city, should be responsible for approving something that has public health and safety implications because an applicant cannot attain something that is needed, in this case a 2nd point of access.” “I am concerned with the viability of the emergency access and particularly its proximity to the primary access.” Ms. Madgic voted no for this development City Commissioner, Christopher Coburn: “The hard part for me about this application is that we don’t have another point of public access. This design really is making assumptions about the past. About what we know about floods, what we know about fires, what we know about what kind of emergencies that can happen and what this year has taught us is that we don’t know, We can’t rely on making assumptions about the past. We are seeing record fires and floods… and so for us to just approve something based on our hope that it probably won’t flood or in an emergency, people will probably be okay, I don’t feel comfortable making that assumption, so I won’t be able to support this motion because I don’t believe this is a responsive design.” “It’s not in the interest of public health from the perspective of not having another access point. When I’m thinking about PUD’s and what is a superior outcome and what is innovation and for me, a cul de sac with 1 access point with lots that are going to be unaffordable or unattainable to most of Bozeman, it’s not an innovative approach to development. I don’t think it represents the true intent of a PUD which is to be innovative and responsive to the needs of our community.” Mr. Coburn voted no for this development. City Commissioner, I-Ho Pomeroy: “For public safety and environment like cul de sac and snow and fire trucks and also no second public access and it’s wetlands… I cannot support this development.” Ms. Pomery voted no for this development. Mayor, Cyndy Andrus: “I do not believe that what we are seeing is something that is a superior design and I think there are definite questions about health and safety as it relates to the public and public access to this property.” “I don’t believe we are getting an innovative product. These relaxations, primarily due to safety concerns specifically as it relates to 2nd means for a public access and block lengths and a are particularly concerning as it relates to public health and safety (note Madam Mayor also references watercourse setback but that has been mitigated since last application). For those reasons, I will not be supporting this motion.” Madam Mayor voted no for this development. Again, the concern for the public’s health and safety because of the lack of a 2nd point of access is referenced time and time again. This has not changed in the new application. Thirdly, I have attached photos and short clips of my neighbor’s houses on our street (1050 Boylan Rd, which backs up to the proposed PUD) when the sub pumps run constantly for a month or more in the spring. The amount of water that floods our yards and streets will only increase with added stress from the proposed development. Any time you increase weight on the land, you increase stress. The stress that this will put on the high water table is unsettling. I do not want to go on someone’s word that more flooding due to the new development won’t happen. There has not been a FEMA analysis of this land, there has not been a high water table test. Asking for a relaxation on the watercourse setback. The minimum for this is 50ft. Wetlands are there for a reason to absorb overflow from the actual watercourse. It’s a function of water placement, water displacement, water storage and water FLooding and Observation Warning (FLOW). This is going to create downstream problems because you’re reducing the impervious surface which acts to absorb rainfall and runoff! Anyone living downstream from the river in the 100 year flood plain. City Commission members, I voted for all of you because of your integrity and your commitment to community, innovation, and most of all, to the safety and health of all Bozeman residents. For the better part of two years, I have educated myself on why this development is controversial because you have encouraged me to use my voice in my community and you have empowered me to do so. On more than one occasion I have spoken to members of our community who are directly involved in or who are well educated about this project from Brian Heaston to Sarah Rosenburg to Chris Coburn to Jeff Mehilich to Lynn Hyde, to members of GVLT, the Audubon Society, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited; I have even met with the developer, Tom Murphy himself, because I am motivated to understand this application…Countless phone calls and visits to the community development office so that I can understand instead of complain. Having done my due diligence, I feel that I can safely request, with all due respect to your roles, for the big picture and for the future of our great town, I ask that you PLEASE STAND BY YOUR WORDS AND YOUR CONCERNS. PLEASE OPPOSE THIS DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE DO NOT BRING SHADY GLEN PUD TO PLAT! Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. I take the safety of my family and my neighbors (my community family) very seriously, as I know you all do. Warmly, Jim & Linda Barker