HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-23 Public Comment - D. Rabius - Shady Glen Application 22293From:Deenya Rabius
To:Agenda
Subject:Fwd: Shady Glen Application 22293
Date:Thursday, March 16, 2023 2:25:01 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.
I realized I forgot to include my address so I am resubmitting my comment. Thank you!
Begin forwarded message:
From: Deenya Rabius <deenya.rabius@gmail.com>
Subject: Shady Glen Application 22293
Date: March 16, 2023 at 12:44:11 PM MDTTo: agenda@bozeman.net
Dear Community Development Board Members and City Commissioners,
I am writing to voice concern and opposition to the Shady Glen PUD.
To begin, our city has wisely voiced a commitment to protect sensitive lands. Iunderstand that the City of Bozeman is currently in the process of revising the
Unified Development Code and at the same time has initiated the Sensitive LandsProtection 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 in part tocreate protections for sensitive lands under private ownership in the Gallatin
Valley, which has become a growing issue.
Sensitive lands like wetlands, wildlife corridors, streams, habitat for wildlife, areall a part of this proposed development. If approved, this proposed development
seems inconsistent with the City's trajectory toward more stringent requirementsfor 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 anyway.” I ask that he defend his comment.
Manager Mehelich also commented that 60% of this parcel cannot be developedbecause it is wildlife refuge. Manager Mehelich added that without relaxationsthis land “is really not develop-able”. He also said that wildlife refuges do notprovide direct access for the public because the intent is to create a safe place forwildlife. This parcel did not have direct access until the city required anotherdeveloper, Golf Course Partners, to change its plans and open an existing,established cul de sac to provide access, suggesting that this parcel was originallyintended as a wildlife refuge.
If this proposal were to be reviewed under the revised UDC’s, the Shady GlenDevelopment 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 thefuture beginning with this project. In addition to denying this application, I ask
that the City consider reviewing the existing R1 zoning given these newconsiderations.
Second, the applicant has still failed to provide a viable 2nd point of public access
in his new proposal. The lack of a second access point creates a safety hazard forthe proposed development, for the existing neighborhoods, and sets a dangerous
precedent for future development.
Some of the commission member’s own comments before the vote from the July20, 2021 City Commission Meeting are below. I ask that you, our elected citycommission members: PLEASE DEFEND YOUR COMMENTS ANDCONCERNS from the last vote which are as follows:
City Commissioner, Jennifer Madgic: “I think our requirement for a 2nd point ofaccess when a subdivision goes past a certain threshold is a good one and I worryabout the precedence that this would set if we approve this relaxation.” “For goodreason our community has decided that cul de sacs are not a way to promotetraffic circulation and public health and safety. I don’t think a pattern of the pastshould be made again. The standard of today, of a 2nd point of access, is a goodone.” “I do not feel that we, the city, should be responsible for approvingsomething that has public health and safety implications because anapplicant cannot attain something that is needed, in this case a 2nd point ofaccess.” “I am concerned with the viability of the emergency access and particularlyits proximity to the primary access.”Ms. Madgic voted no for this development
City Commissioner, Christopher Coburn: “The hard part for me about thisapplication is that we don’t have another point of public access. This design reallyis making assumptions about the past. About what we know about floods, whatwe know about fires, what we know about what kind of emergencies that canhappen and what this year has taught us is that we don’t know, We can’t rely onmaking assumptions about the past. We are seeing record fires and floods… andso for us to just approve something based on our hope that it probably won’t floodor in an emergency, people will probably be okay, I don’t feel comfortablemaking that assumption, so I won’t be able to support this motion because I don’tbelieve this is a responsive design.” “It’s not in the interest of public health from the perspective of not havinganother access point. When I’m thinking about PUD’s and what is a superioroutcome and what is innovation and for me, a cul de sac with 1 access point withlots that are going to be unaffordable or unattainable to most of Bozeman, it’s notan innovative approach to development. I don’t think it represents the trueintent 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’swetlands… 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 somethingthat is a superior design and I think there are definite questions about healthand 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 apublic access and block lengths and a are particularly concerning as it relatesto public health and safety (note Madam Mayor also references watercoursesetback 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 newapplication.
Thirdly, the single point of access through Birdie Drive would be on a privatenarrow road.
During the July 20, 2021 meeting, City Commissioner Jennifer Madgic inquiredabout the status of the Birdie Drive cul de sac and was told that it is a public roadthat is maintained privately. Ms. Madgic commented that she thought the streetwas signed as a private drive but perhaps she was mistaken. She was not; it issigned as a private drive. She went on to say that going from a public to a privateto a public road is not something the city does. That is what will happen if thispoint of access is developed.
Moreover, the Birdie Drive cul de sac is narrower than the standard 60’ streetwidth. Shady Glen is still requesting relaxations on right-of-way and local streetdesign standards. So in addition to a single point, access to Shady Glen would beon a road that does not meet several local design standards.
Additionally, at the July 20, 2021 meeting, Manager Mehelich said ADUs werenot restricted in Shady Glen. It was discussed that the allowance of ADUs mayincrease the population density of this proposed development by as much as twotimes the projected density based on 16 homes. City Manager Mehelich said thatcity Fire and Police would likely not support this development if the proposeddensity were higher than it is at 16 homes. All of these add to an already evidentpublic safety issue.
Lastly, the Shady Glen PUD still asks for a relaxation on the watercourse setbackdespite comments at the last meeting that this was a concern. The minimum forthis 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 storageand water FLooding and Observation Warning (FLOW). Flooding and adequate
space for snow removal are already an issue in the area. This is going to createdownstream problems because it reduces the impervious surface which acts to
absorb rainfall and runoff in an area that is a flood plane.
City Commission members, we depend on your integrity and commitment tocommunity, innovation, and most of all, to the safety and health of all Bozeman
residents. For for the big picture and for the future of our great town, I ask thatyou PLEASE STAND BY YOUR WORDS AND YOUR CONCERNS.
PLEASE OPPOSE THIS DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE DO NOT BRING SHADYGLEN PUD TO PLAT.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Warmly,
Deenya Rabius
2413 Birdie DriveBozeman MT 59715