HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-23 Public Comment - R. Orrico - Shady Glen Application 22293From:Ronda Orrico
To:Agenda
Subject:Shady Glen Application 22293
Date:Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:31:12 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.
Dear Community Development Board Members and CityCommissioners,
My neighbor has written a very thoughtful, all encompassing letter regarding the concerns
many of us neighbors have with the Shady Glen Application 22293. I fully agree with all theconcerns listed below and have confidence that the City of Bozeman will consider our
concerns and NOT APPROVE the Shady Glen Application 22293.
I am writing to voice concern and opposition to the Shady Glen PUD.
To begin, our city has wisely voiced a commitment to protectsensitive lands. I understand that the City of Bozeman is currently in
the process of revising the Unified Development Code and at thesame time has initiated the Sensitive Lands Protection Project, which
recently conducted a survey asking 600 members of the communityto share their concerns and hopes for the future of the Gallatin
Valley.
I understand that both of these efforts by the City have been initiatedin part to create 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 forwildlife, are all a part of this proposed development. If approved, this
proposed development seems inconsistent with the City's trajectorytoward more stringent requirements for the protection of sensitive
lands.
During the July 20, 2021 City Commission Meeting, Bozeman CityManager, Jeff Mehelich said, “(The City of Bozeman) UDC
discourages fill of wetlands in any way.” I ask that he defend hiscomment.
Manager Mehelich also commented that 60% of this parcel cannot bedeveloped because it is wildlife refuge. Manager Mehelich added thatwithout relaxations this land “is really not develop-able”. He alsosaid that wildlife refuges do not provide direct access for the publicbecause the intent is to create a safe place for wildlife. This parcel didnot have direct access until the city required another developer, Golf
Course Partners, to change its plans and open an existing, establishedcul 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, theShady Glen Development likely would not come close to meeting theguidelines for development of Sensitive Lands.
The City Commissioners have the authority and power to set thecourse for the future beginning with this project. In addition todenying this application, I ask that the City consider reviewing theexisting R1 zoning given these new considerations.
Second, the applicant has still failed to provide a viable 2nd point ofpublic access in his new proposal. The lack of a second access pointcreates a safety hazard for the proposed development, for the existingneighborhoods, and sets a dangerous precedent for futuredevelopment.
Some of the commission member’s own comments before the votefrom the July 20, 2021 City Commission Meeting are below. I askthat you, our elected city commission members: PLEASE DEFENDYOUR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS from the last vote whichare as follows:
City Commissioner, Jennifer Madgic: “I think our requirement for a2nd point of access when a subdivision goes past a certain thresholdis a good one and I worry about the precedence that this would set ifwe approve this relaxation.” “For good reason our community hasdecided that cul de sacs are not a way to promote traffic circulationand public health and safety. I don’t think a pattern of the past shouldbe made again. The standard of today, of a 2nd point of access, is agood one.” “I do not feel that we, the city, should be responsible forapproving something that has public health and safetyimplications because an applicant cannot attain something that isneeded, in this case a 2nd point of access.” “I am concerned with the viability of the emergency access andparticularly its proximity to the primary access.”Ms. Madgic voted no for this development
City Commissioner, Christopher Coburn: “The hard part for me aboutthis application is that we don’t have another point of public access.This design really is making assumptions about the past. About whatwe know about floods, what we know about fires, what we knowabout what kind of emergencies that can happen and what this yearhas taught us is that we don’t know, We can’t rely on makingassumptions about the past. We are seeing record fires and floods…and so for us to just approve something based on our hope that itprobably won’t flood or in an emergency, people will probably be
okay, I don’t feel comfortable making that assumption, so I won’t beable 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 ofnot having another access point. When I’m thinking about PUD’sand 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 beunaffordable or unattainable to most of Bozeman, it’s not an
innovative approach to development. I don’t think it represents thetrue intent of a PUD which is to be innovative and responsive tothe 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 nosecond public access and it’s wetlands… I cannot support thisdevelopment.”Ms. Pomery voted no for this development.
Mayor, Cyndy Andrus: “I do not believe that what we are seeing issomething that is a superior design and I think there are definitequestions about health and safety as it relates to the public andpublic access to this property.”“I don’t believe we are getting an innovative product. Theserelaxations, primarily due to safety concerns specifically as itrelates to 2nd means for a public access and block lengths and aare particularly concerning as it relates to public health andsafety (note Madam Mayor also references watercourse setback but
that has been mitigated since last application). For those reasons, Iwill not be supporting this motion.”
Madam Mayor voted no for this development.
Again, the concern for the public’s health and safety because of thelack of a 2nd point of access is referenced time and time again. This
has not changed in the new application.
Thirdly, the single point of access through Birdie Drive would be ona private narrow road.
During the July 20, 2021 meeting, City Commissioner JenniferMadgic inquired about the status of the Birdie Drive cul de sac andwas told that it is a public road that is maintained privately. Ms.Madgic commented that she thought the street was signed as a privatedrive but perhaps she was mistaken. She was not; it is signed as aprivate 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 willhappen if this point of access is developed.
Moreover, the Birdie Drive cul de sac is narrower than the standard60’ street width. Shady Glen is still requesting relaxations on right-
of-way and local street design standards. So in addition to a singlepoint, access to Shady Glen would be on a road that does not meet
several local design standards.
Additionally, at the July 20, 2021 meeting, Manager Mehelich saidADUs were not restricted in Shady Glen. It was discussed that theallowance of ADUs may increase the population density of thisproposed development by as much as two times the projected densitybased on 16 homes. City Manager Mehelich said that city Fire andPolice would likely not support this development if the proposeddensity were higher than it is at 16 homes. All of these add to analready evident public safety issue.
Lastly, the Shady Glen PUD still asks for a relaxation on thewatercourse setback despite comments at the last meeting that thiswas a concern. The minimum for this is 50ft. Wetlands are there for areason to absorb overflow from the actual watercourse. It’s a functionof water placement, water displacement, water storage and waterFLooding and Observation Warning (FLOW). Flooding and adequatespace for snow removal are already an issue in the area. This is goingto create downstream problems because it reduces the impervioussurface which acts to absorb rainfall and runoff in an area that is aflood plane.
City Commission members, we depend on your integrity andcommitment to community, innovation, and most of all, to the safetyand health of all Bozeman residents. For for the big picture and forthe future of our great town, I ask that you PLEASE STAND BYYOUR WORDS AND YOUR CONCERNS. PLEASE OPPOSE
THIS DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE DO NOT BRING SHADY GLENPUD TO PLAT.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Warmly,
Ronda Orrico
2407 Birdie Dr Unit A
Bozeman, Mt 59715
Sent from my iPhone