HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-23 Public Comment - K. Dolen - Shady Glen PUDFrom:Katie Dolen
To:Agenda
Subject:Shady Glen PUD
Date:Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:32:39 AM
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 Commissioner Members,
I hate to take more of your time as I have already submitted one letter with my
concerns before the Community Development Board meeting on March 6th. However
in the last 2 weeks I have dug even further into the mess that is Shady Glen. More
neighbors, city officials, and journalists have helped me understand two more pieces
to this complicated development proposal. In my first letter to you, I focused mainly on
the concerns brought forth by you during the July 20,2021 Commission meeting
regarding the lack of a 2nd point of public access.
In this letter I’d like to speak to 2 things. 1. Concerns about adjusting the watercourse
setback. 2. The developer’s attempt at winning the hearts and minds of commission
members with the optics of adding two affordable housing units without having actual
knowledge of what that means.
1. Request for a Relaxation of Watercourse Setback: The more due diligence I do
around this, the more concerns I have with any adjustment to this riparian corridor. I’d
like to reference an article in The Bozeman Daily Chronicle on March 11, 2023 written
by Lily McLane of the Gallatin Watershed Council. I have spoken to members of the
Gallatin Watershed Council and they oppose this development because of the
following reasons:
McLane writes: “Recently, the Gallatin County Commission delayed deciding on
revisions to the Gallatin County Flood Hazard Management Regulations to consider
a broader approach and recommendations proposed by the Gallatin Watershed
Council and partners. The Gallatin Watershed Council is recommending that the
commission consider including additional watercourse setbacks and restrictions to
the removal of riparian vegetation. The purpose of floodplain regulations are to
promote public health and safety, and minimize public and private damages
due to flooding. Our intent is to acknowledge that the risks associated with flooding
and the actions that increase those risks — both on-site and downstream — are not
limited to mapped floodplains and that, especially during flood events, intact
riparian corridors are critical to protecting both people and property.”
McLane goes on to say: “Rivers move, as do the risks associated with them. The
East Gallatin River, for example, according to the East Gallatin Channel Migration
Mapping Study, is “very dynamic” with documented migration distances during a 50
year period “typically between 50-100 feet, but in some areas migration
measurements between 250 and 400 feet are common.” In many cases, patterns of
erosion and avulsion are not within the mapped floodplain boundaries.”
To remind you, this development abuts the East Gallatin River, to which Lily is
referring to in this Mapping Study.
McLane further states: “According to the Montana Climate Assessment “a
warming climate will strongly influence Montana’s snowpack, streamflow
dynamics, and groundwater resources, with far-reaching consequences for
social and ecological systems.” With a changing climate, looking to history is
not enough, we must also build resilience for the future. Riparian corridors are
one of our biggest and best tools in our toolbox to mitigate flood risk.
Ultimately, the removal of riparian vegetation on tributaries and along larger
rivers cumulatively increases flood hazards for landowners and communities
downstream. Given these factors, the Gallatin Watershed Council recommends:
Enacting watercourse setbacks that include FEMA mapped floodplains,
mapped Channel Migration Zones, Montana Natural Heritage mapped Riparian
Areas, and a minimum watercourse buffer.”
Finally, McLane offers the following: “Many Montanans lost their homes, businesses,
and revenue in the Yellowstone flood, as the water swelled into the river’s historical
floodplain and beyond, charting new channels and eroding laterally into terraces 10s
to 100s of feet outside the floodplain. We have an opportunity to learn from our
neighbors and be proactive in the Gallatin Watershed. Flooding and channel
migration are not a question of “if”, but “when” and “how big.”
The Restoration Director for the Gallatin Watershed Council has stated to caution
against the proposed watercourse set-back relaxation, and instead encourage
relaxing density and lot size requirements.
The UDC specifically states that land within the 100-year floodplain may not be
subdivided, and FEMA floodplain regulations prohibit uses that may aggravate
flooding. Although increased conveyance has been mentioned, the grading plans
show significant fill being placed in the floodplain. Perhaps I am missing a detail, but I
recommend a no-rise analysis is performed before locking in this site plan.
Remember that the 7 acre wild-life refuge is entirely within the 100 year floodplain, it
could not have been developed anyway.
The plans propose to both significantly SHRINK the watercourse setback, AND place
significant quantities of fill within it, which, again, the UDC specifically prohibits.
Although a revegetation plan and limited use with-in the watercourse setback are
stipulated in the PUD, these are small reparations compared to the negative impacts
of fill.
● I want to remind the commission that DEQ has classified the East Gallatin as
impaired for nitrogen, phosphorus, algae, pH, low flows, and lack of riparian
vegetation.
● To restore the EGR, DEQ recommends over 90% reduction in human caused
pollution, specifically the pollution caused by dispersed, cumulative impacts of
residential development. When these cumulative impacts add up, they get expensive:
The City is spending tax dollars to upgrade stormwater and wastewater infrastructure
to meet the in-stream water quality obligations of their permits.
● We can make the “in-fill” argument every time when it comes to deciding whether to
fill wetlands and floodplains and encroach on watercourse setbacks. If we make an
exception this time, there will be another and another.
● Our community has come together time and again to develop the Drought Plan,
Climate Action Plan, Stormwater Plan, Growth Plan, and have repeatedly used the
words: Sustainable and Resilient.
● There is clear, demonstrated “public interest” and “public need” for clean water.
That is why we have the watercourse setbacks. We rely on the commission to uphold
these community plans and support Sustainable and Resilient growth.
In closing, it is clear that we need to listen to the Watercourse setbacks that are
already enforced in our Subdivision Regulations, a goal included in the Gallatin
County Growth Policy. On the evening of the Community Development Board
meeting, Tom Murphy’s engineer, Mike Hickman stated, “if they worked with the 50 ft
minimum (watercourse setback), the project wouldn’t work.” I say we hold him to that
standard…
2. Affordable Housing Optics: I have consulted with members of Bozeman Tenants
United whose mission it is to build a multi-racial, intergenerational mass membership
movement of tenants, to win safe, dignified, and affordable housing for all.
Understanding the affordable housing metric is difficult. It seems to be a moving
target. Folks in the planning department have different answers than folks in the city
clerk’s office. HRDC has a different rubric altogether. The developer himself is quoted
in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle last week as not knowing the figure on which these
housing prices will be based on.
From what I understand, affordable housing prices are based on the Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) figure. Bozeman uses a county wide HUD figure which
includes Big Sky- causing the figure to become skewed. The last Bozeman census
reveals that the area median income is $94,980. And affordable housing costs cannot
exceed more than 30% of that yearly salary.
At tonight’s meeting, I’m wondering, can you ask Tom Murphy what the definition of
affordable housing is? Does he know how that figure is calculated? If he can’t answer,
it reflects his apathy toward affordable housing for our community. If he can’t answer,
it’s clear he is using this term as an incentive to tip the scale in his favor.
In closing, develop the land- put less homes on it so you won’t need to request the
relaxations, change the lot sizes. Mr. Murphy has spent countless hours of his own
time and the time of our city officials and community members trying to make a
square peg fit in a round hole. He’s spent thousands of dollars of his own money, as
well as the taxpayer’s dollars going to city planners, engineers, etc. We could have
been spending money on putting time and effort into good development. Please, Mr.
Murphy, City Commissioners: Don’t over stress the land and put the public’s health
and safety at risk just to make a proforma work.
Again, with the utmost respect for your decision tonight, I appreciate your
consideration of my words and feelings.
Warmly,
Katie Dolen