HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-23 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Request to remove Item F.2. from Consent List, Tuesday May 16, 2023A.
B.
From:Marcia Kaveney
To:Agenda; Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Cyndy Andrus
Cc:Jeff Mihelich; Susana Montana; Anna Bentley
Subject:Request to remove Item F.2. from Consent List, Tuesday May 16, 2023
Date:Monday, May 15, 2023 4:18:32 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 City commissioners and city staff-
I am writing to request that item F.2 be removed from the consent list and revisited in a futuremeeting due to the applicant's failure to meet design guidelines and preliminary plat
requirements with respect to the following city codes as required in the Preliminary Platprocess:
38.220.060. Documentation of Compliance with adopted standards.
The following information must be provided with all subdivision preliminary plat
applications in order to document compliance with adopted development standards unless
waived by the development review committee during the pre-application process per section 38.240.110. The developer must include documentation of any waivers granted by
the city after the pre-application review. Additional relevant and reasonable information
may be required to adequately assess whether the proposed subdivision complies with
this chapter, the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, and other applicable standards.
The applicant has not submitted any documentation of waivers, nor discussed their existenceat the recent 4/18/23 city commission meeting for failure to meet the following two items.
38.220.060. A. 5. Protective Measures. b. "Describe measures to protect trees and criticalplant communities (eg. design and location of streets, lots and open spaces).The applicant did not provide documentation of any measures to protect the 111 trees in R5 inthe application narrative nor when questioned at the city comm. meeting of 4/18/23.
38.220.060. A. 6. Wildlife. d. Protective Measures. " Describe measures to protect orenhance wildlife habitat or to minimize degradation..."The applicant did not meet this requirement nor discuss it in their application narrative.
38.410.010. General Standards.
Natural environment. The design and development of all land uses must be properly
related to topography, and must, to the extent possible, preserve the natural terrain,natural drainage, existing topsoil, trees and other existing vegetation.
Canyon Gate developers have discussed at the public meetings and in their narratives theirplans to regrade the uneven terrain, use pipes for flood mitigation instead of natural drainage,
remove the over 111 mature cottonwoods in the R5 zone (where they plan to plant trees inwhat is now a grassy area and put the apartment buildings where the trees currently exist), etc.
They have not proven hardship for meeting this requirement or even discussed it at the publicmeetings.
As most of you are aware, mature native trees exist on this property in numbers that greatly
exceed that which was illustrated on Canyon Gate's Existing Conditions Site Plan. In actualitythere are 111 mature trees (over 8 inches dbh~ 40 years old) in the R5 lot and numerous other
smaller tree stands that bring the total up to approximately 150 mature cottonwoods, with
scattered aspen and chokecherry stands and some very old junipers- all native.
According to the National Wildlife Federation, in our location, Cottonwoods and Aspens areused by up to 245 species of moths and butterflies who use them as host plants for their
caterpillars which in turn feed numerous species of birds while chokecherries are host to 227species. A healthy ecosystem for humans can be measured by its birdlife as a robust number
of bird species indicates a robust insect population- without which humans will not survive. Itis part of the Bozeman Community Plan to enhance, not disturb or destroy wildlife habitat,
and is therefore the underlying reason for removing item #F.2. and re-review the applicationfor its unfulfilled requirements.
By requiring the applicant to follow city code for demonstrating the preservation of trees on
the property you will be upholding the expectations of your citizens which rely on staff andcommissioners to ensure that developers follow codes and requirements while also upholding
these protections as put forth in various city plans. While it may require more creativedesigning, it is not impossible for developers to follow these codes. If for some reason, there is
a hardship, then they must apply for and receive a waiver.
You will also be showing that the city can find balance between development and ecosystemprotection- a very clear outcome desired in the Climate Plan and BCP. As this particular
development plans to provide 470 living units, none of which fall into the affordable category(as illustrated by the recent MSU and REALTORS report 2023), then even more emphasis
should be made to enforce city code- not relax it.
Thank you for your time and attention to these concerns.
Marcia KaveneyBozeman, MT