The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-27-26 Public Comment - Anonymous - Written Public Comment on Application 25779, Laurel Meadows Preliminary PlatFrom:nospam5@proton.me To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL][Possible Phish Fraud]Written Public Comment on Application 25779, Laurel Meadows Preliminary Plat Date:Monday, July 27, 2026 10:01:32 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. WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be apotential threat. It may pose as a legitimate company, tricking victims into revealing personal information. If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the security settings, clickable URLsmay have been modified to provide additional security. City of Bozeman Department of Community Development ATTN: Application 25779 PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Re: Written Public Comment for Laurel Meadows Preliminary Plat, Application No. 25779 (Comment Period 7/6/2026 to 7/27/2026) To the Director of Community Development: I am submitting this written comment as a nearby resident regarding Application 25779, the Laurel Meadows Preliminary Plat, for the property legally described as the Amended Plat of Lots R1A, R1B, R1C, and R1D of Norton East Ranch Subdivision Phase 6, Plat J-694, located in the SE¼ of the NW¼ and SW¼ of the NE¼ of Section 9, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. I have reviewed the application narrative, Parks Master Plan (Appendix E), Traffic Impact Study (Appendix G), Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J), Variance Narrative (Appendix X.1), and Concurrent Construction Memo (Appendix S). Per BMC 38.750.080.D and MCA 76-25-408(8)(c), I identify the following specific criteria of concern, with supporting evidence, regarding compliance with BMC 38.750.090 and 38.710.010-.050: 1. UNRESOLVED UNIT COUNT DISCREPANCY AFFECTING PARKLAND ADEQUACY The application's own documents disagree on the project's total dwelling unit count. The Traffic Impact Study (Appendix G) analyzes full build-out at "up to 300 units constructed in four phases" (41+56+101+102=300 units). The Parks Master Plan (Appendix E) parkland tracking table instead totals 197 units project-wide (97 in Phase 1 and 2, 100 assumed for the two Restricted Lots). The 197-unit figure aligns with the R-4 zoning's 12 du/acre net density cap; the 300-unit figure is roughly 50% above that same cap on the same net acreage. Because required parkland dedication scales directly with unit count, and because this preliminary plat proposes to dedicate all required parkland now, in Phase 1, for the project's full eventual build-out, I request that the Director require the applicant to confirm which figure governs, and confirm that parkland dedication reflects the higher, traffic-study figure if that is the more realistic build-out, rather than locking in park capacity for a population the project may substantially exceed once the two Restricted Lots referenced in the application's own Summary ("retaining 2 restricted lots for future development") are built out. 2. RESTRICTED LOTS REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF PROJECT DENSITY WITH NO SITEPLAN Per the application Summary, this plat divides four existing restricted lots into 99 residential lots while retaining 2 new restricted lots for future development. Depending on which unit count above applies, these two lots represent between 51% and 68% of the project's total anticipated units, and every plan sheet in the application labels them "FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY, SUBJECT TO FURTHER DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW." I request written confirmation of what review process and public notice will apply when these lots come forward for development, and that Park Phase 2 improvements (the Babcock Street sidewalk connection, playground, and trail furnishings), which the Parks Master Plan ties to "development of future Residential phase(s)," instead be secured on a fixed timeline tied to Phase 1/2 occupancy rather than to the undefined Restricted Lots. 3. GROUNDWATER PUMPING HAS A DEMONSTRATED, SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THIS SITE'S WETLANDS THAT SHOULD INFORM CONSTRUCTION-PHASE REVIEW The Wetland Mitigation Report (Appendix J) documents that the on-site borrow pit was kept dry throughout a period of active groundwater dewatering, and only became the permanent water- filled pond present today after that pumping ceased and groundwater rebounded. I have personally observed this same dynamic occur again: during a 2026 pump station upgrade and installation of an eastward-running pipe in the northwest corner of this parcel, pond and wetland areas in that vicinity were dry throughout the active pumping and only refilled once it stopped. Together, these two instances show that the wetland and pond features on this site are highly sensitive to groundwater withdrawal. Pumping does not have a marginal effect on them; it can eliminate the surface water feature entirely while active. Given that construction of this subdivision will involve excavation, utility installation, and grading in proximity to the remaining on-site wetlands (Wetlands 1, 2, 4, and 5) and the proposed mitigation area itself, I request that the Director require the applicant to specifically evaluate and disclose the potential impact of any construction-related dewatering on these features, and that a groundwater and dewatering monitoring and contingency plan be made a condition of approval, given the demonstrated sensitivity of this site's wetlands to pumping activity. 4. NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION None of the submitted appendices, including the Traffic Impact Study, address construction-phase traffic, haul routes, or heavy equipment routing. I request that a condition of approval require a construction management plan that routes all construction trucks and heavy equipment via arterial and collector streets and designated site access points only, explicitly prohibits construction trafficfrom cutting through existing local residential streets in the surrounding neighborhood, restricts construction hours consistent with the noise ordinance, and requires dust control and street cleaning for tracked debris. 5. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND FUTURE-PHASE ACCOUNTABILITY The Traffic Impact Study finds the four-way stop at Laurel Parkway and Durston Road will have "little to no reserve capacity" by 2030, potentially reaching LOS E by 2045, with this project alone consuming 5.3% of that intersection's capacity by its final phase. Separately, acceptable futurelevels of service at Cottonwood Road and Fallon Street depend on a mitigation measure (a right- turn restriction) to be installed by a different, unrelated project on an unknown timeline. I request confirmation that approval of this application does not depend on that unrelated project's mitigation being in place on any particular schedule, and that because the TIS was studied to a300-unit build-out, a fresh, updated traffic study be required when the two Restricted Lots come forward for their own review, rather than treating this TIS as having already cleared traffic impacts for that future development. 6. TRAIL CAPACITY SHOULD REFLECT ACTUAL PROJECT DENSITY, NOT JUST CONNECTIVITY The Parks Master Plan specifies trail widths at or near the City's code minimums: a 6' wide Class II crusher-fines trail along the Baxter Creek corridor (72" is the minimum width for a Class II trail), with most internal recreation pathways shown at only 4'-6' wide. These widths, and the associated Phase 2 furnishings (3 benches, 1 trash receptacle, 3 pet waste stations), were sized against the Parks Master Plan's 197-unit project total, not the up to 300-unit total the Traffic Impact Study analyzes for the same site. Nearly all pedestrian and trail access for this development is concentrated onto a single north-south corridor functioning as a linear park, per the Parks Master Plan's own description, meaning any capacity shortfall affects the entire neighborhood's access to recreation and off-street connectivity. I request that trail width and capacity be evaluated against the higher, traffic-study-informed population estimate, and that trail infrastructure be sized, or a mechanism established to expand it as the Restricted Lots develop, accordingly. I additionally request that the internal sidewalk and shared-use pathway network connect directly and permanently to the City's existing trail system, consistent with the PROST Plan and the Bronken Park trail connection referenced in the Parks Master Plan, with no net loss of trail mileage or connectivity, and that any existing established walking routes crossing or adjoining the property be preserved and formalized as public trail easements. 7. MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS TRAIL SURFACE TO PROTECT WETLAND HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE The Parks Master Plan lists among its own stated Guiding Ideas to "protect, retain, and improve native and natural drainage corridors" and to "minimize hard or impervious surface." However, the Phase 2 plan specifies a concrete sidewalk connecting Babcock Street to the major park node and internal concrete pathways at the trail node and intersection, both sited immediately adjacent to the reconstructed wetland and pond. Given that loss of recharge area is itself identified as an indirect impact category in the Wetland Mitigation Report, I request that concrete surfaces within or immediately adjacent to the watercourse setback and mitigation area be replaced with pervious materials (crusher fines or gravel, consistent with the Class II trail standard already used elsewhere on site, or permeable pavers where a hard surface is required for ADA accessibility) to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the applicant's own stated design principles, in order to preserve groundwater recharge to the adjacent and on-site wetlands. 8. STREET LIGHTING SHOULD BE ADEQUATE BUT MINIMAL, WITH UNOBTRUSIVE COLOR TEMPERATURE The application includes a submitted Lighting Plan (Appendix EX1, Phase 1 and 2) and utility notes referencing new and relocated luminaires. Given this development directly borders existingestablished residential neighborhoods on multiple sides, I request that the Lighting Plan be evaluated against the City's outdoor lighting standards to confirm: fully shielded, full cutoff fixtures with no uplight; a warm color temperature (3000K or lower) to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent properties; illumination levels limited to what is needed for pedestrian and trafficsafety rather than decorative over-lighting; and consideration of dimming or curfew controls during low-traffic overnight hours. This is a request for lighting that is courteous to the bordering neighborhoods, not an objection to adequate safety lighting. I request written confirmation of how each of these items is addressed in the Project Report and any conditions of approval for Application 25779. Thank you for considering this comment within today's close of the public comment period. nospam5@proton.me