HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-26 Public Comment - S. Glover - RE_ Application No. 26278 — Bikefill SP, Site Plan ReviewFrom:Sarah Glover
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Bridger Creek Subdivision Community Association; Britt Ide; Stuart Jennings; Karin Jennings;
gjdurkin@bresnan.net
Subject:[EXTERNAL]RE: Application No. 26278 — Bikefill SP, Site Plan Review
Date:Sunday, September 27, 2026 12:34:38 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.
Hello City of Bozeman Department of Community Development,
ATTN: Application No. 26278 — Bikefill SP, Site Plan Review
I am submitting this comment regarding the Bikefill site plan application (App. No. 26278),
located at 2143 Story Mill Road. My concern is that the project — including the associated
paving of McIlhattan Road, which has previously been gravel — will increase vehicle traffic
on a road that lacks adequate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along its full length,
creating an extreme safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists.
1. BMC §38.400.080 (Sidewalks)
The Project Report states the applicant will install a 10-foot path only along the east side of
McIlhattan Road, between the Bridger Creek Phase 3 Subdivision boundary and the
Snowfill Dog Park boundary. This leaves large portions of McIlhattan, the only road serving
the Bikefill without any pedestrian or cycling facility on either side. Given that the Bikefill is
expected to draw car, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic to the same corridor, this partial
coverage does not adequately serve pedestrian and bicyclist safety for the full route to the
site. The significant congestion, including parking on both sides of McIlhattan near the golf
course, creates significant safety hazards for pedestrians and cyclists.
2. BMC §38.400.060 / Traffic Impact Study waiver
The Staff Report states that a traffic impact study was waived by the Director of
Transportation and Engineering "based on the trip use." Yet no waiver was provided in the
application documents available to the public that I have been able to find. I am concerned
this waiver did not adequately account for the destination nature of a bike park use, which
may generate concentrated peak-period trips (weekends, evenings, and event days) that
differ meaningfully from a typical trip-generation profile. I am particularly interested in
learning if the waiver accounted for bicycle trips to the site.
With more than 80 parking places in the initial design, and 141 parking places once the
future parking lot is in, there is clearly the plan to accommodate a large number of
automobile trips to the park. I request the City make the waiver easily accessible to the
public so we can see the considerations. I further request the city to reconsider whether a
TIS should be required, or at minimum document the trip-generation assumptions used to
justify the waiver while also providing time for the public to comment on these assumptions.
3. BMC §38.510.040 (Non-Motorized Circulation and Design)
The Project Report marks this standard as met, but the analysis does not address how non-
motorized users (pedestrians and cyclists) are meant to safely share or travel alongside the
portions of McIlhattan where there are no sidewalks or path. No analysis is provided as to
how pedestrians and cyclists are expected to safely travel the segments of McIlhattan Road
that will not receive the proposed path, despite the road being upgraded specifically to
accommodate the increased vehicle traffic this project will generate.
I request that the City require a substantive analysis of non-motorized circulation and safety
along the full length of McIlhattan Road serving the Bikefill site before making a finding of
compliance with §38.510.040.
I further request that the City require sidewalk or shared-use path coverage along the entire
length of McIlhattan Road serving the Bikefill site, on at least one continuous side, and that
the traffic waivers be re-evaluated in light of the road's change from gravel to paved surface
and the destination-traffic character of this use.
4. BMC 38.730 Noticing
Bozeman’s site posting procedure says that site postings have to be in a place where
pedestrians can view them without trespassing. The posting on the south south side of the
project on McIlhattan road is not in compliance with this. It is posted behind No Trespassing
and Road Closure signs. A pedestrian has to trespass to read the posting. I attached a
photo of the road closure sign; the notice is not visible from this vantage point because it is
so far behind the road closure sign.
I would also like a) to know if this applicant is required to send notices by mail (it is difficult
to figure out from the BMC); and b) if they are, evidence that they did. I do know they did
not contact our HOA.
Please let me know if you have questions. I would especially like to know if there is anything
in my comments that make them ineligible for consideration from a procedural point of view. I
am new to this and am trying to comply. It is challenging for someone new to understanding
municipal code. I also am very unclear on the timing of this notice for comments since the
construction is so well underway. I do hope you take this comment seriously given the very
real threat to the physical safety of people accessing the park once it is open.
Many thanks,
Sarah Glover
3103 Augusta Drive
406-579-1817
-- Sarah Glover