Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-20 Public Comment - T & S Wood - Idaho Pole URDFrom:Ted and Shana Wood To:Agenda Subject:Idaho Pole URD Date:Sunday, October 25, 2020 9:31:59 PM Dear City Commission: I have pasted the contents of my comment below to avoid any possible problem with adding an attachment. To: Bozeman City Commission Re: Northeast Bozeman/ Idaho Pole yard comments From: Edward Wood, 506 East Cottonwood St, Bozeman 59715 Date: 10-25-20 Honorable City Commissioners: I am writing to briefly state my opposition to any further action on the URD for the Idaho Pole Yard site. While many aspects of this issue are complex, including the past and ongoing hazardous waste contamination of portions of the site, and the blight/TIF/URD process, I will not explore those issues directly. Rather, I wish to highlight several reasons that seem obvious to me that this is not the correct path to take for this area. #1 The area is not zoned for nor appropriate for residential development, either individually or as part of a mixed-use development. The area is not appropriate primarily because it is on top of hazardous waste, both in the soil and in the groundwater. Second, it is not appropriate because of the location: sandwiched between the Interstate and the railroad make it extremely loud and undesirable. #2 As noted in the blight designation, the area lacks adequate transport infrastructure. The geography and ownership prohibit adequate vehicle access to the area to support dense uses such as mixed-use development. The primary obstacle is the railroad crossing, and the prohibitive expense of adding another crossing or a grade-separated crossing. North Wallace is currently (despite the recent upgrades) effectively a one-lane road, and L Street is marginally paved with steep drop-offs on both edges. I do not believe either of these can or should serve as major access paths into the city. #3 The neighborhood does not support increased density in this area. The Vision northeast/RUDAT project showed a clear preference that this area be used in a low-density manner that does not disturb the site contamination. This could include open space, parks, or athletic fields. #4 City action in this area could result in an open-ended liability in the future should any issues arise with the legacy of hazardous waste on the site. While the project may seem self-financing in the short run, the liability could be extreme and place a huge burden on the Bozeman taxpayers, not unlike the long running old North Story Mill Road landfill disputes and eventual monetary settlements. #5 The mere fact that a mysterious developer with “a transformative vision” for the area is interested causes the Commission to leap into action is of concern. Who are these developers and what is their vision? We the residents and taxpayers of the area deserve to know what may be coming down the pike. As we have seen, it is often hard to put the genie back in the bottle, despite the claim the Commission makes that the process could be stopped at any point. The vague information available so far indicates plans for a mixed-use development including residential, retail, and restaurant uses. This to me seems like a wildly inappropriate plan for the area that violates both the zoning and neighborhood desires. #6 The area is acceptable the way it is. It is not a blight in the “core” of Bozeman. It is a brownfield at the perimeter of the city effectively functioning as a transition to open space and agricultural lands. #7 Adverse impacts on existing key businesses in the Bozeman economy. Simpkins-Hallin, Kenyon- Noble and Empire Building Materials all have significant facilities in the area with many employees. Increases in traffic could render these prosperous businesses non-viable and force them to relocate out of the tax base area, for example to Belgrade. #8 The current status is working: The City has gradually been improving the infrastructure of the area, including Rouse, Peach, and Wallace Streets, without designating more area as blighted and creating a URD. (Some of this work was completed using funds from the existing NE URD). #9 Attempting to improve the infrastructure to support mixed-use development could be astronomically expensive. Given the challenges and liabilities of working in a soil remediation area and limitation on excavation (12”), it is all better left as it is, or with very gradual improvements over time, such as curbs and sidewalks. Thank you for your consideration of my comments on this subject. Respectfully yours, Edward Wood Virus-free. www.avg.com