HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-22-21 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Canyon Gate Development ProposalFrom:Ross Knapper
To:Marcia Kaveney
Cc:Agenda
Subject:RE: Canyon Gate #21-337
Date:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:34:47 AM
Dear Marcia,
Thank you for contacting the City of Bozeman and for submitting your public comment for this
project. Your comments have been added to the project record.
Best,
Ross Knapper | Development Review Coordinator, Community DevelopmentCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771406.582.2968 | (C) 406.451.6803 | rknapper@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net
The Department of Community Development is revising its operations until further notice to address COVID-19. We
appreciate your patience and are working hard to maintain the stability of our operations. There may be delays in
responding to inquiries. We continue to receive and review development applications. Some application types may
see delays in their review times due to the suspension of public meetings.
From: Marcia Kaveney <marciakaveney@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:53 PM
To: Ross Knapper <rknapper@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: Canyon Gate #21-337
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 Mr. Knapper- Please accept my comments regarding the Canyon Gate application #21-337.My comments focus on concerns about public safety due to traffic and train issues andinappropriate densities proposed by the applicant. I'm sure they echo some of the commentsyou have been receiving already so I'll try to be brief. 1. Infrastructure and Public Safety:Getting stuck at a train crossing would be a terrible way to go if one was having a medicalemergency. "Promote public health and safety" is at the top of the list of responsibilities listedon the City of Bozeman's Planning Department webpage but the current delays at traincrossings are not promoting public heath and safety. They are much worse this year than anyother in my experience of 30 years here! Please see the letter from my husband, Dan Kaveney,
for specific examples. I am not aware of any tragedies related to these delays YET, but
we have yet to see the impacts of the Law and Justice Center, Bridger View, and the
soon to be Stockyard complex.
Also there are no plans in the works to change the crossing grade:MDT's district administrator, William Fogarty, recently communicated to my neighbor Dick
Bakker, that MDT "is fully aware of concerns related to congestion caused by train
traffic, due mostly to the projected $36+ million cost to construct an underpass, MDT
is not considering a grade separated crossing project at this location in the
foreseeable future." So unless there is a windfall from an infrastructure bill coming
soon, this project will continue to get delayed.
Therefore to promote health and safety we need to immediately ban any further dense
development along the north Rouse/Bridger Drive corridor until at least one non-grade crossing can
be built on either Rouse, Griffin, or Wallace.
2. Density and Zoning:While the recent community plan update does earmark the land in question for commercialand residential mixed use, it may not be appropriate anymore. The community plan waspushed through and passed during a pandemic so potentially missed a lot of important input.And as we all know a lot can change in Bozeman in a few short years. What looked good onpaper from an aerial perspective may not actually work on the ground. I think this is one ofthose times. The applicant is asking for B-2M zoning:According to the UDC Chapter 38.300.110. B-2M is not appropriate for this area because B-2M is supposed to accommodate "substantial growth and enhance the character of the city". Substantial growth is not appropriate for the mouth of a box canyon surrounded by privatehills, a creek, and R1-3 and suburban residential zoning. And a large commercial nodeplopped down in a transitional area of zoning will not enhance the character of theneighborhood. Also, it is not served by transit. This location is between the country and thecity and should have transitional zoning that bridges the two. The Stockyard and CanneryDistrict are not far and will serve the commercial needs of a neighborhood while being locatedsafely off of Bridger Drive. B-1 would be a much more suitable zoning if commercial is still the right way to go at all. REMU is not a bad designation for part of this parcel as long as the density is kept to aminimum and the development "preserves and integrates the natural amenities into thedevelopment." as stated in UDC Chapter 38.300.110.F.6. Unfortunately, the site plan thatwas shared at a recent HOA meeting by the developer is in no way attempting to do this. Thedevelopment team even stated their plan is to minimize open space and pay cash-in-lieuinstead. This area is currently a very important wildlife corridor with bears, moose, and deerall crossing Bridger Drive to move between the Story Hills and Bridger Creek. It begs forspecial attention. 3. Water: Before we zone more land into the city, can we support that density with city water? Have studies been done for water use and density? Although this was our first year in 30 thathad restrictions, I think we all know it won't be our last. 4. I would also like to point out that the Canyon Gate application is inadequate in that it hasomitted most of the pertinent information that would allow the DRC to make an informeddecision. It should be denied on this basis alone. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Marcia Kaveney1496 Boylan Rd.Bozeman.