HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-21 Public Comment - C. Omland - Canyon GateFrom:Carie Omland
To:Agenda
Cc:Ross Knapper
Subject:Public Comment for Canyon Gate Canyon Gate development (Project No 21337) - Part 2
Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 8:55:01 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.
Attn: City Commission
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
I would like to submit the followin as public comment opposing Canyon Gate Canyon Gate
development (Project No 21337) in its current proposal state. I would encourage suitable
zoning classification that is aligned with the neighboring densities with a limit of R-3 for
residential development and B-1 for commercial areas. Additionally, I would like to see more
open space with a limit on the use of the Bozeman In-lieu fee program.
Quote Public Comment Referenced material
(7) The City of Bozeman
encourages annexations
which will enhance the
existing traffic circulation
system or provide for
circulation systems that do
not exist at the present time.
The proposed development
does not appear to improve
traffic circulation nor provide
a safe environment on this
street with so many young
children in the neighborhood.
The proposed Increased
density that connects to a
main road will lead to
increased traffic in and on
neighborhood roads,
creating safety and
infrastructure concerns.
Annexation Application
(18) The City will notify the
Gallatin County Planning
Department and Fire District
providing service to the area
of applications for
annexation.
Oct 18, 2021 7:55am -
8:37am: spent almost 45
minutes trying to get across
the train tracks (stand still
train blocking both Story Mill
and Rouse), as well as
insufficient construction
routes off Griffin.
In addition to this, it is not
uncommon to wait 20
minutes for train to clear the
crossings. How is this
acceptable for public safety
Annexation Application
both in or out of the area for
adequate access to
emergency services?
(videos documenting this
available, please request)
(p 20) The health and well-
being of the public is an
essential focus and
influences and is influenced
in turn by urban design and
land development.
Health and well-being should
include emergency and
response services. The
current traffic infrastructure
does not support this. I have
increasing safety concerns
about getting critical services
in the area as well as the
ability to get to emergency
services in a reasonable
manner.
Community Plan
(p 30) N-4.1 Continue to
recognize and honor the
unique history,
neighborhoods,
neighborhood character, and
buildings that contribute to
Bozeman’s sense of place
through programs and policy
led by both City and
community efforts
“recognize and honor the...
neighborhood character that
contributes to sense of
place.”
It is my belief that the people
in this community and
neighborhood live and thrive
here because of it’s unique
character and sense of
place. High density B-2M
zoning simply destroys that.
Community Plan
(p 30) N-4.3 Revise Design
Guidelines within the
Conservation Overlay
District to distinguish
Downtown from the
residential neighborhoods, to
encourage neighborhoods
and neighborhoods near
transition areas,
“distinguish Downtown from
the residential
neighborhoods.”
I would argue that the
proposed does quite the
opposite, it further
homogenises the area to
look like everything
downtown.
Community Plan
(p 37) EPO-2.3 Identify,
prioritize, and preserve key
wildlife habitat and corridors
I would argue that the parcel
in question is a key wildlife
habitat and corridor.
Additionally, the developer
wants to do cash in lieu,
which does not support this
in any way - it is actually in
Community Plan
opposition of preserving key
wildlife habitat corridors.
(p 38) EPO-4.6 Develop a
plan to mitigate conflicts
between humans and wildlife
through the use of proactive,
non-lethal measures.
I believe that the Canyon
Gate proposal does not
mitigate the conflicts
between humans and
wildlife, in fact it harms the
urban-wildlife interface.
Community Plan
(p 39) The best
transportation plan is a good
land use plan.
Transportation systems
impact the following: 1)
livability (in terms of traffic
congestion, but also noise,
pollution, physical activity,
accessibility, safety, and
aesthetics);
Safety is definitely a big
issue, esp with the prospect
of an increase in
development that is
proposed as high density.
Train crossings are a huge
safety concern on many
levels (mentioned earlier in
this doc).
Community Plan
Parking concerns According to the proposed
map, there is no dedicated
parking planned, which will
lead to increased parking
congestion on neighboring
residential roads that were
never intended for such use.
Canyon Gate Annexation
Proposal
(p 42) M-2.3 Work with
School District #7 and other
community partners in
planning and operating safe
routes to local schools.
M-2.4 Encourage the design
of school sites to support
walking and biking
M-2.5 Develop safe
crossings along priority and
high utilization pedestrian
and biking corridors.
With the current density, we
do not have safe routes to
local schools. Train
dependencies, lack of trails,
traffic, no bike lanes.
Increased density further
exacerbates this issue and
poses a significant safety
risk to the multitudes of
young children in the area.
Community Plan
(p 49) RC-3.2 Work with
Gallatin County to keep rural
areas rural and maintain a
clear edge to urban
development that evolves as
the City expands outwards.
I would argue that the
proposed high density does
not support this.
Community Plan
(p 54) Mixed use areas
should be developed in an
integrated, pedestrian
friendly manner and should
not be overly dominated by
any single use. Higher
intensity uses are
encouraged in the core of
the area or adjacent to
significant streets and
intersections. Building height
or other methods of
transition may be required
for compatibility with
adjacent development.
“Building height or other
methods of transition may be
required for compatibility with
adjacent development.”
Proposed zoning is for B-2M
which is not congruent with
adjacent and surrounding
buildings.
Community Plan
(p 69) 3. Smaller species,
especially birds, are
compatible within urban
density development and
should be preserved,
including the encouragement
of suitable habitats.
It is my belief that there is at
least one bald eagle that
lives over in the tree/habitat
plus a multitude of other
smaller species.
Adequate open space and
planning is necessary in this
regard, which the current
proposal does not support.
Community Plan
(p 73) iii. Facilitate the
adequate provision of
transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks,
and other public
requirements.
It is my belief that putting
high density in the proposed
location(s) does not meet
adequate provision of
transportation, parks and
other public requirements (ie.
safety).
Community Plan
Thank you.
-Carie Omland
carie.omland@gmail.com
970-347-7317