The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-15-21 Public Comment - D. Kaveney - Canyon GateFrom:Dan Kaveney To:Jacob Miller; Ross Knapper; Agenda Subject:Canyon Gate ZMA #21337 comments. Date:Monday, November 15, 2021 8:45:52 PM Attachments:Kaveney-D-ZMA-21337-Canyon-Gate.pdf Dear Jacob and Ross, Thank you for your service to the city. Please find attached my comments for public comments for Canyon Gate#21337. Would you please be so kind as to acknowledge receipt and confirm that these comments meet anyrequirements to be considered by the zoning commission? Sincerely, Dan Kaveney DANIEL E. KAVENEY 1496 Boylan Rd / Bozeman, MT 59715 USA 406.581.4362 / dan.kaveney@gmail.com 15 November 2021 To: Jacob Miller, Planner Ross Knapper, Development Review Coordinator Agenda@bozeman.net Fr: Dan Kaveney Re: Public Hearing for Canyon Gate Annexation and ZMA Application #21337 Gentlepeople, These comments concern the annexation and zoning, ZMA and related future land use of Canyon Gate, Application #21337. The property is a prime candidate for annexation and, properly developed, could have a positive effect on the area. Unfortunately, this application will not provide a foundation for appropriate development. There are many reasons the application for zoning at R5 and B2M should be denied. You’ll be hearing from others about those. I will limit my comments to the reasons the application should be denied based on transportation infrastructure alone. North Rouse Avenue is already periodically inadequate to support existing traffic needs, and we need to anticipate the situation worsening due to a confluence of factors; an increase in railroad traffic, increased automotive traffic resulting from development that is already in process, and the fact that it will be difficult or impossible to upgrade the road infrastructure sufficiently to accommodate increased demand in the future. This deteriorating traffic situation on North Rouse/Bridger Canyon Dr. already presents serious safety hazards and logistical difficulties to North Bozeman residents. Allowing further high-density development north of the tracks will render existing infrastructure entirely inadequate to community needs, and to critical services like fire, police, and ambulance. Pinch points at the railroad crossings (N. Rouse, Wallace/L, and Griffin) make it impossible to sufficiently upgrade existing road infrastructure to accommodate further dense growth north of the tracks. The City of Bozeman needs to immediately use its’ zoning authority to limit further high-density building in this part of town in order to prevent the situation from becoming entirely untenable. Please see below for some discussion and background. Rouse is already intermittently non-functional I travel Rouse Avenue frequently because I live on Boylan Rd and it’s the only main artery that leads to the downtown area. Unfortunately, the many improvements instituted over the past couple years have been insufficient to accommodate the increases in traffic during that same period. This, combined with the frequent railroad crossings on Griffin, Rouse, and L Street have delivered a situation where the road frequently fails to achieve the performance needed for basic public safety and transportation. Trains cross Rouse many times every day, usually blocking the road for about 5 minutes, but often for about 15-20 minutes and, rarely, for longer. A passing train typically blocks the L Street, Rouse Ave, and Griffin Dr crossings simultaneously, leaving the part of town north of the tracks entirely isolated until the train has departed. Historically this didn’t cause much trouble, but recent increases to traffic volume mean that it now presents a very significant transportation, health, and safety problem that somehow needs to be addressed. Train backups can stop/snarl traffic for more than 30 minutes during a busy part of the day. Traffic backups extend west on Oak St, west on Griffin Dr, and in both directions on Wallace/L Street as well. It’s not uncommon for traffic backups resulting from 5-10 minute train delays to extend for 1-2 miles, and take 20-30 minutes to clear. For your easy reference I’ve attached an excerpt from a letter I wrote to the city commission previously that details some recent examples. The bottom line is this: we are already experiencing daily failure and occasional collapses on North Rouse during train crossings and on snowy days when people are heading en masse to Bridger Bowl. Increasing train traffic will worsen the situation for at least the next 5-10 years Montana Rail Link anticipates very substantial growth in rail traffic over at least the next 5-10 years. Currently, an average of 20-30 trains/day run through Bozeman’s intersections. MT Rail Link predicts that this level will rise to 30-40 trains/day within the next 5 years. The average length of trains is also forecast to increase during that period, with many more trains 10,000 feet or longer than is currently the case.1 Increasing frequency of longer trains will likely increase train delays and the isolation of the part of Bozeman North of the tracks by about 40% in the near future.2 Thinking specifically, forty trains/day would yield about 1.7 train crossings/hour if the train traffic was evenly distributed across any given day. If we can expect 1 or 2 trains/hour, and if one estimates that a longer train would create a train delay lasting about 10 minutes, then we can expect Bozeman North of the tracks to be isolated/suffering from train delays for about 20 minutes per HOUR in the near future. It gets a bit worse. Between March and October, when the railroad performs scheduled track maintenance, track closures can concentrate all this traffic into as few as 12 hours.3 If that were to happen, we’d get three trains/hour. If one estimates a train delay to take 10 minutes, 2-3 trains an hour would isolate the part of Bozeman North of the tracks and produce traffic delays for 20-30 minutes per HOUR. All this represents a very substantial increase in delays, probably about 35-40%, caused solely by increasing railroad traffic. But that’s only part of the story. 1 Source: Ross Lane, Montana Rail Link, Vice President of Corporate Communications, personal communication. 2 There is significant incongruity between MT Rail Link (Ross Lane, personal communication) and MDOT’s (https://bit.ly/30jXspT, pp. 4-67 – 4-80) estimates of train traffic across North Rouse. The above begins with MT Rail Link’s lower numbers, but, no matter which numbers one chooses, the critical message is clear: in the next 5 years we can expect a 35-40% increase in train-related traffic delays from their current levels. 3 Source: Ross Lane, personal communication. Increasing automotive traffic from recent growth exacerbates the situation Increasing automotive traffic has been a key factor in creating existing traffic problems in the area. I don’t have precise numbers here, but it stands to reason that Bozeman’s increasing population creates higher demands on Rouse/Bridger Canyon Dr. as a means of accessing the Bridger Range, particularly in the winter when Bridger Bowl is active. More significantly, a great deal of building has been undertaken in recent years, particularly in the Creekwood, Legends, and Headlands subdivisions. These residences have produced substantial new automotive traffic as residents go about their business. Approved building that will further impact road functionality is already in process. The Bridger View subdivision will add about 62 residences to the mix, and a mix of commercial and residential development is slated for the old Stockyards. Further, the new Law and Justice Center, once it opens, will certainly create traffic impacts on North Rouse Ave., particularly between Griffin and Oak. The Canyon Gate applicant now proposes a very large new development before these other projects have been completed. It’s important to note that the Canyon Gate rezoning application uses traffic numbers taken in 2017, before much of the building currently existing in the area had been completed, before Bozeman’s pandemic population and tourism explosion, and, obviously, well before the aforementioned new projects have been completed. You’ll clearly need to evaluate Canyon Gate’s impact on the traffic situation that will be present when it is built rather than evaluating the traffic situation as it exists today (or as it existed in 2017 as the applicant proposes to do). However, given the high volume of construction in the area that has been completed, started, and/or approved since 2017 it will be impossible to estimate an accurate baseline against which to evaluate the traffic impacts of further development on our infrastructural capacities. This is particularly problematic because it’s clear to local residents that North Rouse is already intermittently over capacity. If we get this wrong it cannot, in practical terms, be remedied The Montana Department of Transportation has undertaken substantial improvements to Rouse Ave in recent years, and these have certainly mitigated some of the impacts of development north of the tracks. However, the real problem spots, railroad crossings at North Rouse, Griffin, and Wallace/L were not addressed during these improvements. In 2016 MDOT evaluated the feasibility and desirability of a grade separation project at the intersection of North Rouse and the railroad tracks and published their findings in the report, 2016 Montana Rail Grade Separation Study, Montana Department of Transportation.4 During this process the MDOT determined that an overpass would be impossible at North Rouse’s intersection with the tracks, and any grade separation would therefore have to be accomplished with an underpass. With respect to underpasses, Bozeman Deputy Mayor Terry Cunningham (personal communication) tells me city Public Works Department thinks they would be “tricky” due to groundwater and soil issues so they think overpasses would be a better solution. All this disagreement among experts tells us that 4 https://bit.ly/30jXspT, pp. 4-67 – 4-80 remediating these crossings using grade separation will be difficult at best and likely impossible. In practical terms, MDOT has made it clear that they will not be considering a grade separation project at this intersection or in the area during the “foreseeable future”.5 Since there is no reasonable possibility that the railroad crossings will be upgraded in the foreseeable future we need to proceed as though the upgrades will never be undertaken. The city needs to be very conservative in assessing how much traffic existing infrastructure can accommodate, because the road will not be upgradeable if we get it wrong. Local infrastructure is inadequate to support, and cannot be upgraded to support, the densities proposed in the Canyon Gate proposal Montana Cadastral lists 788 parcels in the general Legends/Creekwood/Bridger Creek/Headlands area (figure 1), which is roughly the amount of “front doors” currently in the area. Application 21337, Canyon Gate proposes housing densities that one can estimate (admittedly, with limited information at this point) could produce as many as 693 more front doors (figure 2), which would increase the local population by about 88%. Remember, this is after local population and commercial activity will already have been increased by the buildout of the Bridger View and Stockyards developments. Figure 1: Legends/Creekwood/Bridger Creek/Headlands area that contains about 788 “front doors” 5 William C. Fogarty, Administrator, Butte District, MDOT, personal communication. Figure 2: Rough estimates of households allowed by Canyon Gate’s requested zoning designations If the estimate presented in Figure 2 is even in the ballpark it makes it abundantly clear that it’s preposterous to think we could effectively provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate the number of vehicles associated with the maximum allowable density – 693 “front doors”, not to mention the “commercial nodes” associated with B2M designations. The roads, barely functional now, will already be loaded with more cars from Bridger View, the new Law and Justice Center, and the Stockyard developments, and we can also anticipate that they will suffer an approximate 40% increase in obstruction by railroad crossings within the next 5 years. This alone is probably too much, without the addition of further dense development. Increasing the number of residences and commercial activity in the area to the levels requested will clearly cause a breakdown in local road infrastructure. It bears mention that the applicant claims that traffic impacts will be minimal because the development will provide walkable proximity to work for its residents and because traffic will be spread out among small residential streets. I’m sure you recognize this as obvious nonsense. The uses allowed under the requested zoning designations will produce substantial new traffic that can’t, and won’t, be mitigated by a network of small residential streets and by those few who may have the great good fortune to both live and work in the Canyon Gate development. Conclusion There are many reasons to deny Canyon Gate’s application for rezoning. Others have addressed these reasons in separate communications to you. That said, the application for annexation and rezoning at very high densities can and should be denied based on transportation infrastructure concerns alone. The local infrastructure is inadequate to support high density development, and cannot be improved such that it will be able to support these densities: 1. North Rouse functionality is currently marginal, and is characterized by intermittent, but frequent, failures due to train crossings and Bridger Bowl traffic, 2. Railroad activity will be increasing dramatically during the coming five years and, probably, beyond, 3. New building has already been undertaken in the area that has not yet produced the expected increase in traffic on already-overtaxed roadways, 4. It will be very difficult and probably impossible to make sufficient improvements to existing infrastructure to accommodate the levels of traffic produced by the proposed densities, 5. Building at the proposed densities, combined with the aforementioned factors, will cause North Rouse to become a hazard to local safety and health, and will cause our local infrastructure to become insufficient to the volumes demanded of it. Current Canyon Gate Proposal R-3 R-5 B-2M Park Total Lot Square Feet 323276 175791 322780 106269 821847 Max Lot Coverage Sqft 129310 175791 322780 627881 Max Dwellings 52 375 266 0 693 Since the City of Bozeman has an obligation to provide adequate infrastructure for existing and new residents when new development is approved, and since the infrastructure in the area is already periodically inadequate, there are only two courses of action consistent with preserving public safety and ensuring adequate infrastructure for existing residents: either deny the annexation/zoning request or annex the land at the lower density designations R2/R3 and B1. I’ll close by pointing out that I am not opposed to development in the area per se, though I am opposed to bad development ideas like this one. You didn’t hear from me when the Bridger View or Stockyards Properties applications were being considered, both of which are also in the area, because I didn’t find anything objectionable in them. If this parcel were zoned at R2/3 and B1 the property could be developed into a family neighborhood compatible with those that already surround it, supported by small businesses like those that already exist on N. Rouse/Bridger Dr., and useful to people who choose to make Bozeman their primary residence. Unfortunately, the applicant has asked for zoning classifications inconsistent with these goals and incompatible with many, if not all, of the requirements for annexation and re-zoning. Others have already elucidated these concerns better than I’d be able to, so I won’t subject you to a recapitulation of these deficiencies. I have instead attached a letter from Lori Yurga and Bruce Bell. I agree with everything they say. Please consider their comments to be mine as well. Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and service to the city. Sincerely, Dan Kaveney References Specific Examples of Current Train Delays on North Rouse Trains cross Rouse many times every day, usually (in my experience – I haven’t sat there and timed it) blocking the road for about 5 minutes, but sometimes for about 15 minutes. A passing train typically blocks the L Street, Rouse Ave, and Griffin Dr crossings simultaneously, leaving the part of town north of the tracks entirely isolated until the train has departed. Historically this didn’t cause much trouble, but increases to traffic volume in recent years mean that it now presents a very significant transportation, health, and safety problem that somehow needs to be addressed. Train backups can stop/snarl traffic for more than 30 minutes at a busy part of the day. Traffic backups extend west on Oak St, west on Griffin Dr, and in both directions on Wallace/L Street as well. Please consider some examples: • On about Wednesday, August 25th a train blocked all three crossings for 6 minutes at 230 pm as I was headed north on Rouse. This is a fairly quiet time in the middle of a workday. I happened to be in a spot where I could see the traffic backed up all the way to Bridger Center Dr. When I finally made my way up to Peach St the traffic stillhadn’t cleared and was backed up to a spot just north of the Rouse/Peach intersection. The traffic jam ran for 1.2 miles. • On Wednesday, September 1 at about 1 pm a train blocked all the crossings for 9 minutes while I was headed South on Rouse. Traffic backed up past Peach (I couldn’t see how far) and still reached to the intersection of Rouse and Birdie Drive by the time I made my way there. Again, a quiet time in the middle of a workday, backing up traffic for about 1.5 miles. • On Monday, September 6 at about 8:30 pm (really slow traffic time) a train blocked all three crossings for 16 minutes with significant traffic backups in all directions (I couldn’t see how far in the dark). • The road has a couple of times in recent winters deteriorated to absolute non- functionality on snowy days when Bridger Bowl traffic brought it to a standstill for a very long time (I didn’t time it) with standstill traffic extending well toward Lamme on Rouse -- effectively preventing local residents from accessing their homes. From:Ross Lane rlane@mtrail.com Subject:RE: Request for train trafﬁc info Date:October 28, 2021 at 9:23 AM To:Dan Kaveney dan.kaveney@gmail.com Hi Dan, Thanks for reaching out. MRL averages between 20 and 30 trains per 24 hour period across out network. This would include the crossings through Bozeman. We have certainly been growing over the past ﬁve years, and we expect trafﬁc to grow over the next ﬁve and beyond. Demand for freight is increasing and we expect to play a large role. I can't say with certainty what our trafﬁc projections are, but I think its likely 30 trains per day becomes the baseline. Train length is also growing as part of an industry wide efﬁciency initiative. We often move trains of 10,000 feet or longer. While it does take longer for a single 10,000 foot train to clear a crossing, it does result in fewer trains running across our system. I hope this helps. Regards, Ross Ross Lane Vice President, Corporate Relations 101 International Drive Missoula, MT 59808 Ofﬁce: (406) 523-1438 www.montanarail.com -----Original Message----- From: Dan Kaveney <dan.kaveney@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 12:52 PM To: Ross Lane <rlane@mtrail.com> Subject: Request for train trafﬁc info Dear Mr. Lane, David Fine who is an economic development guy with the City of Bozeman recommended I write you with this request. I am a private citizen working on a project trying to evaluate the impact a future development might have on trafﬁc patterns on Rouse Avenue, both immediately to the North and to the South of the railroad crossing. Of course train trafﬁc is an important factor to consider. I’m hoping you’d be able to provide some information about train crossings. Speciﬁcally, 1) How many train crossings per day there are and, if possible, how long the trains are and at what times of day they tend to come through. 2) Has this number been increasing or decreasing compared to the last 5 years or so. 3) Do you have any trafﬁc projections for the next 5-10 years? Thanks so much for any help you can offer. Sincerely, Dan Kaveney Bozeman, MT From:Marcia Kaveney marciakaveney@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Route 86 north out of Bozeman Date:September 21, 2021 at 11:21 AM To:Dan dan.kaveney@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Richard Bakker <rlbakker58@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 7:10 AM Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Route 86 north out of Bozeman To: Marcia Kaveney <marciakaveney@gmail.com>, Dick & Christine Bakker <lassenpark@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Fogarty, William <wfogarty@mt.gov> Date: Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 9:32 PM Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Route 86 north out of Bozeman To: Richard Bakker <rlbakker58@gmail.com> Cc: Fogarty, William <wfogarty@mt.gov> Good evening Richard, Thank you for contacting the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) regarding Montana Highway 86 (Rouse Ave./BridgerDrive) in Bozeman. Although I am currently away from the office, I wanted to let you know I am in receipt of your e-mail and provide abrief follow up. First, as the District Administrator, I am the appropriate department contact to share your concerns. As you are aware, MDT just wrapped up a multi- year effort to reconstruct and expand Rouse Avenue between Main Street and Story Mill Road. While the project widened the roadway to three lanes, replaced the storm drainage system, added left turn lanes, upgraded signalized intersections,added bicycle lanes and made sidewalk improvements, it was not scoped to alter the existing at grade railroad crossing. Although thedepartment 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. As highway and bridge infrastructure needs currently exceed available funding by a 4:1 margin, MDT is primarily focused onaddressing current infrastructure preservation needs before adding additional infrastructure. We are hopeful Congress will provideincreased funding as it debates a long-term infrastructure bill however, there are many competing needs throughout the State of Montana awaiting funding. Finally- I am providing a link to the Montana Rail Grade Separation Study engineering firm HDR completed in 2016. Analysis of the Rouse Avenue crossing begins on page 103 of 260 of the report. https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/MDT-RGSS-Final-Report-2016.pdf Best Regards, William C. Fogarty Administrator | Butte District Montana Department of Transportation 3751 Wynne Avenue P.O. Box 3068 Butte, MT 59702-3068 Phone: 406-494-9635, Cell: 406-490-0425 | wfogarty@mt.gov From: Richard Bakker <rlbakker58@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 6:02 PM To: Fogarty, William <wfogarty@mt.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Route 86 north out of Bozeman Hello Mr. Fogarty We are interested in knowing if MDT is involved in planning of Bridger Drive area development proposals with Bozeman Planning Dept. We are seeing a lot of proposed developments in this area and Rte 86 / Rouse Ave is already feeling the increased trafﬁc. We feel that a RR overpass or underpass is imperative for maintaining decent trafﬁc ﬂow and, more importantly, for emergency access when trains block the highway. Please let me know the name and contact information for the MDT representative in this planning group so we can voice our transportation concerns. Richard Bakker 1470 Boylan Rd. Bozeman 59715 (406) 402-5418 From:Terry Cunningham TCunningham@BOZEMAN.NET Subject:Re: Trains and trafﬁc in turbulent times: N Rouse. Date:October 4, 2021 at 9:49 AM To:Dan Kaveney dan.kaveney@gmail.com Dan: I apologize for the tardy reply. I was wai7ng to hear back from the public works department about the issue of railroad crossings. Two of the poten7al ways of dealing with railroad crossing conges7on are to construct below-grade or elevated crossings. Below grade crossings are tricky due to high groundwater and (in the case of Wallace) possible soil issues, so building elevated crossings are likely a more ac7onable solu7on. I have also read and understood your concerns about the balance and 7ming of development and infrastructure improvements. With each poten7al development applica7on, we are required to study the impact of the development on the delivery of city services as well as the impact on traffic, pedestrian safety, etc. - and I ca assure you that I will study these issues carefully any7me we have a development applica7on come before the commission. Thank you again for reaching out. Terry Cunningham - City Commissioner City of Bozeman | 121 North Rouse Avenue | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 P: 406.595-3295 | E: Tcunningham@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net From: Dan Kaveney <dan.kaveney@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 3:19 PM To: Terry Cunningham <TCunningham@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Trains and traffic in turbulent 7mes: N Rouse. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza7on. Do not click links or open aZachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioner Cunningham, Thank you for all your service to the community. I virtually aZended the mee7ng where you considered the Bridger Meadows proposed preliminary plat, and I was very impressed with your though[ul comments and approach. You have a tough job and I appreciate your willingness to take it on. I’m wri7ng to call your aZen7on to a developing problem that merits expedi7ous considera7on and ac7on: the deteriora7ng traffic situa7on on North Rouse Avenue between Peach St and Birdie Lane. I travel this road frequently because I live on Boylan Rd and it’s the only main artery that leads to the downtown area. Unfortunately, the many improvements ins7tuted over the past couple years have been insufficient to accommodate the increases in traffic during that same period. This, combined with the frequent railroad crossings on Griffin, Rouse, and L Street have delivered us a situa7on where the road frequently fails to achieve the performance needed for basic public safety and transporta7on. Trains cross Rouse many 7mes every day, usually (in my experience – I haven’t sat there and 7med it) blocking the road for about 5 minutes, but some7mes for about 15 minutes. A passing train typically blocks the L Street, Rouse Ave, and Griffin Dr crossings simultaneously, leaving the part of town north of the tracks en7rely isolated un7l the train has Supporting Letter from Lori Yurga and Bruce Bell Oct 28 2021 TO: Ross Knapper, Development Review Coordinator; agenda @bozeman.net City/Zoning Commissions RE: Public Hearing for Canyon Gate Annexation and ZMA Application #21337 We are writing to provide our comments about the annexation and zoning, ZMA and related future land use of Canyon Gate, Application # 21337. We are residents of Legends II subdivision and adjoining contiguous owners of open space with our HOA at the east boundary of the property to be annexed and zoned, therefore we are directly impacted by the decision and proposed future land use and development of the property. Our review included the following relevant documents, in an attempt to do our due diligence and understand the proposed annexation and zoning, comparing it to the direction the city has adopted, and ZMA criteria used to evaluate Project 21337: 1. Project 21337 documents, for public notice and for the ZMA application and narrative; 2. Documents presented by the Canyon Gate applicant to our HOA about the proposed development; and other projects already developed by the applicant on their website; 3. The 2020 Community Plan and Future Land Use Development, and UDC; 4. Zoning Code documents and Municipal Code including Section 38.100.040C 5. Transportation plan documents; 6. Capital Improvement Plan, including SIF 116 and 117; 7. Recent Project Applications #21102 Stockyard Properties, and #19105 Bridger View, approved for zoning and development near Canyon Gate and the Legends; and others across the city where annexation, zoning and/or development was approved or is in review near subdivisions similar to the Legends; 8. Articles in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle about other HOA’s input on projects adjacent to new development like Alder Creek, Meadow Creek, and concessions made by developers to accommodate concerns; We appreciate the hard work of the commissions that goes into reviewing projects and considering public comment in order to make important decisions. We respectfully submit the following general comments (Part 1), which overlap ZMA criteria as noted in parentheses; and comments specific to criteria for the annexation and ZMA and the application narrative (Part 2). Part 1. General Comments Agree with Annexation We welcome the proposed annexation of the property in application #21337, Canyon Gate, and agree it should be added to the city and developed as it meets the criteria for annexation very well. We always expected that this property would be annexed and developed as clearly some roads were left to be continued from the Legends subdivision. Five years ago, one could envision a Legends III, for example. However, with changing needs and the 2020 future land use plan adopted, one could now envision a development similar to Bridger View with R3 residential medium density housing which maintains the character of adjacent neighborhoods and the unique riparian and canyon foothills land use area, possibly also adding some transitional commercial development along Story Mills zoned B1. This would not overly burden the existing roads, infrastructure, transportation network, or health, safety and welfare of the area, and would complement development planned with the rezoning at Stockyard Properties and Bridger View. Disagree with Proposed Zoning (Criteria A, C, E, G, K) Therefore, our primary concern is that we do not agree with the application’s proposed zoning designations of B2M and R5 and REMU, which we believe would change the nature of the land use too abruptly, allowing high density and tall buildings, and carry development of this unique area too far in the urban direction, not allowing the best use of the Canyon Gate property or best fit to the future land use plan and current needs of the city. It also is not the best fit with existing development. Suggested Revision to Zoning Proposal Therefore, we believe a revision to the proposed zoning map amendment (to R3 and B1) would serve the desire to meet the city’s needs for growth, housing and commercial development commensurate with adjacent needs, and address the concept of balancing growth with being a good neighbor to existing developments and businesses nearby, and primary use of the canyon. We, the people of Bozeman, are stewards of the gate of this canyon for current and future generations of residents and visitors. We believe this is a unique responsibility that should constitute a special consideration to the zoning and development of the Canyon Gate property. The Bridger View application 19105, in its answer to Criteria K stated that ‘R-3 is the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area because it returns the property to an appropriately scaled residential neighborhood that complements the park, is respectful to surrounding existing neighborhoods’ R3 zoning was accepted for the Bridger View property as the most appropriate use of land … in the very same area across the street. Therefore, the Canyon Gate property deserves the same consideration and zoning designation. Recent nearby ZMAs should be considered for total impact on the area (Criteria K) We think that ZMA 21337 should not be considered alone, but should be considered as part of recent zoning amendments for 19105 Bridger View and 21102 Stockyard Properties projects which together constitute major changes to the mouth of Bridger Canyon within Bozeman, and the far east development of the city, with significant impact to transportation, roads and emergency services, safety, health and welfare, light and air in the area. Commercial Needs are not underserved in the area now (Criteria G, I, K) The statement that the area is underserved commercially now is misleading. There are numerous businesses in walking and biking distance including breweries, restaurants, coffee shops, animal vets, bike shop, gas station, The Cannery District, bars, retail, including 7th avenue and downtown - which are accessible by bike. Project 21102 the Stockyard Properties will include even more options of B2M and REMU zoning in walking and biking distance of the Canyon Gate property. Open Space and Park are not adequately addressed in Project 21337 (Criteria B, C, E) This property and area have an important wildlife/riparian corridor that connects nearby river systems to the foothills and Bridger Canyon. Mammals and birds use the corridor to move freely, coexisting now with the thoughtfully designed residential developments currently in the area, and will not be negatively impacted by the Bridger View R3 development. If the development of B2M, REMU, and R5 zoning, with inadequate open space is allowed at 21337 Canyon Gate, it will have a negative impact on wildlife, nearby residential areas, and on transportation with increased human/wildlife car incidents possible on Bridger Canyon and Story Mill roads. Therefore, we think the open space shown as ‘linear park’ of only 2.14 acres proposed in 21337, which is only a green space path, is inadequate to the needs of the property and surrounding area. Instead, a minimum of 5 to 7 acres, possibly incorporating existing mature trees could be thoughtfully designed as an open space for people, birds and a wildlife corridor, which would also serve the new residents and be a good neighbor to existing residents. With 24 acres available to develop, there is ample space to create the open space and park needed… for the residents who will move to Canyon Gate, existing neighbors and the bird/wildlife corridor that exists on the property now. Cash in Lieu of Open Space should not be accepted for Project 21337 In the application, it is suggested that there is a ‘surplus’ of open space in the surrounding area. We have never heard a Bozeman resident say this, not on trails or open space, parks, or subdivisions we walk through. We are grateful for the open space we have and that the city has generally included it in planning new developments. Especially during the pandemic, we appreciate the value of open space and trails… it helps us through the worst times and is critical to health, safety, and wellbeing of residents. Canyon Gate is not a development that the city should allow cash in lieu of open space for the following reasons: it is a bird/wildlife corridor; neighbors would welcome some additional open space knowing theirs will be used by new residents; new residents will need it for themselves and their dogs; and there is adequate acreage in the property to allow for inclusion of open space needed for health and wellbeing, in keeping with current land use. If open space is not included in planning now, it cannot be retrieved. Affordable Housing is not considered in Project 21337 (Criteria G, K) We consider affordable housing to be a primary important current need in Bozeman, and think it should be considered in a project the size of the 24 acres in ZMA 21337. It is designated NO, not TBD in the application. The plan presented to the HOA gave the impression of luxury condos, townhomes and associated retail to serve them. We do not think this proposal adequately serves the current needs of the city, and similar projects downtown and on 7th have adequately addressed that type of development. We suggest the zoning and future development in Project 21337 be on the same order as Bridger View, recently rezoned, which consists of residential development on a scale that does not overly impact traffic and neighboring developments and complements land use in the area, and thoughtfully intersperses affordable housing in quality built R3 medium density zoning. New Residents and Businesses – Impact on Traffic and Existing Infrastructure (Criteria B, F) Traffic and adequate parking should be considered for residents and retail development in the zoning stage. High density urban zoning will result in increased traffic - substantially impacting Story Mill, Bridger Canyon and subdivision roads and trails; and additional new developments like Bridger View and Stockyard properties also increase pressure. The current intersection of Story Mill and Bridger Canyon is not adequate to proposed development of these 3 areas, as addressed in the CIP SIF 116 and 117. An R3 development in Canyon Gate similar to Bridger View would not have a significant impact, but the R5 and B2M and REMU zoning proposed would have a negative impact, as they would also rely on the greater trade area to succeed. The traffic situation with three railroad crossings on Griffin, Rouse and L street affecting access to the rest of the city negatively impacts safety and access to emergency services. Intense urban or commercial business development in the area could reasonably be postponed until a railroad crossing is provided, considering there is commercial development already nearby, and planned in the Stockyard property less than a mile away. R3 and B1 would be acceptable to the current infrastructure, R5, B2M and REMU would negatively impact it. Dark Sky (Criteria C, I) Dark sky is present in the canyon environment and it is an important natural resource worth preserving; it’s rapidly disappearing from Bozeman. If tall buildings (allowed in R5, B2M and REMU) are developed, increased lighting will negatively impact night sky for residents, birds and wildlife in the area. Current developments in the area have low impact street lights to purposefully allow for dark sky in the unique canyon; increased high rise business and retail will not. Recent developments elsewhere in the city should be considered (Criteria C, G, I and K) Developments south of town adjacent to Alder Creek and Meadow Creek have considered input from neighboring R1 developments, and agreed to place single family homes adjacent to existing single family homes. We think the same consideration should be made for the Legends and the homes along Bridger Canyon Drive. Interior to this perimeter buffer of single family homes, other approved R3 housing at Canyon Gate would allow for multifamily homes, and complement the area, not overwhelm it. R5, B2M and REMU should be changed to R3 and B1 for promotion of more compatible urban growth (Criteria G, I, K) Tall buildings are not compatible in the area, they are more in keeping with areas not immediately adjoining R1 and R3, and will be allowed at the Stockyard 21102 development per recent zoning, less than a mile away. Significant commercial development exists nearby. Suggesting the area is commercially underserved is misleading. It is just over a mile to the Cannery District, developed to a high extent recently, in an area that did not impact any nearby residential areas; it was a perfect area for the type of development suggested. There are numerous areas in the city more suited to R5 and REMU and B2M than this intersection adjacent to residential homes. Further residential development in walking distance to Canyon Gate’s 24 acres is limited by the Bozeman city limits, so sustaining the B2M zoned businesses proposed would depend on the greater trade area which will bring more cars, noise, light, and negatively impact existing roads and emergency services, light and air, and is not the best land use for the area. We fully understand and agree that new development does not need to be uniform or conform to existing development. But we think it should be complementary and transitional to existing development as the future land use plan states. Project 21337 proposes zoning from residential to urban development very abruptly, which causes undue conflict and pressure on existing development and infrastructure. Project 21337 could be revised to allow more of a transition; with adequate open space provided, R3 zoning instead of R5 residential, and B1 commercial zoning instead of B2M and REMU. We appreciate the concept of Bridger View – with affordable homes interspersed in medium density R3, that is compatible with the existing space and surrounding area. We suggest that same type of plan be extended to the 24 acres of #21337, allowing for an adequate transition to existing R1 homes, not overly impacting traffic and infrastructure; with the B2M and REMU commercial aspects addressed by the nearby Stockyard Properties; allowing for B1 development along Story Mill Road. We ask you to please consider these concerns and alternative zoning to the proposal of high rise, high impact urban development which will have an overall negative impact in the unique canyon area. Part 2. Comments Specific to ZMA Approval Criteria and response to the narrative provided in application 21337 specific to the criteria A through K A Is the new zoning designed in accordance with the growth policy? While the application is in accordance with the purposely broad growth policy, under each category, the zoning designations proposed are incompatible and disruptive to existing surrounding area land use and infrastructure. We suggest for consideration, an approach to urban development that is less abrupt, more of a transition, resulting in less impact to the surrounding area land use and demand on infrastructure. Urban Neighborhood The growth policy allows for a variety of zoning types within the designation of Urban Neighborhood including R3, where the applicant has selected REMU. R3 would be more compatible to existing development and put less stress on existing infrastructure. The city’s future land use map does not show this 0.77 acre as Urban Neighborhood, was there an amendment made? REMU is suggested for 5 acre parcels, this does not meet that criteria. Community Commercial Mixed Use –The growth policy indicates a community commercial mixed use designation, which could be B1, which is more compatible to the area, instead of the B2M selected by the applicant which can have much taller buildings. Residential Mixed Use The growth policy designates residential mixed use, including R3, which the applicant has selected as a buffer to the surrounding R1. That is compatible zoning, but the jump to R5 could be omitted, so that the entire area could be R3 like the Bridger View 19105 development recently rezoned across the street, which is more compatible with existing land use and infrastructure and included affordable housing. Because the application has intense urban selections for each zoning designation, little open space or park, and no affordable housing, the overall impact is negative. It could be changed to very positive with a transition from low density residential to medium density, including affordable housing, more open space and park, and neighborhood commercial businesses, allowing for a variety of housing options, with less retail. More intense retail is not as much a priority as affordable housing, in current needs, and has been addressed in the Project 21102 Stockyard Properties within walking distance nearby. B Will the new zoning secure safety from fire and other dangers? How? Overall impact of the new development will be negative on emergency services and safety. Although the proposed development will be served by the city of Bozeman emergency services which is positive, the impact of increased traffic with high density development cannot be ignored. In addition, the separation of the area from emergency services and hospital by railroad tracks on L street, Griffin and Rouse should be considered. If securing safety from fire and other dangers is given high priority, intensive density development really should not be permitted to be zoned or developed until an overpass or other solution to the railroad tracks can be addressed, especially since the Stockyard properties have already been zoned for high density. What is the harm in delaying development here until infrastructure is in place? There are other areas in the city suitable to high density development that are not cut off by the railroad from emergency services. The narrative that the new development provides for greater emergency access by continuing roads and creating new access points is negated by the impact that high density congestion of cars with businesses and high-rise buildings will create. This would be true however, greater access would be provided, if zoning were kept to medium density, and neighborhood retail development instead. We suggest considering medium density development and neighborhood businesses which although increase demand for services, would have much less impact than high density zoning in an urban setting. 21337 annexation and zoning should be considered together with the 2 others already approved in the same emergency services corridor – 19105 Bridger View and 21102 Stockyard Properties, as a whole, not separately. C Will the new zoning promote public health, safety and welfare? How? Although 21337 will adhere to the UDC to ensure compliance with codes designed with public health safety and welfare in mind, and additional housing alternatives are a positive, the proposed plan does not provide enough open space or park to promote health safety and welfare, and wellbeing. With 24 acres available 5-7 acres should be allotted to open space and park, and cash in lieu should not be allowed in a development of this size. The overall impact of intense high-density development without adequate open space and park is negative to the wellbeing of future Canyon Gate residents and surrounding land owners. It could easily be designed to incorporate open space as a positive welcome addition to the area. D Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provisions of transportation water sewage schools parks and other public requirements? How? The application states that the development will comply with the UDC, extend existing streets and utilities. It is an excellent property for annexation, as it is surrounded by the city and these services exist. However, the map considers the open space shown in the application to be linear parks. These are walking paths with green space, which possibly serve drainage requirements as well, so cannot technically be considered parkland. The paths should actually connect to more internal open space and park as well as the open space external to the development to ensure the adequate provision of parks. As far as parks, the impact of the development is negative. E Will the new zoning provide adequate provision of light and air? How? The application states that following the UDC will ensure adequate provision of light and air, but the zoning as proposed does not provide adequate park and recreational open space for future residents, or adjacent neighbors and people who will come to the businesses, to enjoy the light and air that exists on this property now. In a development of 24 acres, it could easily be included. The overall impact of high-density housing and businesses without adequate open space is negative. It could be revised to be positive by adding open space and maintaining low building heights compatible with neighboring businesses and homes. F Will the new zoning have an effect on motorized and non motorized transportation systems? How? The application acknowledges increased traffic on roads, streets, trails and sidewalks, but considers that because the intent of the development is to increase opportunities to walk to work, services and recreation, vehicular transportation won’t be needed – suggesting the net result is neutral. Also cited are studies and projections for traffic along Bridger Canyon and Story Mill roads from the 2017 Transportation Plan that suggest there will remain adequate capacity on those roads. People who live here and use the roads, sidewalks, trails, paths, bike paths would disagree. There are significant times of day and year that overwhelm the existing system now. Project 21337 should not be considered alone in its impact but in conjunction with the nearby developments Bridger View and the Stockyard property which will increase pressure on the same transportation network. The frequent trains back up traffic, and increased cars will only add to the problem. The application states that completing new roads will allow dispersal of traffic and increased access by emergency services, but fails to consider that the higher density allowed by R5, B2M and REMU will have a negative impact. Cars take the path of least resistance and will not disperse through high density to reach low density housing. However, this could be a positive dispersal of traffic if the zoning is changed to medium density not high density. The overall impact of the development as proposed is negative, not neutral. CIP SIF 116 and 117 state that development in the area could be delayed until the intersection and roads are improved to support it. The plan could be changed to be a neutral though; there would be significantly less impact from medium density R3 and B1 businesses, than from the proposed R5, B2M and REMU zoning. G. Does the new zoning promote compatible urban growth? How? The application states that the zoning requested fits the growth plan and provides a variety of housing. While true, this does not address the compatibility to existing land use or the unique riparian/bird and wildlife corridor and gateway to the Bridger Canyon that exists here. The application for 19102 Bridger View did consider this. Canyon Gate is near the city limits without significant opportunity for additional residential areas or growth, necessitating reliance on the greater trade area, adding undue stress here. The mountains that surround us make our livable valley very unique, and design and implementation of development at our canyon gates should be thoughtful, creative and compatible to existing use. What the mountains and gateways provide us… light, air, creativity, hope, should be reflected in what we build here for ourselves and future residents and visitors; it should not overwhelm this unique area or detract from it. Compatible urban growth in this riparian/wildlife and bird corridor would include adequate open space/park in the zoning which could include the existing mature trees, especially since there are 24 acres available. If the wildlife that exists here and travels through this property is ignored, they won’t go away, instead they will create the potential for more car/wildlife accidents, and put additional pressure on existing developments, which have been thoughtfully designed to allow wildlife access to rivers and mountains. Why not expect and require the same thoughtful design for Project #21337, coexisting with wildlife and birds in the area? Too tall of buildings, too much light, noise and traffic, cars, and parking are negative impacts to compatible growth. Businesses open later into the night than current land use will have a negative impact on humans and wildlife. It is currently a quiet, dark, residential area and impressive entrance to Bridger Canyon. Growth is welcome, especially diversity of housing but it should be compatible with homes, open space and dark sky that exits here now. Compatible urban growth should consider the multiple commercial options available in walking and biking distance now, not ignore them, but complement them; and consider that B2M has been approved nearby at the Stockyard properties and likely will be for the Story Mill area. H. Does the new zoning promote the character of Canyon Gate? How? The character of the development is not really defined in the application. Canyon Gate was presented to the HOA leaving the impression of luxury condos, townhomes and upscale urban retail and restaurants, suggesting residents that would not work or live here full time and possibly encourage short term rentals. We just don’t think that is what is needed on this property, which has great potential for family homes, a percentage of which could address affordable housing, a primary need in Bozeman. The application does not adequately address affordable housing or open space/park, or compatibility with existing neighbors and land use. I Does the new zoning address the affected area’s peculiar suitability for particular uses? How? The application states that the area does not have a human/wildlife conflict, suggesting unfamiliarity with the property and surrounding riparian and bird/wildlife corridor areas. The overall impact of higher density development allowed with R5, B2M and REMU zoning, without adequate open space, and increased traffic will increase the human/wildlife conflict and have a negative effect on the area. Story Mill is a collector not supportive of B2M level of zoning as it exists. The impact on that road and subdivision roads will be negative. The area is unique in its dark sky resource, this should be preserved. J Was the new zoning adopted with a view of conserving the values of buildings? How? The application states that existing buildings will be removed and development will follow code. Conserving the value of the buildings in the surrounding area should be considered and best achieved by using R3 zoning for residential housing and B1 zoning for businesses, to complement existing buildings, not overwhelm them in height. The proposed zoning will have a negative impact on existing buildings nearby. K How does the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area? How? The application states that the growth plan and UDC are followed. It does not address the need for open space, park and compatibility with surrounding land use, or the unique character of the Bridger Canyon itself. The application as proposed would have an overall negative impact, which could easily be changed to positive if different zoning is allowed; R3 versus R5 and REMU, and B1 versus B2M, with adequate open space provided, and some affordable housing included. R3 zoning allows a variety of housing types and an appropriately scaled residential neighborhood which complements and respects surrounding existing neighborhoods. Specifically, from the municipal zoning code: R5 residential mixed use high density - use of this zone is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed use districts and or served by transit to accommodate a higher density of residents in close proximity to jobs and services. This is not met in the area. REMU Use of this zone is appropriate for sites at least 5 acres in size. This is not met in the proposed 1 acre area. R3 residential medium density - Use of this zone is appropriate for areas with good access to parks, community services and/or transit. Use of this zone in Canyon Gate 21337 and the Bridger View 19105 development would complement each other and the B2M zone at Stockyard Properties. B2M Community business district mixed use - appropriate for arterial corridors, commercial nodes and areas served by transit. This is not met in the area. Story Mill is a collector road. B2M is defined as a substantial growth area which enhances the character of the city. It is not appropriate here where the city ends and there is no further growth potential or residential areas available to develop to support substantial growth. This would necessitate relying on the greater trade area and bringing more traffic into the area which the infrastructure does not support. B1 Neighborhood business district however, is appropriate for areas functioning as a center for surrounding residential neighborhoods and maintains compatibility with adjacent residential land uses. This is perfect for the area and would not impact traffic and infrastructure to the degree B2M would. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we support the annexation of the property #21337 to the city, but do not support the zoning requested; R5, REMU, B2M, because of too many negative impacts on criteria A through K of the ZMA. We ask the commission to reject the ZMA as proposed, and request that it be resubmitted with R3 and B1 zoning which complement the area and are a better fit for land use and the growth plan, possibly addressing affordable housing, and open space requirements, without having as significant negative impacts to traffic and safety. We envision a Bridger View type residential approach, R3 medium density zoning and thoughtfully designed mixed housing options, with affordable homes interspersed; with added open space and a neighborhood commercial area along Story Mill Road; instead of a high density, tall building, urban intensive approach for this property which seems more suitable to areas like the Cannery District which did not impact R1 housing developments. Thank you for considering our comments, we appreciate the opportunity to give input to this important project. We fully appreciate the hard work of everyone involved in making these critical decisions for future land use in Bozeman. Respectfully submitted, Lori Yurga and Bruce Bell 1782 Medicine Wheel Lane Bozeman MT 59715