HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-21 Public Comment - T. Niemann - Canyon GateFrom:Thomas Niemann
To:Agenda
Subject:Canyon Gate Project (#21337) Original and Additional Objections and Concerns
Date:Monday, December 13, 2021 6:05:52 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.
Dear City Commissioners,
Below is the email letter I originally sent to the Zoning Commission on November 8, 2021. In
addition to what I already expressed below, I wish to add the following:
Regarding the zoning meeting, the overwhelming majority, in fact nearly all, of those who spokeduring the meeting were against the development as it was proposed. In addition, over 290 pieces
of correspondence were received by the Zoning Commission objecting to the development.
Clearly, the people and neighborhoods most affected by the proposed Canyon Gate development
have made it abundantly clear they oppose the proposed development. As elected officials, I do
not believe your course of action on this matter could not be any plainer. The entire commission
needs to vote against it.
If the peoples’ preferences were not enough of a reason to deny the annexation and rezoning
request, please seriously consider the following:
We believe that the proposed zoning application does not meet the criteria in the Community
Plan, and therefore fails. When the Commission considers #4 below, please keep in mind that the
current Canyon Gate application is proposing that 15.88 acres could have buildings with 5+
stories on it. This zoning is quite different and intense compared to the surrounding zoning, which
we see as a conflict per the criteria.
Zoning criteria
When adopting zoning regulations, there are five zoning criteria that the Commission shall
consider.
1. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air2. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems (as addressed in first
email and will be again in a following section)3. Promotion of compatible urban growth4. The character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses5. Conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land
throughout the jurisdictional area
#4 Criteria: Peculiar suitability for particular uses
The Commission should consider differences in allowed intensity between the districts such as
differences in height, setbacks, or lot coverage. The greater the difference the more likely conflict
is possible, or as we believe, likely in this case.
Staff fails to consider the unique attributes of this particular location – in the mouth of a
canyon, between habitat in the Story Hills (designated “No City Services”) and the foothills
of the Bridger Range (Gallatin National Forest), near Bridger Creek which serves as a vital
water source. This is an active and dynamic wildlife corridor, with moose, deer, black bear,
wild turkeys and numerous other species. Area subdivisions, including mine (Legends I),
have been carefully planned to allow for this fact, preserving habitat and wildlife corridors.
Injecting massive, high density development into the area would decimate the character of
the district.
Staff fails to consider the unique location of this district – separated from town by the
railroad tracks, isolated, and in a canyon at the outer edge of City limits. The subject parcel
is less than ½ mile from land designated “No City Services” on the Future Land Use Map.
Being isolated, it is unsuitable for the B2M zoning requested, which the UDC
specifically states is intended to serve a “broader trade area.”
The UDC specifically states that R5 “is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use
districts and/or served by transit.” This is primarily an R1 neighborhood and has no
current transit service.
The code and Community Plan require development in harmony with nature
Section 38.100.040 of the UDC states that it is the purpose of these regulations to
promote the public health, safety and general welfare by, in part, “requiring
development in harmony with the natural environment”.
The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan sets the following goals, objectives and actions:
“Goal EPO-2: Work to ensure that development is responsive to natural
features.”
“EPO-2.3: Identify, prioritize and preserve key wildlife habitat and corridors.”
Injecting high density commercial development into this habitat fails to meet these
requirements and goals.
Any development in the area should be low density, for the safety of the residents
and the animals, as well as upholding our community goals. It must provide adequate
open space for wildlife corridors, as all the other area developments have provided.
Source: Bozeman Community Plan (p73, et al.)https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/9641/637569495373030000
Future Land Use Map
https://bozeman.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?
id=40ad3c204c7c443da1a33b2c00592eae
Then there is the matter of access to this side of the railroad tracks. During the Zoning
Commission meeting, the safety concerns of the railroad crossings was dismissed as a problem
existing with or without the Canyon Gate development. While at its simplest level, this is true,
when you consider compounding the problem by adding to population densities within the problem
area, it clearly is not. Exacerbating an existing and known problem is irresponsible, bordering on
governmental oversight negligence. So I ask the City Commissioners to consider the following.
It is well known that emergency services supporting the Bridger/Story Mill district – fire, police, and
hospital – are all located on the opposite side (south) of the train tracks and are inaccessible when
a train is blocking all three road crossings; as regular happens. When increased density is added
to this situation, the inevitable result is an increase in calls / trips to public services and an
increased risk to the district's population. The health and safety of new and existing residents is
undoubtedly put at increased risk, especially when high density is the goal.
Per the Bozeman Community Plan - “...the presence of common risks, such as inadequate public
services, may prevent approval of a development until the hazard has been removed or corrected.
The developer of a subdivision may not accept hazards to public health and safety on behalf of
future residents or owners of a subdivision by declaring that necessary infrastructure
improvements or other actions are unnecessary.”
What is the solution for the train? In short, there is none at present.
In 2016, MDOT evaluated a possible grade separation at the railroad tracks across Rouse, and
determined that an overpass would be impossible. 2016 Montana Rail Grade Separation Study,
Montana Dept. of Transportation
The Bozeman Public Works Dept thinks an underpass would be “tricky” due to groundwater and
soil issues; and are no doubt correct given the location of Bozeman Creek.
The City staff report on the Canyon Gate application references the 2017 Fire & EMS Master Plan
in citing the City’s ability to serve this area. City staff inexplicably concluded that the criteria for
being secure from fire and other dangers is met, despite acknowledging that Bozeman Fire Dept
stated that it would take them 20 minutes to get to us if a train was blocking the road. This is a
BFD acknowledged clear and present danger to everyone living in this corner of town. NFPA
Standard 1710 calls for a 4-minute travel time per the 2017 Fire Master Plan.
Risks would be compounded by adding what is proposed for Canyon Gate, a high density
development.
So in summary, I ask the full City Commission to deny the Canyon Gate development as it is
currently proposed. I further suggest the Commissioners have something approaching a mandate
to disapprove the annexation and rezoning request given their responsibility of serving the people
they were elected to represent, those most affected by the proposal, given the concerns
expressed in this email letter and others.
Respectfully,
Thomas A. Niemann
Legends I Resident
Begin forwarded message:
From: Thomas Niemann <wolverine7986@yahoo.com>Subject: Canyon Gate Project (#21337) Concerns
Date: November 8, 2021 at 5:09:47 PM MST
To: jamiller@bozeman.net
To Zoning Commission,
My name is Thomas Niemann. I am the Chair of the Legends Townhome Owners
Association (THOA), and a resident of Legends 1. We are in the process of
collecting signatures against this development as currently proposed. In the
meantime, I share the following concerns.
Quite simply, our community (as defined by the existing neighborhoods along the
Boylan street corridor) does not support the annexation and proposed zoning of this
property. That said, we believe a R-1, R-2 and/or R-3 with a section of B-1 along
Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive is more in line with the goals outlined in the 2020
Community Plan. The zoning designations requested by the developer of R-4/R-
5/B2-M are not consistent with those goals. The reasons for our concerns are as
follows:
This is a “core” type project which is far from the city core, and not at all suited for the
area proposed.
Unlike any other developments in the city, there is no buffer between current R-1
neighborhoods and what is proposed by the developer. This would be an
unwarranted precedent and create undue burdens on the existing adjacent
neighborhoods.
Increased traffic in the area as a result of the proposed development will likely route
through the Boylan neighborhoods, presenting safety risks to current residences and
reducing the walkability of the area.
The proposed project does not blend into the current neighborhoods, and is a poor fit
for an area of R-1 and R-3 residences.
We would dearly hope the zoning commission, and city, is asking itself, is this the
type of development we want as the gateway to the Bridger Canyon area? We find it
difficult to believe this is representative of Bozeman’s goals to retain the character
and image of the city.
According to our conversation with the state, there are no near-term expansion plans
for the roads (the state roads of Bridger Drive and Rouse) around this site and traffic
is already an issue on Bridger Drive. Given the density of traffic already occurring on
these thoroughfares, particularly when Bridger Bowl is open with new snow, this
proposed development would create an untenable situation.
Train traffic causes multiple closures on a daily basis, with no reasonable way to get
around the crossings. This limits access by emergency services, slows response
time, and causes additional traffic congestion. We just recently had an experience of
this situation as police were delayed by a train when responding to a home invasion
situation within the Legends townhomes (o/a the evening of 15 October).
We understand there are multiple existing and planned business districts in near
proximity to this site. Additional retail/commercial space in this area would create an
undue burden on the existing neighborhoods.
At a minimum, the Boylan-area community would like the following if this area is
developed:
- Buffer area between the development and the existing Boylan-area community.
- No through traffic into the existing neighborhoods.
- Lower density, and no greater than two-story structures consistent with the
surrounding neighborhoods.
With these concerns in mind, we therefore respectfully, but ardently, request you
consider the potential, and likely, adverse impacts this zoning decision will have both
on the surrounding neighborhoods and overall character of Bozeman. R-1/R-2/R-3
and B-1 zoning furthers the goals of the 2020 Community Plan, while limiting thenegative impacts to the surrounding community.
Respectfully
Thomas A. Niemann