The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-14-21 Public Comment - D. Kaveney - Canyon GateDANIEL E. KAVENEY 1496 Boylan Rd / Bozeman, MT 59715 USA 406.581.4362 / dan.kaveney@gmail.com 14 December 2021 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to provide further comment on the Canyon Gate #21337 application. A few things have come to light since my 15 November letter about the problems this application poses with trains and traffic. I will add them here without restating the arguments articulated in my earlier letter, which I have attached here for your easy reference. As explained in earlier letters, I support the annexation and development of this parcel at maximum zoning designations of R3 and B1. While the current proposal fails to meet Bozeman’s annexation standards in many ways, I will focus this letter on two of them: the fact that local transportation infrastructure is, and probably always will be, inadequate to the uses allowed in the proposed R5 and B-2M zonings, and the fact that these zoning designations allow for uses inappropriate and unsuitable to the mouth of Bridger Canyon. Transportation Infrastructure Most of my points about this have already been made in the attached letter, which boils down to the facts that additional automobile traffic in the area combined with increased train activity have driven us over a tipping point where North Rouse/Bridger Canyon Dr. are no longer functioning adequately to current conditions, and that continually increasing train traffic and increasing automobile traffic in the area will make the problem worse in the near future. I hope you’ll read it. I have a few corrections to the staff report and one new fact I’d like to add to that letter. • The staff report erroneously states, without evidence, that additional traffic from added development will not affect train delays. Common sense and experience indicate to most people that more cars on the road will create larger backups due to train delays that will subsequently take longer to clear once the train has departed. This relationship has been quantified in a variety of places, including a paper published by Transportation Research Record and written by Timothy A. Ryan, entitled Roadway Vehicle Delay Costs at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings.1 It is an established fact that more cars on the road decrease the functionality of at- grade railroad crossings and increase delay times for motorists. Added high- density construction will create many more cars on Bridger Drive/North Rouse and that will cause further deterioration of the already-unacceptable situation at those intersections. 1 Transportation Research Record 1262, Roadway Vehicle Delay Costs at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings, pp. 34-36. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1990/1262/1262-004.pdf •The staff report declares that the city fire department has stated that the worst- case scenario if a railroad was blocking the road would be a response time to a fire north of the tracks of 20 minutes. It then goes on to say (erroneously, as noted above) that this response time reflects existing conditions and does not change with added development. The report seems to imply that 20 minutes is a perfectly acceptable response time. It is not. The National Fire Protective Associations standard 1710 (2020 revision) establishes a 5 minute 20 second response time as appropriate.2 Twenty minutes will represent the complete destruction of a property under most scenarios. •Much of the transportation section of the staff report wrongly focuses on the roadways immediately adjacent to the Canyon Gate parcel, instead of the nearby, problematic at-grade railroad crossings at North Rouse, Griffin, and North Wallace/L. It is the at-grade railroad crossings that need to be closely examined because poor performance at those intersections already puts the health and safety of Bozeman residents at risk, and further construction and increasing train traffic will worsen the problem. These intersections were not considered at all in the staff report, which is a major shortcoming. This situation at the train intersections must be remedied prior to the approval of any new high density or high intensity construction. At the very least it cannot be allowed to deteriorate any further. •The city itself has already acknowledged the railroad intersection hazard in their report, Pole Yard Urban Renewal District Plan – 2020, which states that, “The limitation created by the single access from L Street is further impaired by the at- grade railroad crossing. The lack of connectivity and guaranteed emergency access needs to be addressed, potentially by an East Oak/Birch Street extension railroad overpass”, and that prior to development the area requires, “a grade separated railroad crossing that facilitates guaranteed access to the area for fire, police, and other first responders”. The report goes on to conclude that the at- grade railroad crossing constitutes a “condition that endangers life and property” that would need to be corrected prior to any development.3 How can all this be true of the low-volume intersection with the railroad at L Street and not at the high-volume but otherwise identical intersection at N. Rouse? It can’t. If L Street presents serious hazards, then N. Rouse presents more serious hazards. The city cannot responsibly approve the dense zonings requested prior to gaining a very thorough understanding of whether the local infrastructure can be upgraded to handle the extra traffic burden that would be created by Canyon Gate. We already know that grade separation projects at the N. Rouse/Bridger Dr., Wallace/L Street, and Griffin Dr. 2 https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/article/21125439/nfpa-standards-significant- nfpa-1710-revised 3 Bozeman Pole Yard Urban Renewal District Plan – 2020, pp. 20-23. https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?dbid=0&docid=228342& intersections will at least be difficult, and may be impossible. Local resident and geologist, Betty Stroock, tells us that, “Construction of an underpass at the junction of N. Rouse Avenue and the railroad tracks is not just "tricky" (as apparently stated by the Bozeman Public Works Dept), it is not possible. Groundwater levels in that vicinity are very shallow - likely no more than a few feet below the surface. The roadway near that junction is prone to flooding (standing water) even with just a heavy rainfall event. The only way to maintain an underpass would be with perpetual pumping of groundwater away from the site, both unsustainable and prohibitively expensive, not to mention deleterious to nearby waterways and adjacent water users.”4 As explained in detail in my November 15 letter (included below) city engineers and the Montana DOT express concerns similar to Ms. Stroock’s. Prior to approving dense zoning the city has an obligation to confirm that grade separation projects are possible at these intersections, discover how much it would cost to undertake these projects, find a source for that money, and then schedule dates for the beginning and completion of these projects so that new construction can be timed for completion after the infrastructure improvements are in place. If upgrades are not possible, or cannot be precisely scheduled, then further construction must be limited to low densities. District Character and Peculiar Suitability for Particular Uses The entrance to Bridger Canyon is one of Bozeman’s gems, and we all have a sacred responsibility to protect and steward it wisely. Bozeman residents are rightly concerned about some of the uses allowed under B-2M and R5 zoning classifications because these zonings allow many things that would be greatly detrimental to the canyon and our city. I am particularly concerned about the B-2M zoning. As I’m sure you know, the allowable uses in B-2M zoning include retail establishments greater that 40,000 ft2 (Walmart), hotels with no square footage limits, “heavy service establishments” that include things like truck stops, transit terminals, and lumberyards, as well as apartment buildings, restaurants, medical offices, mortuaries, and mobile home sales. The requested zonings would allow about 65% of the parcel to house 6 story buildings with 100% lot coverage, which would create an incongruous mini-downtown situated right on the edge of Bozeman, separated from the rest of town by other, less-dense and intense land uses, and connected to the rest of the city with inadequate infrastructure. B-2M is so broad it’s essentially no zoning at all because it offers none of the predictability and protection from inappropriate use that zoning is supposed to provide. It seems as though pretty much anything is allowed except strip clubs and animal shelters. I can’t imagine there is any disagreement that many of these uses would be entirely unsuitable for this site, and B-2M provides no protection against any of them. Bozeman locals will not shirk our responsibilities to protect and steward the mouth of Bridger Canyon against inappropriate uses, even though the costs of staying the course are high. Hundreds of Bozeman residents have mobilized to oppose the B-2M and R5 zonings requested for this parcel, and they have spent incalculable person-hours researching these issues, educating fellow citizens, attending meetings, and writing and lobbying the city. If you approve B-2M and R5 zonings, you will consign us all to a 4 Betty Stroock, personal communication, December, 2021. years-long future of more of this unpleasantness. While we do have a responsibility to civic involvement, that’s too much to ask. We’d much rather you put some reasonable boundaries around what can be done here so that we can positively and productively engage with the city and developers when formal site planning commences. You can accomplish this by annexing the parcel at R3 and B1. I believe it is possible to develop this parcel consistent with the character and “peculiar suitability” of this special place. Doing so at appropriate densities and with appropriate plans could allow us to find some desperately needed affordable housing and, while it doesn’t seem to me that any more commercial activity is needed in the area, to encourage some small-scale commercial development along Bridger and Story Mill Drives (similar to that which already exists on North Rouse between Story Mill Rd and Griffin Drive). In order to accomplish this we need some stronger boundaries than those inherent to B-2M and R5. The best way to take a step in that direction will be to annex this parcel at zoning densities no greater than R3 and B1. Local Knowledge Counts for Something: Accept the Collective Wisdom of Your Fellow Bozemanites The city has done a good job with the Bozeman Community Plan under very challenging circumstances but, like all human endeavors, the plan fell short of perfection. When considering this application, please keep in mind just how much opposition it has generated and be open to the possibility that this great volume of opposition is telling you that something is wrong with this request and with the plan. Hundreds of Bozeman residents have written you letters opposing this application (325 by my count as of this writing), dozens spoke in opposition to the application at the zoning commission meeting, the zoning commission has recommended against approval, 70% (42/60) of landowners within 150 feet of the proposal have signed letters of protest, 80% of respondents in a recent Legends II HOA survey opposed Canyon Gate as currently configured and 70% of those respondents asked the HOA to formally oppose the application. Only 12 people spoke in favor of the application at the recent zoning commission meeting. At least 11 of them are known to be either employees of or associated with HomeBase Partners; none of those 11 saw fit to disclose that relationship when speaking at the meeting.5 Of course these folks are entitled to air their personal opinions, and there’s nothing wrong with the developer turning out supporters for the meeting. That said, the tactic of turning out what amounts to one’s employees does not sit well with me. Developers get a great deal of time at these meetings to make their cases. Afterwards, private citizens each get 3 minutes to speak; barely enough time to make the required disclosures of their names and addresses. When the developer speaks again by recruiting testimony from employees who, by failing to disclose their relationships with the developer, pose as “neutral” concerned residents it only serves to mislead commissioners. For instance, during the zoning commission meeting Mark Genito said he found those 5 See Exhibit 1 at the end of this letter for their names and affiliations. few voices speaking in favor of Canyon Gate persuasive. I wonder how persuaded he would have been had he known all of them were employees of HomeBase Partners. I hope this information will help you effectively evaluate citizen testimony about this issue going forward. When evaluating applications for zoning amendments state law requires you to consider, among other things, whether or not the change can be made consistent with public safety from fire and other dangers, with promoting public health, public safety, and general welfare, and with the provision of adequate transportation systems. It also requires you to consider the promotion of compatible urban growth, the character of the district, and the peculiar suitability for particular uses in the area. While it is certainly possible to develop the parcel consistent with all these requirements, it is not possible to do so within the broad array of allowable uses, allowable density, and allowable intensity of use in B-2M and R5 zoning. Further, you’re required by Guideline D of section 76-2-304 to consider “all the options allowed by the requested district and not only what the present applicant describes as their intention”. This is the root of many of your fellow citizens’ concerns – if you annex this at B-2M/R5 it would theoretically allow any number of wildly inappropriate and destructive uses of that parcel, and we’re looking to you to use your zoning authority to make sure that doesn’t happen. Further, it is my understanding based on Chris Saunders’ testimony at the zoning commission meeting about Canyon Gate that state law disallows you from even considering the current applicant’s plans. I’m not a legal expert, but given all the problems with this application I don’t see how it’s possible to annex Canyon Gate as proposed while remaining consistent with the requirements laid out in section 76-2-304 of state law as explained in the Bozeman Community Plan. I encourage you to instead annex this parcel at maximum zoning designations of R3 and B1 which would be entirely consistent with both the community plan and state law. Failing that, I encourage you to reject the annexation altogether and ask HomeBase Partners to resubmit the proposal with a request for annexation at lower densities. Since it is a practical impossibility for scores of concerned citizens using a consensus decision-making model to productively negotiate with a developer, we need to rely on you, our elected officials, to find some way to draw tighter boundaries around what will be allowed on this parcel so that it can be annexed and developed without desecrating the mouth of Bridger Canyon and/or causing our infrastructure to collapse. I believe this is possible, but not if the parcel is first annexed to include B-2M and R5 zoning designations. We’re looking to you for creative leadership that can result in a productive path forward. Thank you for your consideration, Exhibit 1: People who spoke in favor of Canyon Gate at the November 22 Zoning Commission Meeting without disclosing their relationships with HomeBase Partners. Andrew Gault6 Senior Project Manager for Homebase Partner’s Canyon Gate Project. Lauren Cummings7 CFO of Homebase Partners. Francesca Cendro8 Design Professional of SMA architects, the lead architect on the Canyon Gate project Haley Rowland9 Sales Director at AC Hotels, and affiliate of Homebase Partners Robert Horne10 Managing Principal of Dodge Capital, LLC located in West Palm Beach, who is partnering with HomeBase Partners. Based in Chicago, Illinois. Amber Bolton11 Accounting Manager for Homebase Partners Montana Kristin Fetterman12 Principle at Connect Property Management, LLC which is a property management company for Homebase Partners Properties. Lindsey Pittard13 Director of Marketing and Communications at Homebase Partners. Jason Cure14 General Manager of Aimbridge Hospitality, contractor of Homebase Partners. Lindsey Von Seggern15 Architect at Solomon, Cordwell, Buenz (SCB). Architect on Canyon Gate project. Does not live in Bozeman. Brook Perelli16 SMA Design Professional and Architect, contracted by Homebase on the Canyon Gate Project 6 https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-gault-36006313b/ 7 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauren-cummings-a769716/ 8 https://www.architects-sma.com/francesca-cedro 9 https://www.linkedin.com/in/haley-rowland-0ab200b2/ 10 https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-horne-556b536/ 11 https://www.linkedin.com/in/amber-bolton-84a0009a/ 12 https://www.connectbozeman.com/about 13 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lindsay-pittard-27203b17/ 14 https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-cure/ 15 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lindseyvonseggern/ 16 https://www.architects-sma.com/brooke-perrelli 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