HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-22 Public Comment - D. Gaugler - Canyon GateFrom:Daniel Gaugler
To:Ross Knapper
Cc:Marcia Kaveney
Date:Monday, September 26, 2022 8:41:32 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.
Hi Ross,
Regarding the proposed Canyon Gate subdivision. I am writing in concern over the current
plat design proposal.
My first concert is with the very limited open space and parkland. Personally, I don't think thatthe developer should be allowed to do cash in lieu of parklands and only funnel traffic to
existing neighborhoods. This new neighborhood should strive to add to the area with openspace and park amenities that add to the larger community.
Currently the very limited park space is just a trail and small playground area in what seems to
me as the worst possible location. Also per city code I don't believe that class 1 or 2 trailsqualify as parkland. Dedicating this as city park looks as if to only pass the long-term
maintenance cost on to the city for what would normally be a sidewalk and boulevard andmaintained by the development
Transportation pathways. (38.24.110)
d. Class I trails; (1) With the exception of trail corridors within required watercoursesetbacks, corridors for Class I trails shall be dedicated to the city. The dedicated trail corridor
shall be at least 25 feet in width to ensure adequate room for the construction, maintenanceand use of the trail. Transportation trail corridors cannot be used to satisfy park land
dedication requirements; d. Class I trails; (1) With the exception of trail corridors withinrequired watercourse setbacks, corridors for Class I trails shall be dedicated to the city. The
dedicated trail corridor shall be at least 25 feet in width to ensure adequate room for theconstruction, maintenance and use of the trail. Transportation trail corridors cannot be used
to satisfy park land dedication requirements;
I also don't think this design has considered street access to the commercial buildings from
Bridger Drive. It seems odd to have two of the three accesses to service a commercial area gothrough residential streets. They are also proposing not using one of the already existing street
access and easements that would have the least impact on adding commercial traffic to aresidential area.
I hope my input is of value. Thank you for reading.
Daniel Gaugler
1588 Boylan RdBozeman, MT 59715