HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-23 Public Comment - D. Egnatz - Project #22264 Canyon GateFrom:Diane Sheehan Egnatz
To:Agenda
Subject:Project #22264 Canyon Gate
Date:Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:12:35 AM
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 members of the Community Development board,
I am writing to comment on Plat plan application #22264 Canyon Gate.
There are several positive things about the current Canyon Gate Plat Plan, like the
placement of the larger commercial buildings to the front of the site with parking
behind and the additional setbacks/easements adjacent to the existing community. The layout of the commercial area with a path and patio areas through the center will
be an enjoyable community space. I appreciate that the access to the commercial
space has mostly separate access from the residential areas beyond. However,
there are two key issues that could be resolved to help this development be anamazing asset for the whole community, not just the surrounding neighborhoods.
1. Street Safety and traffic flow. The plan shows access to the bulk of this site onlythrough Story Mill Rd, a “City Connector”, and 2 “local” streets (Spirit Crossing &
Maiden Spirit). If half of the expected 4,606 daily trips go out through the city
collector road and/or parking lot exits, that still leaves 2000 trips on local streets,
which is over 1 car per minute during the daytime hours. This will have a significant
impact on local street safety.
There are provisions in the UDC to discourage through traffic on local streets.
Sec. 38.400.010, Point 3 in the UDC specifically addresses local vs. through traffic:
Separation of through and local traffic. Where a development abuts or contains an
existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the developer may be required to
provide frontage roads, reverse frontage with a reservation prohibiting access along
the rear property line, screen planting, or such other treatment as may be necessary
for protection of residential properties and to afford separation of through and local
traffic. The issue of through traffic on local streets is also under consideration as part
of the Safe Streets campaign. I ask the board to strongly consider some alternate
options for traffic flow on this site:
First and foremost, could the developer install speed bumps at the local street
exits? This will still allow access for emergency vehicles but encourage flow out
the “main” entrance and reduce the speed of the traffic that does use the local
streets. It is a minor expense and will make a big difference to the surrounding
community.
Would it be possible to flip the parking lots for the R-5 areas to exit on the east
and south sides to further encourage traffic flows away from the local streets.
An earlier plan rejected by the city showed an exit/entrance onto Bridger Drive
into the development (not just the parking lot). Could this be reconsidered?
While I realize it would require a variance due to it’s proximity to the
intersection, an entrance and right turn only exit would alleviate some of the
traffic on the local streets- as well as a back up of lefthand turning traffic on the
exit to Story Mill Road.
Alternately, would it be possible to have 2 exits onto Story Mill Road?
2. Parks & Greenspace: The layout as shown has 3.07 acres but a portion of that is
just streetscaping between the street & sidewalk at the edge of Story Mill Road &
Canyon Gate Blvd. This is not useable park land. The site is missing .34acres of
minimum required parklands and 2.23 acres for the additional density that can begiven as cash-in lieu. Furthermore the park space they do have included has poor
functionality, limited public access, and lacks connectivity with the surrounding
community.
Imagine a kids birthday party being held at Canyon Gate’s designated
“neighborhood center” pavilion. It’s hard to parse out exactly how big the parcel
is as the acreage listed includes the linear park; but the plan shows only 4 large
trees and 3 smaller ones, in addition to a pavilion being able to fit in this area.
It's then surrounded by tall buildings and a road. The larger park andplayground is across the street. This layout means that kids will be running
back & forth across the street to access the playground and park then back to
the pavilion for snacks and cake. I wouldn't choose to reserve that pavilion for a
party. Requiring a more thoughtful layout of greenspace will increase publicsafety and better serve the future residents of Canyon Gate and the broader
Bozeman community.
There is no connectivity with the Story Mill Spur Trail. On the Parks plan, it
shows the trail continuing West, through a parking lot, to cross Story Mill Road
at Canyon Gate Drive.
The linear park through the center of the development ends at a drainage field
owned by the Legends II HOA. It is not a recreation space, nor does it have
trails through it. There is a connecting pedestrian access trail at the edge of
the property line off Maiden Spirit that connects to the Legends Park. Wouldn’t
this be a more appropriate connection for the trail? Given the point above, their
“linear park” connects to nothing in the surrounding community- which is in
opposition to the stated community goals.
While I understand that cash-in-lieu of greenspace is a common occurrence
within the city, I challenge the board to consider if it is fully necessary in this
instance. Let’s be honest, the developer is offering cash-in-lieu because that’s
what results the most profit for them. The Canyon Gate site is 24 acres. It isnot a hardship to fit the required amount of greenspace on this site. Is this
layout what’s in the best interest of the whole community? I’ve heard the
board talk many times about making decisions for 50+ years. We would
essentially be allowing 2.5acres of land to be “bought” for a fraction of the
market value. Even requiring 1.5 more acres of greenspace, just over ½ of
what they want to omit, would provide enough space for a larger, more
functional park and better trail connectivity.
Lastly, I want to remind the board of a condition at the beginning of UDC chapter 38:“In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this chapter are minimum
requirements adopted for the promotion of the health, safety and general welfare of
the community. In some instances, the public interest will be best served when such
minimums are exceeded.” While the staff report ensures these minimum
requirements are met, you are in the unique position as members of the citizen
advisory board to recommend changes above and beyond the minimal requirements. You have the responsibility and challenge to ensure that every development serves
the whole community. I understand these decisions are difficult and may not be
black & white, but if you don’t stand up for our neighborhoods, who will?
Respectfully,
Diane Egnatz 1268 Boylan Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
--
Diane Sheehan Egnatz
339-206-4459