HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-23 Public Comment - E. Trygstad - Canyon Gate-22-264From:Ellen Trygstad
To:Agenda
Subject:Canyon Gate-22-264
Date:Sunday, April 2, 2023 9:28:33 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.
TO the Community Development Advisory Board and City Commission:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I have significant concerns regarding the Canyon Gate project in this
particular location. Elsewhere, it might work very well, where it is not in a urban-rural/wetlands interface location,
where it would have plenty of already existing transportation amenities and structure, and where it is not putting a
large traffic increase in a location with unique transportation issues. Finally, it is my understanding that the
emergency plan that exists for the City of Bozeman has recommended low density for areas along the Bridger Fault.
This project would seem to be counter to this advice.
Urban-rural wetlands interface and boundary location:
1) The intersection of Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive is surrounded by multiple streams and creeks, and
wetlands. I personally know people who live in such situations throughout Bozeman where denser housing has been
approved and built, and they have described water in their basements during heavy rains and/or fast spring melts.
Does the City of Bozeman truly believe construction at this site is prudent? If the City of Bozeman insists this
location has no underground streams, and no potential for high groundwater and other complications of groundwater
activity, and then some residents find that some their dwellings have water issues, is the City prepared to
compensate homeowners? Is the developer being asked to carry some sort of bond to cover damages?
2) The neighboring Story Mill Park features its ability to be accommodating to wildlife which has lived in this
region historically. Indeed, local knowledge identifies the golf course as having, long ago, been calving ground for
elk. Moose travel through the area. I have personally seen in the last year, two - a bull moose across from Legends
and a young adult in the wetlands adjacent to one of the developments by the golf course. Presently, the area is still
porous enough for animal travel from the Story Hills and the Bridgers, through the Springhill area and surrounding
area.
Increased traffic, and a project of this size cannot but impact wildlife and its movement through this corridor. While
the City may be desirous of expansion, I believe the City also needs to demonstrate some awareness that not all
building sites are equal, and in some situations, it is the responsible step to put less pressure on the urban-wildland
boundary than more. This is a recognized planning restraint in urban planning everywhere where growth starts to
encroach on existing wildlife corridors or habitat. This is not the only urban-wildland situation where the City will
need to exercise wisdom of choice of projects, and perhaps this offers a good opportunity to engage in recognizing
that not stressing wildlife habitat and corridors has much to commend for it. Fewer car accidents, fewer people-
wildlife encounters and familiarization of animals to garbage, yard foliage, and other hazards, and the ever
important maintenance of wildlife corridors.
The city could spend money on a thorough study, or do a questionnaire to all the residents in the area, or simply
apply the science and local knowledge of many organizations and departments to recognize the obvious - this is the
EDGE of town where there is wildlife, and problems with and impacts to wildlife populations will occur. This can
be avoided.
Transportation:
1) It is my understanding the transportation study for this development project was based on traffic numbers
assessed in October, on a single day. However, this Story Mill/Bridger Drive location doesn’t have 12 month
consistency of traffic. One third of the year (Dec-March) has ski traffic which can vary from light to so heavy, cars
have been in a line from Jackson Creek Road to Lamme St. The Canyon Gate project proposes 4000 vehicles a day.
Even if it were 1000 vehicles a day, that high density combined with ski traffic will be a logistical nightmare. The
rural low density of the region works far better with the existence of a ski area.
2) The recent “M” fire highlights the importance of low density again for the urban-rural interface region. Had thewinds shifted, where the fire flew west instead of east and north, a high density project like Canyon Gate wouldhave great challenges for evacuation, of its own residents, and impeding the exit of others in the Legends andsurrounding areas. This is a STRONG argument for Canyon Gate being located along existing arterials that aredesigned for heavy volume of traffic. Putting it in the Story Mill area that has limited egress, has two lane roads, andtrain traffic suggests the safety of residents is either very low priority fort the City, or the standard methods ofassessment have fall short of addressing the reality of this location.
3) The three train crossings are problematic for existing residents, but deciding this specific region is useful for“density” increases the potential for crisis situations exponentially. I believe an average of 1-2 minutes was offeredin the report for wait time. this region doesn’t lend itself to an “average”. Residents have experienced extremelylong delays well over 10 minutes, frequent medium delays of 10 minutes, very frequent smaller delays of 3-10minutes. These delays sometimes back up traffic from Rouse to 7th avenue, completely along Griffin and Oakstreets, which then can impact traffic on 7th Avenue. Train delays typically clog traffic along the length of Rouse,generally to smaller degrees, but sometimes the whole length of the street, impeding traffic from feeder streets.
Given this reality, until over or under passes are built, is it truly wise to add 4000, or even 1000, more trips a daywhich thus increases the number of vehicles at rush hours? Does this not increase the chances greatly from possibleto probable that emergency vehicles will not get to fires or medical emergencies until too late? Is this wise?
4) The Bridger Fault. This is an active fault.
Can the City of Bozeman assure the potential residents and business patrons of Canyon Gate that they areearthquake safe?Do the two lane roads and limited egress provide adequate safe evacuation after such an event? Would theDeveloper be willing to put up bond to assure this? Would the City of Bozeman be able to handle suits? Whatguarantees are there that the buildings will have state of the art earthquake building standards? Would any standards even hold up in this location, or is the City’s Emergency Plan wise in guiding planners TO KEEP THIS REGIONalong the fault LOW density? What would an earthquake do in this high water table, wetlands region? Has there truly been thorough studiespresented to the public to make a case that this region would not be significantly impacted by the Bridger Fault?
5) Conclusion:
I strongly urge the City to deny this project at this location. The Story Mill area has unique geology and geographywhich has served well with its low rural density. It is best treated as an urban-rural buffer zone. I could imagine the University purchasing this land, building 8 low income houses for faculty/grad students in Agriculture, andusing the rest of the land as demonstration gardens, for example. The developer would get his money back, theUniversity would provide much needed lower income housing and the City of Bozeman would gain demonstrationgardens which are a growing endeavor in contemporary urban planning. The area would be spared the many, manyproblems of density imposed on this area.
The Canyon Gate project relocated could serve another area of town very well, without the concerns about traffic,flooding, fire evacuation, train issues, earthquake impacts, and emergency vehicle access time issues.
Not every region in Bozeman is suitable to every project. Rural regions, however close to the expanding city, arenot all convenient, easy, cheap, problem free places to expand into. People who are speaking up against this projectat this location have a a lot of local understanding which could save the City a lot of time and money, and potentiallaw suits as well as headaches. We’’ve seen this nationally, where density put in rural areas that are low lying areasbecomes flooded, where trying to retro-fit density to narrow streets, rather than putting it along arterials, createsmany transportation and emergency access problems, where stressing urban-wildlife boundaries creates negativeimpacts on residents and wildlife, where caution about local issues such as earthquakes is put aside until too late. We have national examples of tragic situations when planning fails to take into account realities of specific
locations.
Thank you for your attention, and thank you for your efforts to gather input from the public. The highest interests
of the City is public safety, and public well-being, and density at this location conflicts with these governmentpriorities.
Sincerely,Ellen TrygstadP.O. Box 4467Bozeman, MT