Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-23 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Public Comment for City Commission on Canyon Gate 22264From:Marcia Kaveney To:Agenda Cc:Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Christopher Coburn; Cyndy Andrus; I-Ho Pomeroy Subject:Public Comment for City Commission on Canyon Gate 22264 Date:Tuesday, April 18, 2023 10:54:09 AM Attachments:CG.(2.)Comments 4.18.23.pdf 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 commissioners and planning staff- Please find attached below, my public comment for tonight's city commission on Canyon Gate's preliminary plat- 22264. Please include it in the packet for the city commissioners. Thank you,Marcia Kaveney April 18, 2023 Dear Commissioners, Developed with sensitivity, Canyon Gate could be a pleasant addition to the neighborhood. Unfortunately, in addition to the Northview Easement identified by the planning staff, there are still many other unresolved important issues. Extra attention needs to be paid to help transform Canyon Gate into a development that will not only be truly safe and functional for those living in and around it but also esthetic and complementary to the Bridger CreekLands neighborhood in which it sits. City standards should rise above the minimum standards in this sensitive location prone to floods, wildlife crossings, nearby fire hazard, and nearly one-way traffic patterns. Many questions still need to be asked and answered. And while there seems to be staff confidence that public concerns will get worked out at each stage of the process, there is not a format for the public to have interactions with the staff during their reviews. I submitted many of the following comments/concerns early in the staff review process, but they have not been incorporated. Nor did I ever receive a response to my submissions. Furthermore, the staff review was completed (Feb.13, ‘23) well before the noticed public comment period even opened (Feb. 28,’23), yet it states that public comment was considered. Please consider the following questions and issues in your deliberations tonight 4/18/23 and then decide, has this application truly met a high enough level of adequacy to continue. Or does is need additional conditions of approval? Muni-codes for Flood Mitigation and Tree Preservation: We have codes related to preserving the natural landscape and building appropriately in areas with high water tables or prone to flooding. If many of the following codes in Community Design and Elements (38.410) were observed at a high level, I believe we would not be in the predicament we’re in with neighborhood opposition. Code 38.410.010- General Standards. 2.b. Natural Environment. The design and development of all land uses must be properly related to topography, and must, to the extent possible, preserve the natural terrain, natural drainage, existing topsoil, trees, and other existing vegetation. Question 1. Why are the existing mature trees not being preserved and incorporated into native landscaping or flood mitigation swales? **Please note there are OVER 111 Cottonwood Trees with an 8 inch or greater diameter at breast height (DBH). Most are 12 inches or greater. There are two living trees with 4 foot and 5 foot DBH. There are many additional scattered smaller clusters of Aspens, Cottonwoods, and a few very mature native Rocky Mountain Junipers. Given their size, some of these larger trees are more than 100 years old. If the developer removes them and replants with 2 inch trees, they will not be the same level of maturity within my life span, nor that of my children, or maybe even their children. Additionally, even with excellent care survival rate is low with new plantings. Legends II has already lost approximately 50% of it’s recent natural park plantings. Question 2. Is it acceptable to allow the developer to remove nearly all the mature trees and replace with water thirsty saplings when the city code has measures to prevent it and plans (climate, forestry) that discourage it? Code 38.410.010- General Standards. 2. c. Lands Unsuitable for Development. Land which the city has found to be unsuitable for development because of potential hazards such as flooding, landslides, excessive slope, rock falls, subsidence, high water table, presence of wetlands; or because of unreasonable burdens on the general public such as requirements for the excessive expenditure of public funds, environmental degradation, or congestion in the streets or roads must not be used for building or residential purposes unless the hazards or excessive public burdens are eliminated or will be overcome by appropriate design and construction plans. Slopes of 25 percent or greater are presumed unbuildable unless demonstrated otherwise by the developer. Parts of Canyon Gate are unsuitable for development due to the potential for flooding and high water table. Question 3. Why is the natural flood mitigation NOT being preserved such as what is done in the nearby neighborhoods of Legends and Creekwood? Question 4. What reassurances do the neighbors have that the current plan for flood mitigation will be adequate if there are higher than normal spring runoffs and a rise in the water table? (see Fig. 1 and 2 below.) Figure 1. (Screen Shot from Staff Report Fig. 4). The yellow illustrates the (private) natural storm water mitigation open spaces in Creekwood and Legends II and follows the historic pathways as it flows towards Canyon Gate. Figure 2. (google maps) Figure 2. Shows the existing environment and the historic flood paths. The blue arrow shows where water would historically travel from what is now Legends II Open space/storm water swale toward the Canyon Gate Property. Historically, water would flow down slope from east (6 and 1) to west (7) and would collect in the low-lying areas where the cottonwoods grow. (3 and 4) Code 38.410.080.- Grading and Drainage. H. Stormwater retention/detention facilities in landscaped areas must be designed as landscape amenities. They must be an organic feature with a natural, curvilinear shape. Compare Canyon Gates’ shape of parks and drainage areas with that of Legends and Creekwood in Figure 1. (Above). Note the yellow open space to the east (right) of Canyon Gate (red circle). All the yellow is curvilinear, natural open spaces that are for storm water drainage. (This land is private and maintained by the HOAs. The green spaces are the public parks.) Question 5. Is it acceptable practice for Canyon Gate to install extensive underground pipes to move the floodwater across its property to the adjoining property- while diminishing ground water replenishment? Question 6. Is it acceptable to put the costly and undue burden of maintaining such an extensive flood mitigation plan on the yet to be formed HOA when a simpler above ground option is available? Park Connectivity In the staff report, an under municode 38.220.060.A.14, the staff quote the applicants following statement “The Canyon Gate Park Master Plan was developed to create a pedestrian circulation pattern that invites residents and neighbors to move into and throughout the development. This is accomplished through a linear park system that runs east-west through the center of the site to connect parkland in adjacent neighborhoods to the M Trail, Story Mill Spur Trail, and Story Mill Community Park.” Fig. 3 Screen shot of Fig. 11 from the staff report/application showing the Parks Plan. The black ovals show the connection points needed for connecting to Legends’ city park (upper right) and the Story Mill Spur Trail (west/left). A brief glance at the maps below shows that the proposed parks do not connect to either of these points. Question 7. Shouldn’t Canyon Gates parks connect to other nearby parks and trails if they can? Question 8. Is it acceptable or appropriate that the proposed linear park effectively dead-ends at the neighboring private retention pond rather than connecting to the open space trail in Canyon Gate’s northeast corner? Fig. 3. Screen shot of Parks Plan (staff report). Fig. 4. Areas #1 and #2 in red show trail connections needed that do not adequately exist in preliminary plat. Section 38.420.030. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication. C. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication must be equal to the fair market value of the amount of land that would have been dedicated. The fair market value is the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land after it has been annexed and given a municipal zoning designation. The applicant offers about $260,000 in exchange for 2 ½ acres of park land dedication. This amount of land is worth about $2.5 million dollars in today’s market. Question 9. Isn’t it poor stewardship of the public trust to accept approximately 1/10th of the market value of land instead of the full market value of land as directed by municipal code? Question 10. Doesn’t it make even more sense to require the full dedication of land in a time of rapid privatization of land? B2-M zoning - Is usually reserved for areas arterial corridors, commercial nodes, and/or areas served by transit. Question 11. What access has been approved by MDT and what if this or any approved access is inadequate? Question 12. Where will the anticipate bus stop and shelter be located and are the pullouts or traffic pattern adequate to support public transit? Traffic Calming Needed: With the anticipated 4000 car trips out of Canyon Gate each day, the small local streets next to Canyon Gate should have traffic calming to discourage excessive use of smaller side streets. According to the following code these need to be included on the preliminary plat. Traffic calming. Detailed drawings of any proposed traffic calming installations, including locations and turning radius templates. ( municode Sec. 38.220.060. - Documentation of compliance with adopted standards.i.) Question 13. Can mini-rotaries be placed where Canyon Blvd meets Spirit Crossing and Maiden Spirit? There are more concerns as you have seen from public comment. But hopefully these questions will help with your deliberations tonight. I also hope you will use your authority to raise the standards of development within Canyon Gate. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Marcia Kaveney Bozeman, MT