Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-23 Public Comment - E. Trygstad - Additional information_Fwd_ Comments on Consent Item F2 for City Commission Mtng 5_16From:Ellen Trygstad To:Agenda Subject:Additional information:Fwd: Comments on Consent Item F2 for City Commission Mtng 5/16 Date:Tuesday, May 16, 2023 10:39:23 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. Sorry - in this email of 5/15, I hit send before listing the final item missing a waiver. Enclosed in this email at end. Begin forwarded message: From: Ellen Trygstad <eltjupiter@gmail.com>Subject: Comments on Consent Item F2 for City Commission Mtng 5/16 Date: May 15, 2023 at 10:56:44 PM MDT To: agenda@bozeman.net TO Whom it may concern: I, and hundreds of others, have written to the City with concerns about theproposed Canyon Gate subdivision. Not only are these significant safety concernsnot addressed by either developer or the City with studies and factual informationto assure the public that these concerns need not be concerns, but the applicationappears to have a lack of full compliance with the “Codes of Compliance andDesign Standards”. Where are the waivers for un-met codes such as: Code 38.220.060 A.5. Protective Measures. b. “Describe measures to protect treesand critical plant communities. One does not find reference to this by the applicant in the applicationnarrative. Planting 102 new trees to replace 111 removed existing trees doesn’tsound like protecting trees to me. In fact, cottonwoods, which are the existingtrees, have a very specific role in a wetland ecology. This area has a very highwater table and is adjacent or near several creeks and even housing exists thatreceives groundwater in the basements due to the high water table. The projectplans to have pads to build buildings and no crawl spaces, so the developer andcity are clearly aware of the water issues. What will be the impact of nocottonwoods on the water table and water control in the region? How about onadjacent properties? Code 38.220.060 A.6.Wildlife. d. Protective Measures. “Describe measures toprotect or enhance wildlife habitat or minimize degradation…” This is a wildlife corridor. Changing the acreage to “City” property from“County” property doesn’t change this. It is obvious this proposed buildinglocation is a flow through area for animals - moose and deer especially.The applicant has not discussed this in the application narrative. The City has notprovided any scientific, biological or ecological study in its planner summery. Finally, an additional piece of information may be missing from theapplication: Under the City of Bozeman emergency preparednessplan/earthquakes, there is a reference in a search list “DesignCriteria” to a category for Seismic Design Category, in which itemone specifies a [requirement ?] for a determination of “earthquakespectral response acceleration”, and items 4 and 5 seem to follow upwith more specifications. I know zero about this subject, but I don’trecall any reference to any such seismic determination in the recentsummary report of the planners regarding the proposed Canyon Gatedevelopment. No reference has been made to the Bozeman Emergency Preparedness Planswhich in former decades have warned of the eminent danger of the Bridger Fault,and the need to maintain low density and building standards to high qualityearthquake codes. Yet I believe 400 compact dwellings are proposed in additionto commercial use in an area that appears to be on the edge of the Bridger Fault?Why is this disregarded? Where are the descriptions of the state of the artearthquake standards that will assure the purchasers of buildings that they aresafe? Are buildings on pads, with no crawl spaces and no basements earthquakesafe? Where is the data to assure the public this project is being built to thehighest earthquake standards? GIVEN significant missing information from the Canyon Gate application whichis critical for assuring the stability of neighboring property value, for validjustification for this project, for assessment of public safety, and for the requiredfollowing of the rules of application and design standards, I request that the item#2. Canyon Gate PP be removed from the consent list and brought back fordiscussion. To my understanding, originally this project was not unanimously approved at theoutset, and for many good reasons. Yet it has been moved forward with oddincentives such as offering 60 low-income living spaces as a key justification forits many negative impacts on not only the immediate area and neighbors, butRouse Avenue, Griffen and Bridger Drives. These impacts include, I believe,4000 increased daily car trips, which in turn, given the many slow trains, and theDec-April ski traffic on powder days, as well as “rush hour”, will greatlyincreased backed up traffic, on top of proven and existing backed up trafficimpeding not only arterials, but side streets. The solution is not putting this heavytraffic project in this location. The traffic quantity will not be solved by the lightjust installed.. Additionally, apparently a recent study has assessed that the cost of dwellings willbe 120% of the median Bozeman average. This is NOT low-income. What IS thejustification of this project over 400 people have objected to? B. 38.410.010. General Standards. Natural environment. The design and development of all land uses must be properlyrelated to topography, and must, to the extent possible, preserve the natural terrain, natural drainage, existing topsoil, trees and other existing vegetation. The Applicant has, in the application, has stated the use of pipes instead of naturaldrainage, for flood mitigation. Why” and where is the waiver for not using naturaldrainage as required. The standard actually uses the word MUST. Pipes can breakin significant earth movement cause by earthquakes. This makes earthquakeimpact very concerning. Additionally, pipes for septic material and generalhousehold discharge so close to the E. Gallatin is Very Very concerning, andlikely dangerous from both an ecological and public health situation, especiallyconsidering the size of the project. We don’t even know what kind of CommercialUse is proposed - what discharge from these types of places would go into“pipes”? Also, this standard requires the cottonwoods be preserved. I believe someone on the developerteam stated were messy. In that case, the developer should have bought land OTHER than thisland. I’m tired of having the rules that are set up arbitrarily broken, or by the county and city,arbitrarily “waived” for developer convenience. If the developer doesn’t like cottonwoods, heshouldn’t have bought this land. Increasingly, public faith is upended when developers aren’t held to the line like the rest of us.We don’t even know what variances or exceptions they will ask for after approval becauseapparently, these things, I believe, can be asked for AFTER approval. So much for alertingthe public act to what to expect. Very frustrating. Please have the courage to thoroughly re-examine the problems of thisproject in THIS location, and their real impacts on the region. This project could be putelsewhere and thus eliminate the very real impacts local people have been bringing up. Peopletake the time to write letters and show up at meetings because they have Real Concerns. Please honor this by at least removing item #2 from the consent list and bringing it “back fordiscussion”. I think this should be a heartfelt and serious discussion about the many seriousproblems of this proposed project. Thank you very much,Sincerely,Ellen TrygstadBozeman, MT. From:Ellen Trygstad To:Agenda Subject:Comments on Consent Item F2 for City Commission Mtng 5/16 Date:Monday, May 15, 2023 10:56:53 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 Whom it may concern: I, and hundreds of others, have written to the City with concerns about the proposed Canyon Gate subdivision. Not only are these significant safety concerns not addressed by eitherdeveloper or the City with studies and factual information to assure the public that these concerns need not be concerns, but the application appears to have a lack of full compliancewith the “Codes of Compliance and Design Standards”. Where are the waivers for un-met codes such as: Code 38.220.060 A.5. Protective Measures. b. “Describe measures to protect trees and criticalplant communities. One does not find reference to this by the applicant in the application narrative. Planting 102 new trees to replace 111 removed existing trees doesn’t sound like protecting trees to me.In fact, cottonwoods, which are the existing trees, have a very specific role in a wetland ecology. This area has a very high water table and is adjacent or near several creeks and evenhousing exists that receives groundwater in the basements due to the high water table. The project plans to have pads to build buildings and no crawl spaces, so the developer and city areclearly aware of the water issues. What will be the impact of no cottonwoods on the water table and water control in the region? How about on adjacent properties? Code 38.220.060 A.6.Wildlife. d. Protective Measures. “Describe measures to protect orenhance wildlife habitat or minimize degradation…” This is a wildlife corridor. Changing the acreage to “City” property from “County”property doesn’t change this. It is obvious this proposed building location is a flow through area for animals - moose and deer especially.The applicant has not discussed this in the application narrative. The City has not provided any scientific, biological or ecological study in its planner summery. Finally, an additional piece of information may be missing from the application:Under the City of Bozeman emergency preparedness plan/earthquakes, there is a reference in a search list “Design Criteria” to a category for Seismic DesignCategory, in which item one specifies a [requirement ?] for a determination of “earthquake spectral response acceleration”, and items 4 and 5 seem to follow upwith more specifications. I know zero about this subject, but I don’t recall any reference to any such seismic determination in the recent summary report of theplanners regarding the proposed Canyon Gate development. No reference has been made to the Bozeman Emergency Preparedness Plans which in former decades have warned of the eminent danger of the Bridger Fault, and the need to maintain lowdensity and building standards to high quality earthquake codes. Yet I believe 400 compact dwellings are proposed in addition to commercial use in an area that appears to be on the edgeof the Bridger Fault? Why is this disregarded? Where are the descriptions of the state of the art earthquake standards that will assure the purchasers of buildings that they are safe? Arebuildings on pads, with no crawl spaces and no basements earthquake safe? Where is the data to assure the public this project is being built to the highest earthquake standards? GIVEN significant missing information from the Canyon Gate application which is critical forassuring the stability of neighboring property value, for valid justification for this project, for assessment of public safety, and for the required following of the rules of application anddesign standards, I request that the item #2. Canyon Gate PP be removed from the consent list and brought back for discussion. To my understanding, originally this project was not unanimously approved at the outset, andfor many good reasons. Yet it has been moved forward with odd incentives such as offering 60low-income living spaces as a key justification for its many negative impacts on not only theimmediate area and neighbors, but Rouse Avenue, Griffen and Bridger Drives. These impactsinclude, I believe, 4000 increased daily car trips, which in turn, given the many slow trains,and the Dec-April ski traffic on powder days, as well as “rush hour”, will greatly increasedbacked up traffic, on top of proven and existing backed up traffic impeding not only arterials,but side streets. The solution is not putting this heavy traffic project in this location. The trafficquantity will not be solved by the light just installed.. Additionally, apparently a recent study has assessed that the cost of dwellings will be 120% ofthe median Bozeman average. This is NOT low-income. What IS the justification of thisproject over 400 people have objected to? The described pipes, instead of natural drainage, for flood mitigation makes earthquake impactvery concerning. Additionally, pipes for septic material and general household discharge soclose to the E. Gallatin is Very Very concerning, and likely dangerous from both an ecologicaland public health situation, especially considering the size of the project. We don’t even knowwhat kind of Commercial Use is proposed - what discharge from these types of places wouldgo into “pipes”?