Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-19 Protest - L. Sundeen - AC Hotel by MarriottFrom:Leif Sundeen To:Danielle Garber; Agenda Subject:Revised Application 19078 - AC Hotel Site Plan - PROTEST Date:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 1:39:19 PM Attachments:AC_Hotel_Application_19078_Revision_A .pdf Provided below is my letter in protest of the revised AC Hotel Site Plan. I have also attached a PDF version. Sincerely, Leif. Leif Sundeen 5 E. Lamme St. Bozeman, MT 59715 City of Bozeman Department of Community Development c/o Planner Garber PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Application #19078 - AC Hotel Site Plan and CCOA + Dem To Whom It May Concern: This letter is an updated protest and public comment to Application #19078 known as the “AC Hotel Site Plan and CCOA + Dem”. This updated protest and public comment are in regard to the updated revision publicly noticed on October 7, 2019. Off-Street Loading and Berthing Requirements (Sec 38.540.080) Municipal code Sec. 38.540.080 has a requirement for hotels with restaurants to provide off street truck loading and unloading. This application states 89,400 sq. ft. of space. At minimum 2 Berths are required. I do not see on the site plans any accommodation for meeting this requirement. Furthermore the code requirements are: 1. 70’ for the first berth and 45’ for the second berth. Looking at the site plan I do not know where they would accommodate for 115’ of berthing. 2. All loading berths must be at least 12 feet in width and 14 feet in height, exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space (38.540.080 – B-1). I do not see on the site plan where there is a 12’ berthing width. Off-Site Parking (Sec 38.540.070) The revised application, proposes moving parking to utilize the Medical Arts Building Parking. I have following protests to be addressed: 1. The applicant is saying the proposed route would be 996’ from the principal entrance to the nearest parking spot. This distance is within 4’ of the maximum and I would ask for 3rd party verification that the distance from the nearest parking to the principal entrance is within 1000’. 2. The proposed lease “Medical Arts Building Partners LLC” as proposed, doesn’t meet the requirement of Sec. 38.540.070 – 6. The lease doesn’t spell out it’s a long term lease and that it’s for “the term of the designated use”. I would ask the lease agreement be updated meet the explicit language of the code. 3. Are the Medical Arts parking spots available? The applicant is stating available parking predicated on current code calculations. It is my understanding the code calculations that should be used are what were put into place when the Medical Arts Building was developed and not current codes. Based on that need, there may be less than 86 spots available. 4. I went to the zoning commission hearing for the Medical Arts Building on September 3rd, 2019. At that meeting the Medical Arts Building Partners LLC were requesting a rezoning of the proposed lot from R4 to B3. From my recollection they explicitly stated, there were no near term planned reuses of the property. Further they stated they have plans for redevelopment after the last lease expires in 2025. I have 2 issues: a. They publicly stated they had no plans for reuse, which is not the case and therefore mislead the zoning commission. b. How will parking integrity be maintained if they redevelop the Medical Arts Building site in 2025 and/or before the end of the designated use of this site? Loading Zone Loading Spaces I have two issues with proposed loading spaces: 1. The number of loading spaces. 2. The width of the street. The traffic study by Marvin and Associates states that at minimum 3 spaces are needed and 4 would meet all current and future capacity. I would ask that the applicant provide 4 spaces for the following reasons: a. Since there is no onsite parking and verbiage suggest the use of a shuttle van, accommodation should be made for a shuttle van space and the expected dwell times that will be longer. The study says that a Billings hotel utilized 4 spots which one was for the shuttle van. b. There is no ADA accommodation space. ADA users may have longer dwell times that impact the expected average service time. c. The study indicates on page 6 an average use need of 2 spots and peak demand of 4 spots. During peak times of conferences and check in and check out, there may not be enough spots. The intersection is already noted as a possible “D” level intersection, and during peak times the intersection could fail. Per my first public comment, I have concerns over the width of Tracy Avenue. The applicant has submitted a plan to widen to 33’. Per the engineering guidelines I obtained from city engineering, the ideal width for this type of use and street would be 35’. Given that there was a new development at 5 W. Mendenhall and now 5 E. Mendenhall this is an opportunity to widen the road to current street standards. Valet Parking The applicant submitted in their application the intent to use valet parking as the primary method for dealing with parking. I have the following issues with the parking design as proposed: 1. The traffic study assumes use of 2 attendant valets to meet the service levels that would necessitate only needing 3 loading spaces. Without valet parking the proposed model does not work. I would ask that as a requirement of obtaining a CCOA, that the applicant will provide a service level of valet parking as prescribed in the traffic study for the duration of its designated use. 2. The parking study assume a “conservative” approach by assuming 100% valet. I would argue this is the liberal approach as it leads to the lowest number of trips around the neighborhood. It is admitted in the parking study, that not everyone is going to use valet parking and will “self-park”. I see no study on the expected impact of “self-parking” and how “free” public street parking would be impacted. I ask that an impact study of public street parking be conducted. 3. I reiterate that there is no onsite parking. I do not understand how ADA, delivery, and shuttle parking will be accommodated for. I would like that detailed out. Traffic Flow and Intersection Requirements The traffic study on page 5 states that the North bound approach to Tracy off of Mendenhall would have a marginal LOS “D” assuming that valet parking is used. At best case, the traffic engineer is saying this is a D intersection. This is also assuming only a 5% growth over the next 15 years in traffic in a community that is growing at over 3% a year. I find his analysis optimistic. I would ask for reevaluation of the Tracy and Mendenhall intersection for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic to determine if this intersection is going to remain a “D” and whether the intersection needs to be developer upgraded to meet future service levels. Leif Sundeen 5 E. Lamme St. Bozeman, MT 59715 City of Bozeman Department of Community Development c/o Planner Garber PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Application #19078 - AC Hotel Site Plan and CCOA + Dem To Whom It May Concern: This letter is an updated protest and public comment to Application #19078 known as the “AC Hotel Site Plan and CCOA + Dem”. This updated protest and public comment are in regard to the updated revision publicly noticed on October 7, 2019. Off-Street Loading and Berthing Requirements (Sec 38.540.080) Municipal code Sec. 38.540.080 has a requirement for hotels with restaurants to provide off street truck loading and unloading. This application states 89,400 sq. ft. of space. At minimum 2 Berths are required. I do not see on the site plans any accommodation for meeting this requirement. Furthermore the code requirements are: 1. 70’ for the first berth and 45’ for the second berth. Looking at the site plan I do not know where they would accommodate for 115’ of berthing. 2. All loading berths must be at least 12 feet in width and 14 feet in height, exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space (38.540.080 – B-1). I do not see on the site plan where there is a 12’ berthing width. Off-Site Parking (Sec 38.540.070) The revised application, proposes moving parking to utilize the Medical Arts Building Parking. I have following protests to be addressed: 1. The applicant is saying the proposed route would be 996’ from the principal entrance to the nearest parking spot. This distance is within 4’ of the maximum and I would ask for 3rd party verification that the distance from the nearest parking to the principal entrance is within 1000’. 2. The proposed lease “Medical Arts Building Partners LLC” as proposed, doesn’t meet the requirement of Sec. 38.540.070 – 6. The lease doesn’t spell out it’s a long term lease and Leif Sundeen 5 E. Lamme St. Bozeman, MT 59715Page 2 Application #19078 - AC Hotel Site Plan and CCOA + Dem Revision A Leif Sundeen that it’s for “the term of the designated use”. I would ask the lease agreement be updated meet the explicit language of the code. 3. Are the Medical Arts parking spots available? The applicant is stating available parking predicated on current code calculations. It is my understanding the code calculations that should be used are what were put into place when the Medical Arts Building was developed and not current codes. Based on that need, there may be less than 86 spots available. 4. I went to the zoning commission hearing for the Medical Arts Building on September 3rd, 2019. At that meeting the Medical Arts Building Partners LLC were requesting a rezoning of the proposed lot from R4 to B3. From my recollection they explicitly stated, there were no near term planned reuses of the property. Further they stated they have plans for redevelopment after the last lease expires in 2025. I have 2 issues: a. They publicly stated they had no plans for reuse, which is not the case and therefore mislead the zoning commission. b. How will parking integrity be maintained if they redevelop the Medical Arts Building site in 2025 and/or before the end of the designated use of this site? Loading Zone Loading Spaces I have two issues with proposed loading spaces: 1. The number of loading spaces. 2. The width of the street. The traffic study by Marvin and Associates states that at minimum 3 spaces are needed and 4 would meet all current and future capacity. I would ask that the applicant provide 4 spaces for the following reasons: a. Since there is no onsite parking and verbiage suggest the use of a shuttle van, accommodation should be made for a shuttle van space and the expected dwell times that will be longer. The study says that a Billings hotel utilized 4 spots which one was for the shuttle van. b. There is no ADA accommodation space. ADA users may have longer dwell times that impact the expected average service time. c. The study indicates on page 6 an average use need of 2 spots and peak demand of 4 spots. During peak times of conferences and check in and check out, there may not be enough spots. The intersection is already noted as a possible “D” level intersection, and during peak times the intersection could fail. Per my first public comment, I have concerns over the width of Tracy Avenue. The applicant has submitted a plan to widen to 33’. Per the engineering guidelines I obtained from city engineering, the ideal width for this type of use and street would be 35’. Given that there was a new Leif Sundeen 5 E. Lamme St. Bozeman, MT 59715Page 3 Application #19078 - AC Hotel Site Plan and CCOA + Dem Revision A Leif Sundeen development at 5 W. Mendenhall and now 5 E. Mendenhall this is an opportunity to widen the road to current street standards. Valet Parking The applicant submitted in their application the intent to use valet parking as the primary method for dealing with parking. I have the following issues with the parking design as proposed: 1. The traffic study assumes use of 2 attendant valets to meet the service levels that would necessitate only needing 3 loading spaces. Without valet parking the proposed model does not work. I would ask that as a requirement of obtaining a CCOA, that the applicant will provide a service level of valet parking as prescribed in the traffic study for the duration of its designated use. 2. The parking study assume a “conservative” approach by assuming 100% valet. I would argue this is the liberal approach as it leads to the lowest number of trips around the neighborhood. It is admitted in the parking study, that not everyone is going to use valet parking and will “self-park”. I see no study on the expected impact of “self-parking” and how “free” public street parking would be impacted. I ask that an impact study of public street parking be conducted. 3. I reiterate that there is no onsite parking. I do not understand how ADA, delivery, and shuttle parking will be accommodated for. I would like that detailed out. Traffic Flow and Intersection Requirements The traffic study on page 5 states that the North bound approach to Tracy off of Mendenhall would have a marginal LOS “D” assuming that valet parking is used. At best case, the traffic engineer is saying this is a D intersection. This is also assuming only a 5% growth over the next 15 years in traffic in a community that is growing at over 3% a year. I find his analysis optimistic. I would ask for reevaluation of the Tracy and Mendenhall intersection for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic to determine if this intersection is going to remain a “D” and whether the intersection needs to be developer upgraded to meet future service levels.