HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-22 Public Comment - K. McBee - Site Plan 22047 - With Staff ResponseFrom:Lynn Hyde
To:Kelly McBee; Agenda
Subject:RE: Site Plan 22047
Date:Wednesday, October 19, 2022 8:43:22 AM
Kelly,
Thank you for your public comment. It has been received and included in the review as well as the
public record. All reviewers, the applicant and public will have access to your comment.
If you have any question please let me know.
Lynn Hyde | Development Review Planner, Community DevelopmentCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771406.579.1471 | lhyde@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net
From: Kelly McBee <kcmcbee@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 8:20 PM
To: Agenda <agenda@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Lynn Hyde <lhyde@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: Site Plan 22047
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 City Commissioners, Members of the Community Development
Board, Community Development Directors, and Planning Department Staff:
Please disallow this proposed site plan as it does not follow the intent of thePUD and disregards multiple requirements
As a member of Ellis View Homeowners Association, I want to emphasize that I
am not opposed to the development of Lot # 2, Sundance Springs Neighborhood
Services. However, the current City of Bozeman Commission must follow the rules
and covenants ordered by the 1990’s era City Commission when the PUD was
adopted.
I am writing to express my concern about Site Plan 22047, which is currently underreview. Overall, the design outlined in the site plan does not reflect therequirements of the site’s covenants, to which the city is a party. The plan is not
compatible with requirements of the Sundance Springs PUD, including the
requirement for sidewalks along the South Third frontage. Finally, the requested
departures from the block frontage standards, which I oppose, do not meet theapproval criteria outlined in the Bozeman Development Code.
Specifically, first, this development bills itself as contributing to the walkability of
our city, yet there is no provision for, or even room allotted for sidewalks to be
installed along South Third Avenue. When development is allowed to proceedwithout sidewalk installation, the future walkability of our city is degraded.
Allowing this development to proceed without sidewalks on South 3rd will prevent
the future continuity of sidewalks in our neighborhood as more land is developed.
Second, both the site covenants and the PUD designate this site’s zoning as B-1Neighborhood Services District, according to the 1992-era zoning. Yet the site plan
is incompatible with both the covenants and the requirements of the Neighborhood
Services District. As a resident of the City of Bozeman, I expect the city to adhereto the orders of the 1990’s era City Commission. In this case, the Commissionordered that the city be a party to the site covenants. Therefore, I expect the city to
follow the requirements of the covenants, and to enforce the covenants per the
authority of BMC 38.100.100.
The current site plan ignores the following requirements of the covenants, whichalso stipulate that the 1992-era zoning requirements are in effect. I ask that these
violations of the covenants and 1992-era B–1 zoning be rectified in the plan before
it is approved:
12. requirements for traditional gable, hip, and shed roofs
13. siding requirements (which preclude buildings with glass walls)
14. maximum building size limits of 5000 square feet.
15. parking requirements outlined in Chapter 18.50 of the 1992-era zoning
16. 25-foot front and 20-foot rear set backs
17. Foundations that are constructed “high” to avoid problems with high groundwater
18. Outdoor lighting design restrictions outlined in the covenants
19. Requirements to design of buildings that avoid the appearance of
commercial development (per the covenants) and maintain residential
character (per B-1 Neighborhood Services District)
Especially disconcerting is the inclusion of a 2000 square-foot patio and otherstructures that would facilitate outdoor business use. The 1992-era B-1Neighborhood Services District set the expectation that all business uses be
confined within buildings. I, as a neighbor who lives within a short distance of this
development, expect those zoning requirements to be enforced to maintain thetranquility and residential character of our neighborhood – which is the stated intent
of the B-1 Neighborhood Services District requirements.
Allowing a 2000 sq ft patio would simply create a source of continuing future
conflict between business owners, who would want to use the patio for outdoor
business purposes, and residential neighbors, who have the right to the undisturbed
peaceful use of our property written into the covenants. Designing a building tosupport outdoor activities under zoning that presumes uses fully enclosed withinbuildings seems disingenuous.
Third, the current block frontage standards of the Municipal Development Code
require that the buildings front the streets and that the parking be behind or to theside of the buildings. The site plan is requesting multiple departures from the blockfrontage standards. I am opposed to the approval of any of these departures on the
grounds that they don’t meet the required approval criteria.
The approval criteria require that the building placement be compatible with the
surrounding area. The buildings are incompatible with the surroundingneighborhood because they do not comply with the design requirements of thecovenants. Allowing these buildings to be placed away from the street will
only compound the incompatibility and magnify the impacts on our
neighborhood because the incompatible buildings will be closer to residencesand will encroach even more on our neighborhood’s open space.
The approval criteria require that any departure improve the character of the
street front. Placing parking lots along 100% of our neighborhood street
frontages, including the corner of South 3rd and Little Horse Drive, represents a
degradation of the street front, especially when considered in comparison to
the alternative intended by the covenants and PUD: a street-front building that
complies with the building design guidance and mandated 1992-era B-1zoning.
In summary, the 1990’s era City Commission ordered that the City of Bozeman is a
party to the covenants associated with the Sundance Springs Commercial lots. In
making this order, the Commissioners expected the city to be bound by applicableterms of the covenants and empowered the city to enforce the covenants. As aresident of the City of Bozeman, I expect the city to abide by the covenants agreed
to by the city in the PUD and exercise its authority to enforce the covenants to
which the developers agreed when they purchased the property. The intent of the
PUD and covenants are clear. Development on this lot is to occur in compliancewith the 1992-era B-1 Neighborhood Services District and other restrictions
outlined in the covenants.
Further, the requested departures from the block frontage standards do not meet the
requirements of being compatible with the surrounding area nor enhancing thecharacter of the street (BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d) and therefore should be denied.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Ellis View Loop Homeowner
Bozeman, MT
Sent from my iPhone