Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-22 Public Comment - C. Ostby - Sundance Springs Commercial Development, Site plan number 22047From:Carolyn Ostby To:Agenda Subject:Sundance Springs Commercial Development, Site plan number 22047 Date:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:38:46 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: Planning Department City of Bozeman From: Carolyn Ostby PO Box 1247 Bozeman, 59771 I write to express my strong opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047. I am surprised and disappointed that the city would entertain such a departure from the character of the neighborhood. I do not live in the Sundance Springs neighborhood, so this is not a "NIMBY" comment. But I do frequently walk on the trails in the area of the proposed brewery and patio - at least several times each week. It is one of the few relatively open spaces in the area with trails that are quiet and tranquil. This development would destroy healthful opportunities for outdoor exercise for me and other Bozeman residents and degrade our quality of life in our community. It will require driving out of town to enjoy the quiet, natural beauty of our environment, rather than ensuring walkability in town. I also oppose the development's requested departures from laws describing the City's block frontage standards. BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d states "Departures may be considered provided the location and front orientation of the buildings are compatible with the character of the area and enhance the character of the street." Site plan 22047 meets neither criterion. Placing large commercial buildings along the designated open space is not compatible with the tranquil character of the trail system or surrounding residential neighborhood. Further, an underlying premise of the Block Frontage Standards is that parking lots along streets cause a visual impact on the street-scape, even if mitigated with a berm (BMC 38.510.030.C.3.c). Proposal 22047 places parking along the entire South 3rd frontage, on the street corner with Little Horse Drive. It even degrades the trail user's experience by placing parking along the entire trail system to the east, without incorporating mitigating landscaping. The plan would therefore degrade the character of South Third Avenue, not to mention the trails. The proposed buildings have a higher parking demand than will fit on the site. In the 1996 Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission, which created the PUD, the City Commissioners explicitly forbade Neighborhood Services District patrons from parking on the streets. The requested reduction in parking requirements from 68 spaces to 44 spaces may be allowed under current zoning, but is incompatible with the City Commission's order regarding this site. I would ask that any development on this site meet its full parking demand in order to comply with the Commission's Order. The site plan fails to live up to the Planned Urban Development governing the site, which incorporates zoning under the 1992-era B-1 Neighbors Service District, as established by the Planning Department in its October 1, 2020 Development Review Comments. The PUD therefore requires a small commercial development, residential in character. When site plan 22047 is weighed against the 1992-era B-1 standard (Chapter 18.28), yard sizes (setbacks) are inadequate, building sizes are too large, parking is inadequate, and the building is designed specifically to house a disallowed business use (a brewery). Overall the character of the development fails to meet the legal intent of the 1992-era B-1 zoning law (18.28.010) -- to maintain the residential character of the area. I am especially concerned about the provision for large patio space which will support outdoor business uses on the site. The 1992-era B-1 zoning prohibits outdoor business use on the site as a principal use. I am against any conditional use or other permission that might be granted by the city that would allow for outdoor business use or alcohol consumption on the site because such uses are not compatible with the tranquil nature of the open spaces and residential areas adjacent to the lot. The proposed patios are decidedly incompatible with the character of the trail system and surrounding neighborhood. Finally, a provision for sidewalks along the South 3rd frontage should be enforced before approval of the site plan. This is a requirement of note 5 on the Sundance Spring Subdivision Phase 1B Final Plat and by the 1996 Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission that created the Sundance Springs Subdivision. Allowing development to proceed without sidewalks defeats the intention of making our city a walkable one. Please deny application 22047. Thanks for considering my comment.