HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-22 Public Comment - M. Sadowski - Proposed Sundance Springs Commercial development (Site Plan #22047)From:MARY SADOWSKI
To:Agenda
Subject:Proposed Sundance Springs Commercial development (Site Plan #22047)
Date:Monday, October 24, 2022 5:02:07 PM
Attachments:footer-toast-published-image-1.png
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:
Mary Ann Sadowski
4449 White Eagle Circle
Bozeman, MT 59715
Hello, as a resident of Sundance Springs I am concerned with the
proposed development (site plan number 22047) and want to express my
opposition to this commercial development. As an avid user of the trail
system, the proposed development is not compatible with the character
of the area. Given my home is directly east of Little Horse Road, any
overflow from the insufficient parking plan will impact the safety of the
road as well. Sundance Springs discourages any parking on it’s roads.
The visual impact and of cars parked on Little Horse, plus increased
traffic and noise are worrisome.
I am fully in agreement with the comments below and submit them as
part of my objection.The City has a legal obligation to Bozeman
Residents to follow the existing laws regarding development and to
mitigate unsightly, inappropriate use of this land. I bought my house
understanding that any commercial development would be held to
stringent standards, do the right thing and adhere to the intended use of
this land that is smack next door to resident’s homes and a crucial part of
the Main Street to Mountains trail system.
While I accept that commercial development on this site is inevitable, I
POWERED BY
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 to 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, I would ask that a provision for sidewalks along the South 3rd
frontage 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 until such time as the site plan complies
with the 1992-era zoning requirements (without conditional uses) and the
block frontage standards (without departure), parking for proposed
buildings can be contained on site (as required by the City Commission),
and sidewalks are included on South Third Ave, to keep pedestrians safe
as commercial areas of the city expand outward.
Thanks for reading these comments and again, please, protect our
neighborhood by following the intended guidelines.
Mary Ann Sadowski