HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-22 Public Comment - J. McDonald - Proposed Sundance Springs Commercial Development Site Plan 22047From:Jon McDonald
To:Agenda
Cc:Lynn Hyde
Subject:Proposed Sundance Springs Commercial Development Site Plan 22047
Date:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 11:10:17 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.
To:
Planning Department
City of Bozeman
From:
Jon B. McDonald
4437 White Eagle Circle
To whom it may concern with the Bozeman City Commission, the
Bozeman Development Board, the Bozeman Community
Development Directors, and the Bozeman Planning Department :
I am Jon McDonald and I live on White Eagle Circle in the
Sundance Springs Subdivision. I am writing to express my
opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs Commercial
Development, site plan number 22047.
While I accept that commercial development on this site is
inevitable, I oppose the development's requesed departures from
laws describing the City's block frontage sandards. BMC
38.510.020.F.1.d sates "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 sreet."
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 sysem or surrounding residential
neighborhood. Further, an underlying premise of the Block Frontage
Standards is that parking lots along sreets cause a visual impact on
the sreet-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 sreet corner with Little Horse Drive. It
even degrades the trail user's experience by placing parking along the
entire trail sysem to the eas, 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 ft
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 Disrict patrons from
parking on the sreets. The requesed 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 Disrict, as esablished 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 agains the
1992-era B-1 sandard (Chapter 18.28), yard sizes (setbacks) are
inadequate, building sizes are too large, parking is inadequate, and
the building is designed specifcally 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 agains 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 sysem 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 sandards (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 pedesrians safe as commercial areas of the city expand
outward.
Thanks for considering my comment,
Jon B. McDonald