HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-22 Public Comment - C. Spencer - Sundance Springs Commercial DevelopmentFrom:Cathy Gnehm Spencer
To:Agenda
Cc:Lynn Hyde
Subject:Sundance Springs Commercial Development
Date:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:40:03 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 Whom It May ConcernAs a long time resident of Bozeman and Sundance Springs, I am extremely concerned about
the above mentioned proposed commercial development. Here are some of my thoughts andconcerns, and as an elected official, who works for and is paid by the citizens of this city, I
expect you to listen and be thoughtful in your actions. As a resident of Sundance SpringsSubdivision, I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to the development of Lot # 2,
Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services. However, the current City of BozemanCommission must follow the rules and covenants ordered by the 1990’s era City Commission
when the PUD was adopted.
1. I am writing to express my concern about Site Plan 22047, which is currently under
review. Overall, the design outlined in the site plan does not reflect the requirements ofthe 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 sidewalksalong the South Third frontage. Finally, the requested departures from the block
frontage standards, which I oppose, do not meet the approval criteria outlined in theBozeman Development Code.
Specifically, first, this development bills itself as contributing to the walkability of ourcity, yet there is no provision for, or even room allotted for sidewalks to be installed
along South Third Avenue. When development is allowed to proceed without sidewalkinstallation, the future walkability of our city is degraded. Allowing this development to
proceed without sidewalks on South 3rd will prevent the future continuity of sidewalksin 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 NeighborhoodServices District. As a resident of the City of Bozeman, I expect the city to adhere to
the orders of the 1990’s era City Commission. In this case, the Commission orderedthat 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 BMC38.100.100.
The current site plan ignores the following requirements of the covenants, which alsostipulate 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:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->requirements for traditional gable, hip,and shed roofs
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->siding requirements (which preclude
buildings with glass walls)
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->maximum building size limits of 5000square feet.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->parking requirements outlined in
Chapter 18.50 of the 1992-era zoning
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->25-foot front and 20-foot rear set backs
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]-->Foundations that are constructed“high” to avoid problems with high ground water
<!--[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]-->Outdoor lighting design restrictions
outlined in the covenants
<!--[if !supportLists]-->8. <!--[endif]-->Requirements to design of buildingsthat 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 other structures
that would facilitate outdoor business use. The 1992-era B-1 Neighborhood ServicesDistrict 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 zoningrequirements to be enforced to maintain the tranquility and residential character of our
neighborhood – which is the stated intent of the B-1 Neighborhood Services Districtrequirements.
Allowing a 2000 sq ft patio would simply create a source of continuing future conflictbetween business owners, who would want to use the patio for outdoor business
purposes, and residential neighbors, who have the right to the undisturbed peaceful useof our property written into the covenants. Designing a building to support outdoor
activities under zoning that presumes uses fully enclosed within buildings seemsdisingenuous.
Third, the current block frontage standards of the Municipal Development Code requirethat the buildings front the streets and that the parking be behind or to the side of the
buildings. The site plan is requesting multiple departures from the block frontagestandards. 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 thesurrounding area. The buildings are incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhood 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 neighborhoodbecause the incompatible buildings will be closer to residences and will encroach
even more on our neighborhood’s open space.
The approval criteria require that any departure improve the character of the streetfront. Placing parking lots along 100% of our neighborhood street frontages,
including the corner of South 3rd and Little Horse Drive, represents a degradationof the street front, especially when considered in comparison to the alternative
intended by the covenants and PUD: a street-front building that complies with thebuilding design guidance and mandated 1992-era B-1 zoning.
In summary, the 1990’s era City Commission ordered that the City of Bozeman is aparty to the covenants associated with the Sundance Springs Commercial lots. In
making this order, the Commissioners expected the city to be bound by applicable termsof the covenants and empowered the city to enforce the covenants. As a resident of the
City of Bozeman, I expect the city to abide by the covenants agreed to by the city in thePUD 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 compliance with 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 the characterof the street (BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d) and therefore should be denied.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Cathy Gnehm SpencerMark H Spencer
4112 E Graf Street