HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-22 Public Comment - T. Steinmetz - site plan 22047From:TODD STEINMETZ
To:Agenda
Subject:site plan 22047
Date:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 2:34:31 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.
Dear Planning Department City of Bozeman,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs Commercial
Development, site plan number 22047. I do want to convey I am not opposed to a commercial
development, just all the violations of the current proposed plan
I 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. There is no
indication for the buildings to be placed in any other location than on South Third Avenue.
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. In addition, the buildings are a flat roof design
and do not blend into the character of the neighborhood since every house in the area has
pitched roofs (gable, hip, or shed). These buildings have no residential character.
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 considering my comment.
Dr Todd Steinmetz
3760 Ellis View Loop
Bozeman, MT 59715