Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-22 Public Comment - J. Mills - Public Comment on Site Plan 22047_ Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot #2 DevelopmentFrom:John Mills To:Agenda Cc:Lynn Hyde; John Mills Subject:Public Comment on Site Plan 22047: Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot #2 Development Date:Wednesday, October 26, 2022 1:21:08 PM Attachments:John Mills 22047 Public Comments_10262022.pdf 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 Concern, Please find attached my comments about the subject Site Plan for distribution to members of the Bozeman City Commission, the Community Development Board, the CommunityDevelopment Directors and Planning Department Staff. Please let me know if you have any questions. John Mills -- John Mills Home 406-587-6379Cell 406-599-4190 To October 26,2022 Bozeman City Commission Bozeman Community Development Board Bozeman Community Development Directors Bozeman City Planning Department (all via emailto aqenda@bozeman.net and cc to lhvde@bozeman.net) From: John A. Mills, Bozeman, MT (sent via email from iammer.mills@qmail.com) RE: Public Comment on Site Plan22047: Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot#2 Development Dear City Commissioners, Members of the Community Development Board, Community Development Directors, and Planning Department Staff, As a resident of Sundance Springs Subdivision for over 17 years, I support reasonable development of Lot#2, Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services. I am writing to express my concerns about Site Plan 22047, which is currently under review. Overall, the design outlined in the site plan does not reflect the requirements of the site's covenants established in the 1990's, to which the city is a parly. The plan is not compatible with requirements of the Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development (PUD), including the requirement for sidewalks along the South Third frontage. Additionally, the developer's requested departures from the block frontage standards, which I oppose, do not meet the approvalcriteria outlined in the Bozeman Development Code. Concems Discussion The development project narrative says, "the goal of the proposed development is to be a neighborhood stop with easy pedestrian access", contributing to the walkability of our city. However, there is no provision for, or even room allotted for sidewalks to be installed along South ThirdAvenue. When development is allowed to proceed withoutsidewalk installation, the future walkability of our city is degraded. Allowing this development to proceed without sidewalks on South Third will inhibit the future continuity of sidewalks in our neighborhood as more land is developed. Both the site covenants and the PUD designate this site's zoning as B-1 Neighborhood Services District, according to the 1992-era zoning. Yet the site plan is incompatible with both the covenants and the requirements of the Neighborhood Services 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. ln this case, the Commission ordered that the city be a party to the site covenants. Therefore,l expect the City Commissioners to follow the requirements of the covenants, and to enforce the covenants per the authority of BMC 38.100.100. The current site plan ignores the following requirements of the covenants, which also stipulate that the 1992-era zoning requirements are in effect. I ask that these violations of the covenants and 1992-eraB-l zoning be rectified in the plan before it is approved: Requirements for traditional gable, hip, and shed roofu . Siding requirements (which preclude buildings with glass walls)o Maximum building size limits of 5,000 square feet. Parking requirements outlined in Chapter 18.50 of the 1992-era zoningo Twenty-five-foot front and 20-foot rear setbacks. Foundations that are constructed "high" to avoid problems with high ground watero Outdoor lighting design restrictions outlined in the covenants. Requirements to design of buildings that avoid the appearance of commercial development (per the covenants) and maintain residential character (per B-1 Neighborhood Services District) Especially conceming is the inclusion of a 2,000 square-foot patio and other structures that would facilitate outdoor business use. The 1992-era B-1 Neighborhood Services District stipulated that all business uses be confined within buildings. Being a neighbor who lives within a short distance of this development, I expect those zoning requirements to be enforced to maintain the tranquility and residential charac'ter of our neighborhood - which is the stated intent of the B-1 Neighborhood Services District requirements. Allowing a 2,000 square-foot patio would simply create a sour@ of continuing future conflict between business owners wanting to use the patio for outdoor business purposes, and residential neighbors, who have the right to the undisturbed peaceful use of our property written into the covenants. Given the cunent tranquil nature and character of Sundance Springs, I am concerned external business activities will create noise that will travel to our home, and especially to those of our neighbors who reside closer to Lot #2. Additionally, designing a building to support outdoor business activities under zoning that presumes uses are fully enclosed within buildings is hypocritical. The cunent block frontage standards of the Municipal Development Code require that 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 frontage standards. I am opposed to the approval of any of these departures since they don't meet the required approval criteria. The approval criteria require: The building placement be compatible with the surrounding area. The buildings are incompatible with the surounding neighborhood because they do not comply with the design requirements of the covenants. Allcrurring these buildings to be placed away from the street will only compound the incompatibility and magniff the impacts on our neighborhood because the incompatible buildings will be closer to residences and will encroach even more on our neighborhood's open space. Any departure improves the character of the street fiont. Placing parking lots along 100% of our neighborhood street frontages, including the comer of South Third and Little Horse Drive, represents a degradation of the street front, especially when considered in comparison to the alternative intended by the covenants and PUD. That is, a street-fiont building that complies with the building design guidance and mandated 1992-era B-1 zoning. The proposed plan also states that the site design provides 24 tewer parking spaces than the expected demand. This will lead to spillover parking onto Little Horse, Peace Pipe Drive, and South Third. No consideration is given to the fact that residential street parking from this lot was specifically prohibited by the City Commissioners as a condition when approving the Sundance Springs subdivision. I am especially concerned about this since our residentialstreets are very narrow, creating a safety hazard should the plan be approved as submitted. Summarv The 1990's era City Commission ordered that the City of Bozeman is a party to the covenants associated with the Sundance Springs Commercial lots. ln making this order, the Commissioners expected the city to be bound by applicable terms of the covenants and empowered the city to enforce the covenants. As a Bozeman City resident, I expect the city to abide by the covenants agreed to by the city when the PUD was approved 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+;ra B-1 Neighborhood Services District and other restrictions outlined in the covenants. The requested departures from the block frontage standards do not meet the requirements of being compatible with the sunounding area nor enhance the character of the street (BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d) and therefore should be denied. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, 74- Q' 24u4'J John A. Mills 418 Peace Pipe Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 JAM/mtf