HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-22 Public Comment - S. Mills - Public Comment on Site Plan 22047 - Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot #2 DevelopmentFrom:Sue Mills
To:Agenda
Cc:Lynn Hyde; Sue Mills
Subject:Public Comment on Site Plan 22047 - Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot #2 Development
Date:Wednesday, October 26, 2022 1:32:49 PM
Attachments:Susan 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.
Susan Mills
-- Sue Mills
To:
October 26,2022
Bozeman City Commission
Bozeman Community Development Board
Bozeman Community Development Directors
Bozeman City Planning Department
(all via emailto asenda@bozeman.net and cc to lhvde@bozeman.net)
From: Susan K. Mills, Bozeman, MT
(sent via email from skmmills@qmail.com)
RE: Public Comment on Site Plan 22O47: 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 My
following comments align with those submitted this date by my husband John A. Mills.
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 party. 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 goalof the proposed development is to be a
neighborhood stop with easy pedestrian ac@ss", contributing to the walkability of our city.
However, there is no provision for, or even room allotted for sidewalks to be installed along
South Third Avenue. \Mren development is allowed to proceed without sidewalk installation, the
future walkability of our city is degraded. Allowing this development to proceed without
sidewalks on South Third witl inhibitthe future continuig 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, lexpectthe 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, I 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 atso stipulate
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:
. Requirements for traditional gable, hip, and shed roobo 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 2A-foot rear setbackso Foundations that are constructed "high" to avoid problems with high ground waterr 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 character 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 properly 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 current block frontage standards of the Municipal Developrnent 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:
o The building placement be compatible with the surrounding area. The buildings are
incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood because they do not comply with the
design requirements of the covenants- Allowing these buildings to be placed away from
the street will only compound the incompatibility and magnify 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 front. Placing parking lots along 1O0o/o
of our neighborhood street frontages, including the corner 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-front
building that complies with the building design guidance and mandated 1992-era B-1
zoning.
o
The proposed plan also states that the site design provides Zffewer parking spaces than the
expected demand. This will lead to spillover parking onto Litfle 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 sinoe our residential streets are very
narroq 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-era B-1 Neighborhood Services District and other restrictions ouflined
in the covenants.
The requested departures from the block frontage standards do not meet the requirements of
being compatible with the surrounding 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,
,fuaaozruru
Susan K. Mills
418 Peace Pipe Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
SKM/mtf