HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-22 Public Comment - C. Spencer - Sundance Springs Commercial Development - With Staff ResponseFrom:Lynn Hyde
To:Cathy Gnehm Spencer; Agenda
Subject:RE: Sundance Springs Commercial Development
Date:Thursday, October 27, 2022 11:01:24 AM
Thank you for your public comment. It has been received and included in the review as well as
the public record. All reviewers, the applicant and public will have access to your comment.
If you have any question please let me know.
Lynn Hyde | Development Review Planner, Community DevelopmentCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771406.579.1471 | lhyde@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net
From: Cathy Gnehm Spencer <gnehmspencer@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 10:40 PM
To: Agenda <agenda@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Lynn Hyde <lhyde@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: Sundance Springs Commercial Development
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 aboutthe 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, Iexpect 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 Commissionwhen the PUD was adopted.
1. I am writing to express my concern about Site Plan 22047, which is currently underreview. 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 withrequirements of the Sundance Springs PUD, including the requirement for sidewalksalong the South Third frontage. Finally, the requested departures from the blockfrontage 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 installedalong South Third Avenue. 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 3rd will prevent the futurecontinuity of sidewalks in 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 tothe 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 therequirements 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 violationsof the covenants and 1992-era B–1 zoning be rectified in the plan before it is approved:
1. requirements for traditional gable, hip, and shed roofs
2. siding requirements (which preclude buildings with glass walls)
3. maximum building size limits of 5000 square feet.
4. parking requirements outlined in Chapter 18.50 of the 1992-era zoning
5. 25-foot front and 20-foot rear set backs
6. Foundations that are constructed “high” to avoid problems with highground water
7. Outdoor lighting design restrictions outlined in the covenants
8. Requirements to design of buildings that avoid the appearance ofcommercial development (per the covenants) and maintain residentialcharacter (per B-1 Neighborhood Services District)
Especially disconcerting is the inclusion of a 2000 square-foot patio and otherstructures that would facilitate outdoor business use. The 1992-era B-1 NeighborhoodServices District set the expectation that all business uses be confined withinbuildings. I, as a neighbor who lives within a short distance of this development,expect those zoning requirements to be enforced to maintain the tranquility andresidential character of our neighborhood – which is the stated intent of the B-1Neighborhood Services District requirements.
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 businesspurposes, and residential neighbors, who have the right to the undisturbed peaceful useof our property written into the covenants. Designing a building to support outdooractivities under zoning that presumes uses fully enclosed within buildings seemsdisingenuous.
Third, the current block frontage standards of the Municipal Development Coderequire that the buildings front the streets and that the parking be behind or to the sideof the buildings. The site plan is requesting multiple departures from the blockfrontage standards. I am opposed to the approval of any of these departures on thegrounds that they don’t meet the required approval criteria.
· The approval criteria require that 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 thecovenants. 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 residencesand will encroach even more on our neighborhood’s open space.
· The approval criteria require that any departure improve the character of the
street front. Placing parking lots along 100% of our neighborhood street
frontages, including the corner of South 3rd and Little Horse Drive, represents adegradation of the street front, especially when considered in comparison to thealternative intended by the covenants and PUD: a street-front building thatcomplies with the building design guidance and mandated 1992-era B-1zoning.
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. Inmaking this order, the Commissioners expected the city to be bound by applicableterms of the covenants and empowered the city to enforce the covenants. As a residentof the City of Bozeman, I expect the city to abide by the covenants agreed to by thecity in the PUD and exercise its authority to enforce the covenants to which thedevelopers agreed when they purchased the property. The intent of the PUD andcovenants 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 thecovenants.
Further, the requested departures from the block frontage standards do not meet therequirements of being compatible with the surrounding area nor enhancing thecharacter of 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 Spencer4112 E Graf Street