The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-27-22 Public Comment - D. Beeman - per your requestFrom:Lynn Hyde To:Agenda Cc:Don Beeman Subject:FW: per your request Date:Thursday, October 27, 2022 11:02:54 AM Attachments:22047 Public Comment DPB.pdf Thank you Don for resending your comment in another format. 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 Development City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 406.579.1471 | lhyde@bozeman.net | www.bozeman.net -----Original Message----- From: Don Beeman <donbee6@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:32 PM To: Lynn Hyde <lhyde@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: per your request 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. This should be better. Thanks. To: Bozeman City Commission Bozeman Community Development Board Bozeman Community Development Directors Bozeman City Planning Department 1) Bozeman City Commission (agenda@bozeman.net and cc lhyde@bozeman.net) 2) Bozeman Community Development Board, (agenda@bozeman.net and cc lhyde@bozeman.net) 3) Bozeman Community Development Directors, (agenda@bozeman.net and cc lhyde@bozeman.net) 4) Bozeman Planning Department (agenda@bozeman.net and cc lhyde@bozeman.net) From:: Don Beeman, Bozeman, MT RE: Public Comment on Site Plan 22047: 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, I support many of the projects that have been planned and completed for the city and I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to the development of Lot # 2, Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services. However, the current City of Bozeman Commission must follow the rules and covenants ordered by the 1990’s era City Commission when the PUD was adopted. 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 of the site’s covenants. The plan is inconsistent with requirements of the Sundance Springs PUD, including, for example, the requirement for sidewalks along the South Third frontage. Finally, the requested departures from the block frontage standards, which I oppose, do not meet the approval criteria outlined in the Bozeman Development Code. Specifically, first, this development bills itself as contributing to the walkability of our city, 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 sidewalk installation, the future walkability of our city is degraded. Allowing this development to proceed without sidewalks on South 3rd will prevent the future continuity 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-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. In this case, the Commission ordered that 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 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-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 high ground water 7.Outdoor lighting design restrictions outlined in the covenants 8.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 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 Services District 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 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 2000 sq ft patio would simply create a source of continuing future conflict between business owners, who would want 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. Designing a building to support outdoor activities under zoning that presumes uses fully enclosed within buildings seems disingenuous. Third, the current 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 on the grounds 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 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. •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 a degradation of the street front, especially when considered in comparison to the alternative intended by the covenants and PUD: a street-front building that complies with the building design guidance and mandated 1992-era B-1 zoning. In summary, 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. In 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 resident of the City of Bozeman, I expect the city to abide by the covenants agreed to by the city in the PUD 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 character of the street (BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d) and therefore should be denied. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Don Beeman 425 Peace Pipe Drive Bozeman, MT 59715