HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-22 Public Comment - M. Spencer - Sundance Springs Commercial Development - With Staff ResponseFrom:Lynn Hyde
To:Mark Spencer; Agenda
Subject:RE: Sundance Springs Commercial Development
Date:Thursday, October 27, 2022 11:01:39 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: Mark Spencer <spence954@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 9:54 PM
To: Agenda <agenda@BOZEMAN.NET>; 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:
Planning Department
City of Bozeman
From:
Mark Spencer
4112 E graf Street
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sundance
Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047.
While I accept that commercial development on this site is
inevitable, 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.
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.
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.
Mark Spencer
4112 E Graf Street