HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-22 Public Comment - C. Callaghan - Proposed Development in Sundance Springs - With Staff ResponseFrom:Lynn Hyde
To:Christine Callaghan; Agenda
Subject:RE: Proposed Development in Sundance Springs
Date:Friday, October 28, 2022 11:14:56 AM
Thank you for your comment Christine,
It has been received and will be included in the public records. Looking back through comments I’ve
received I’m not seeing yours. I see one from Patrick Callaghan but not from a Christine.
Regardless, it is received now. Note that there is a delay between receiving the comments and them
being uploaded in the public repository as I believe the City Clerk performs that task the same time
each week.
Thanks again for your public comment and let me know if you have any questions.
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: Christine Callaghan <christine@furndesignstudio.com>
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 11:04 AM
To: Agenda <agenda@BOZEMAN.NET>; Lynn Hyde <lhyde@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Development in Sundance Springs
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.
Resending as I don't see it showing up online. Thank you!
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Christine Callaghan <christine@furndesignstudio.com>Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:57 AMSubject: Proposed Development in Sundance SpringsTo: <agenda@bozeman.net>
To:Planning DepartmentCity of Bozeman
From:Christine Callaghan4422 White Eagle Cir., Bozeman, MT 59715
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs CommercialDevelopment, site plan number 22047.
While I accept that commercial development on this site is inevitable, I oppose thedevelopment'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 frontorientation 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 commercialbuildings 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 theBlock 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 parkingalong 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 1996Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission, which created the PUD, the City
Commissioners explicitly forbade Neighborhood Services District patrons from parking on thestreets. 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 regardingthis 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, whichincorporates 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 PUDtherefore 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) areinadequate, 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 thedevelopment 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 outdoorbusiness 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 grantedby 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 andresidential 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 enforcedbefore 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 CityCommission 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-erazoning requirements (without conditional uses) and the block frontage standards(without departure), parking for proposed buildings can be contained on site (asrequired by the City Commission), and sidewalks are included on South Third Ave, to
keep pedestrians safe as commercial areas of the city expand outward.
I have two young kids (3 & 5) that bike around our cul-de-sac (very close to the proposeddevelopment) and enjoy using the trail on a daily basis. I am extremely concerned for their
safety with the level of traffic and lack of parking patrons will face if the development movesforward as currently designed. I am not opposed to a development in general, I just ask that
you would address these legitimate concerns listed above.
Thanks for considering my comment.
--Christine Callaghan
Furn Design Studio336.202.3646
--Christine Callaghan
Furn Design Studio336.202.3646