HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-22 Public Comment - E Swanson - Public Comment on Site Plan 22047_ Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot # 2 Development - With Staff ResponseFrom:Lynn Hyde
To:Elisabeth Swanson; Agenda
Subject:RE: Public Comment on Site Plan 22047: Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot # 2 Development
Date:Friday, October 28, 2022 11:22:40 AM
Your comments have been received and included as part of the public record. The comments are
available in a public repository for all reviewers, the applicants, and decision makers to review.
Thank you for your participation and please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
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: Elisabeth Swanson <elsswa@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 2:39 PM
To: Agenda <agenda@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Lynn Hyde <lhyde@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: Public Comment on Site Plan 22047: Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot # 2
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.
From: Elisabeth Swanson and Gerald Buckley, Bozeman, MT
RE: Public Comment on Site Plan 22047: Sundance Springs NeighborhoodServices Lot # 2 Development
October 27, 2022
Dear City Commissioners, Members of the Community Development Board,
Community Development Directors, and Planning Department Staff:
We have lived in our current residence at 413 Peace Pipe Dr., Bozeman, for 16
years. Looking from our back porch and across the grassy field, we see Lot 2 to the
southwest, and a thriving wetland with cattails to the northwest. We chose theSundance Springs Subdivision because all of the lots are on or close to the lineartrail system, and two County parks, McLeod and Tuckerman. When we sit on our
quiet back porch, which faces the linear trail to the west we enjoy watching runners,
walkers, xc skiers and bicyclists, birders and wildlife watchers, doing activities welove too. The field next to us supports a flock of deer, Sandhill Cranes, foxes, andthe occasional Black Bear. When Sundance Springs Subdivision was first formed,
the design called for minimizing individual lot size to maximize open space in orderto extend the linear trail and connecting trails used by people and wildlife. People
from adjacent neighborhoods and throughout Bozeman enjoy spending time
outdoors in our neighborhood for the same reasons we do: open space, nature, and
especially quiet and tranquility.
We have carefully read and strongly support the statement shown below and
formulated by a group of our neighbors to lays out the parts of Site Plan 22047 thatare not in keeping with the rules and covenants ordered by the 1990’s era CityCommission when the PUD was adopted. To us perhaps the most significant red
flags in this proposed project are: (1) the inclusion of two large outdoor patios
presumably for serving drinks or food – indicating that the owners intend to conductcommercial activities outside their buildings; (2) the size and height of the twobuildings; (3) the siting of the buildings not along the street as required, but instead
close to along the linear trail; and (4) expansive windows, all of which are contrary
to current rules and covenant still in force in our subdivision.
In addition to the issues presented in the thoughtful document below, we ask
decision-makers to note the following potential safety issue. Road bicyclistsheavily use the stretch of South Third Ave that Lot 2 faces to commute toSacajawea Middle School, and as a favorite route to reach Hyalite area recreation
via back roads. Yet there is not a designated bike lane along South Third as it passes
Lot 2. This existing issue would be magnified when vehicles cannot fit into Lot 2’s
modest parking lot, trimmed in the proposal from the expected 68 spaces, to merely44 spaces. We predict middle schools and adult road bicyclists will regularly
encounter overflow parking on South Third as a consequence of inadequate parking
at Lot 2 if approved by the City of Bozeman.
In ending, we support the following model statement researched and composed by a
group of our neighbors:
As a resident of Sundance Springs Subdivision, 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, to which the city is a party. The plan is not
compatible with requirements of the Sundance Springs PUD, including 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-1Neighborhood 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 Commissionordered 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 beforeit 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 groundwater
7. Outdoor lighting design restrictions outlined in the covenants
8. Requirements to design of buildings that avoid the appearance of commercialdevelopment (per the covenants) and maintain residential character (per B-1Neighborhood 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 beconfined 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 outdoorbusiness 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 theside 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 thesurrounding area. The buildings are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoodbecause they do not comply with the design requirements of the covenants. Allowingthese buildings to be placed away from the street will only compound theincompatibility and magnify the impacts on our neighborhood because the incompatiblebuildings will be closer to residences and will encroach even more on ourneighborhood’s open space.
The approval criteria require that any departure improve the character of the streetfront. 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 streetfront, especially when considered in comparison to the alternative intended by thecovenants and PUD: a street-front building that complies with the building designguidance 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 agreedto 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 restrictionsoutlined in the covenants.
Further, the requested departures from the block frontage standards do not meetthe 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 our comments.
Sincerely,
Elisabeth Swanson Gerald Buckley
Elisabeth Swanson Gerald Buckley
413 Peace Pipe Dr. 413 Peace Pipe Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman, MT 59715
PS Our letter reflects both of our views equally, and therefore we are sending acopy of the letter to you twice, once via Elisabeth’s email
address elsswa@gmail.com, and a second time via Gerald’s email
address loftbuckley@gmail.com