HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-22 Public Comment - G & K. Stark - Site plan 22047From:ghs
To:Agenda
Subject:Site plan 22047
Date:Saturday, October 29, 2022 5:16:03 PM
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:
Glen & Kathy Stark
361 Peace Pipe Dr.
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sundance SpringsCommercial Development, site plan number 22047. We invested andcontinue to reside in Sundance Springs because of the neighborhood designthat combines green open spaces with a residential community resulting ina cohesive lifestyle feeling. Allowing a large commercial development withdesign elements inconsistent with the area represents a threat to ourcommunity and well-being.
While I accept that commercial development on this site is inevitable, Ioppose the development's requested departures from laws describing theCity's block frontage standards. BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d states "Departuresmay be considered provided the location and front orientation of thebuildings are compatible with the character of the area and enhance thecharacter of the street." Site plan 22047 meets neither criterion. Placinglarge commercial buildings along the designated open space is notcompatible with the tranquil character of the trail system or surroundingresidential neighborhood. Further, an underlying premise of the BlockFrontage Standards is that parking lots along streets cause a visual impacton the streetscape, even if mitigated with a berm (BMC 38.510.030.C.3.c). Proposal 22047 places parking along the entire South 3rd frontage, on thestreet corner with Little Horse Drive. It even degrades the trail user'sexperience by placing parking along the entire trail system to the east,without incorporating mitigating landscaping! The plan would thereforedegrade the character of South Third Avenue, not to mention the trails.
The proposed buildings have a higher parking demand than will fit on thesite. In the 1996 Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission, whichcreated the PUD, the City Commissioners explicitly forbade NeighborhoodServices District patrons from parking on the streets. The requestedreduction in parking requirements from 68 spaces to 44 spaces may beallowed under current zoning but is incompatible with the CityCommission's order regarding this site. I would ask that any developmenton this site meet its full parking demand in order to comply with theCommission's Order.
The site plan fails to live up to the Planned Urban Development governingthe site, which incorporates zoning under the 1992-era B-1 NeighborsService District, as established by the Planning Department in its October1, 2020, Development Review Comments. The PUD, therefore, requires asmall commercial development, residential in character. When site plan22047 is weighed against the 1992-era B-1 standard (Chapter 18.28), yardsizes (setbacks) are inadequate, building sizes are too large, parking isinadequate, and the building is designed specifically to house a disallowedbusiness use (a brewery). Overall, the character of the development fails tomeet the legal intent of the 1992-era B-1 zoning law (18.28.010) -- tomaintain the residential character of the area.
I am especially concerned about the provision for a large patio space whichwill support outdoor business uses on the site. The 1992-era B-1 zoningprohibits outdoor business use on the site as a principal use. I am againstany conditional use or other permission that might be granted by the citythat would allow for outdoor business use or alcohol consumption on thesite because such uses are not compatible with the tranquil nature of theopen spaces and residential areas adjacent to the lot. The proposed patiosare decidedly incompatible with the character of the trail system andsurrounding neighborhood.
Finally, I would ask that a provision for sidewalks along the South 3rdfrontage be enforced before approval of the site plan. This is a requirementof note 5 on the Sundance Spring Subdivision Phase 1B Final Plat and bythe 1996 Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission that createdthe Sundance Springs Subdivision. Allowing development to proceedwithout sidewalks defeats the intention of making our city a walkable one.
Please deny application 22047 until such time as the site plan complieswith the 1992-era zoning requirements (without conditional uses) and theblock 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 ascommercial areas of the city expand outward.
Thanks for considering our comments.
Glen & Kathy Stark