HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-22 Public Comment - P. Harned - Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047From:Peter Harned
To:Agenda
Subject:Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047
Date:Saturday, October 29, 2022 4:32:43 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:
Peter Harned
189 E HodgemanBozeman, MT 59718
To whom it may concern:
I was recently notified about a development proposal in Sundance Springs, a
residential area of Bozeman. I would like to make some comments on
my opinion regarding this commercial development. It is important that you know thatmy home address is not in the city of Bozeman, however, we own a property located
at 1410 Bohart. Also, I was on the Bozeman zoning commission for several years in
the early 2000’s.
I am opposed to the proposal named Sundance Springs Commercial Development
site plan number 22047. There is no buffer between the R1 single family subdivision
to the North and East. Therefore it will negatively impact the area.
When I sat on the board we were educated by the city planning department to follow
the 2020 Bozeman city plan. I am a big proponent of infill that allows residents to
have services as close as possible. Unfortunately I don’t feel that a brewery would be
as good of a service as other options.
The content below was written by a group that follows more of my thoughts on the
topic.
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 ofthe 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 isthat 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 fromparking 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'sOrder.
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, asestablished 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 otherpermission 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 andsurrounding 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 theSundance 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 onsite (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.
Thank you for all you do. Having seen this process up close I know how much
thought and consideration goes into your decisions.
Thanks for considering my comment.
Peter Harned