HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-22 Public Comment - C. Wilson - Proposed Development - Sundance SpringsFrom:Cindy Wilson
To:Agenda
Subject:Proposed Development - Sundance Springs
Date:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 3:42:15 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:
Cindy Wilson
4332 Morning Sun Dr.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs
Commercial Development, site plan number 22047. Development and growth are
inevitable. However, the proposed plans are detrimental not only to Sundance
Springs but to Bozeman considering they fail to comply with many city and
residential standards.
While I accept that commercial development on this site will happen, 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
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 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 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.
Respectfully,
Cindy Wilson