HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-02-22 Public Comment - O. Armenta - Opposition to Development - Olivia ArmentaTo:
Planning Department
City of Bozeman
From:
Olivia Armenta
4515 E Graf Street
Bozeman MT 59715
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site
plan number 22047.
Frankly, the site is too big and mars the neighborhood with unsightly parking lots and oversized
development akin to the blight of a strip mall. 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 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 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 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, our neighborhood, the trails, and the character
of Bozeman.
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 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, 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.
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.
Regards,
Olivia Armenta
Home Owner in Sundance Springs