HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-22 Public Comment - S. Pearson - Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047.From:Sherri Pearson
To:Agenda
Subject:Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047.
Date:Friday, November 4, 2022 11:06:38 AM
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:
Sherri Pearson
4336 E Graf St., 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.
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.
We bought our property in Sundance Springs 7 years ago with the
intent that the surrounding areas would remain under the same
thoughtful ordinances that they were given. I am assuming the
property owners bought the property aware of the current covenants
and ordinances. Similar to the homeowners abiding by and respecting
the area where we currently live according to city laws, zoning and
covenants placed upon us, the owners of the property should be
required to do the same. I am tired of the city regularly changing the
laws, zoning and covenants to benefit for profit commercial entities.
In addition, my kids regularly ride their bikes and walk along the
street and trail system adjacent to the proposed development. I would
like to believe that the safety of the community is being considered in
the change to this development. The parking that will occur along our
neighborhood streets as a result of the request for reduction in parking
spaces will inherently create increased risk for our children to safely
ride and walk the trails. Lastly, the very nature of the business (a
brewery), essentially in our backyard, has the potential to increase
disorderly and drunk driving within our neighborhood setting. This
adds an additional layer of concern to children partaking in the
outdoor activities that Montana is so well known and loved for.
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 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 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.
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.
Sherri Pearson