Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-22 Public Comment - T. Kwarciak - Site Plan 22047From:T Kwarciak To:Agenda Subject:Site Plan 22047 Date:Friday, November 4, 2022 1:55:37 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: Bozeman Planning Department From: Tom Kwarciak 4325 Morning Sun Drive Bozeman, MT I am writing in regard to Site Plan Application 22047. This application has way too many variances from Code to allow it to proceed. I hereby submit a letter template below outliningthe many issues raised by this application. In addition, I have some further comments about the described business use as a brewery, and parking. Interestingly, the current B-1 Zoning District Guideline allows for Manufacturing - Artesian,including alcohol production. In the template below there is reference to 1992 era B-1 that evidently did not allow for this use. In addition to this point of argument, I would like to addthat the Community Development Viewer indicates all of Sundance Springs, including this specific site is R-S. From the Code, R-S Zoning District requires preservation of existing (myinterpretation - original) zoning. A brewery requires a lot of processing equipment including tanks, pumps, piping, solids handling, filtration and liquids packaging that is not consistentwith small scale retail as allowed for Sundance Springs. In regard to parking, only 44 parking spots are allocated for this development, when 68 would be normally required. The Trip Generation Memo in the site application indicates 462additional trips generated per weekday. As stated in the memo, the conclusions inform the need for further traffic impact analysis. No data is provided for busy times such as Fridayevenings and weekends and it doesn't appear that a further traffic impact analysis has been performed. I am totally against any reduction in required parking allocations for this site. As acase in point, I refer to all of the on-street parking at MAP Brewery, due to the inadequacy of the parking lots. In our case, there is no shoulder on South 3rd for parking, and Little Horseand Peace Pipe Drives are private, narrow roads barely passable for two-way traffic. So at this time, I also submit the further information below that I completely agree with. Sincerely, Tom Kwarciak 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 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. Sent from my iPad