HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-22 Public Comment - D. Proemm - Please deny application 22047From:Diana Proemm, CTRS
To:Agenda
Subject:Please deny application 22047
Date:Thursday, November 10, 2022 2:55:11 PM
Attachments:letter to city.pdf
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.
Hello,
Please see attached letter.
Thank you,Diana
Diana Proemm, CTRS
Owner, Your Adventure Rx
210-400-0024 | diana@youradventurerx.com
www.youradventurerx.com
Create your own email signature
November 10, 2022
To: Planning Department
City of Bozeman
From:
Diana Proemm
3502 Good Medicine Way
Bozeman, MT 59715
To whom it may concern:
I am expressing 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. 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.
Diana Proemm