The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-12-22 Public Comment - N. Zanondella - Public Comment on site plan number 22047From:Neal Zandonella To:Agenda Subject:Public Comment on site plan number 22047 Date:Saturday, November 12, 2022 2:15:27 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png 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: agenda@bozeman.net Planning Department City of Bozeman From: Neal Zandonella and Kelly Gaisford 340 Peace Pipe Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 To whom it may concern: I am writing to express our strong and unequivocal opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047. As the first residences in the neighborhood, we have a longstanding involvement with the governing PUD and history of development in Sundance Springs. The rules are simple and clear as to the type of commercial development allowable. The current owner of the property in question purchased it knowing they must abide by those development rules. We, in turn, purchased our property with the understanding that the development rules would not be broken. It’s that simple and straight forward. For 23 plus years that agreement has been respected, and the residential nature of our well-established bed-room community has been preserved. Now that this mutual commitment to the rules is being challenged, we ask that the city enforce the clear rule of law governing this space – and thereby deny proposal 22047. As long-term residents, we have deep concern about this development proposal, which is both completely out of character for our neighborhood and surrounding area, and unlawful in its intent. If the city is unwilling to enforce its own rules, then we and other home owners will have no choice but to support and help fund legal action against both the landowner and city; we as lawful citizens with standing are committed to prevent this affront to both our neighborhood and to the rule of law. The idea that a brewpub or similar commercial enterprise would somehow fit in one of Bozeman’s upscale and marque neighborhoods is absurd. By no reasonable consideration could one come to the conclusion that this proposal would enhance the neighborhoods bucolic and park-like setting. It is completely incongruent with our area’s ethos of open-space, tranquility, and quality of life. We are a long-established bedroom community, and this development would forever harm and cause material damage to the rural character of our neighborhood and property values. This proposed encroachment is not what we originally invested in nor is it what we currently pay extensive taxes for. Such development would be better suited for a new neighborhood that is specifically designed to handle the traffic and other considerations, and where the new homeowners know what they are buying into. Further, being in proximity to MSU, it would attract problems normally confined to the university – like excessive traffic and disorderly conduct associated with drinking alcohol. The challenges associated with MSU’s growth should not be invited south into our residential neighborhood, with such a magnet for young adults. That is what downtown is for. I respectfully ask, are there not enough watering holes in Bozeman? While we understand that commercial development was acceptable on this plot, this proposal is not in accordance with the letter and law of that understanding. As homeowners with standing, we 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. Thank You for reading and considering my comments. Neal Neal Zandonella Vice President of Data & Information Services Phone: (o) 406-994-4912 | (c) 406-599-0104 | msuaf.org Visit: 1501 South 11th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 Mail: P.O. Box 172750, Bozeman, MT 59717 CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary, and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. Thank you.