HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-22 Public Comment - K. Wright - Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047From:Katherine Wright
To:Agenda
Subject:Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 22047
Date:Sunday, November 13, 2022 4:50:16 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:
Planning Department
City of Bozeman
From:
Katherine Wright
3225 Hillcrest Drive
Bozeman MT 59715
To whom it may concern:
We live just a few blocks away from where the proposed project is slated to
happen. As a retired licenced architect that worked on many commercial
developments, I accept that commercial development on this site is
inevitable, I oppose the proposed Sundance Springs Commercial
Development, site plan number 22047.
This SE area of Bozeman is R-S. It is an older residential area with some
good access to the parks and fields and is very close to the edge of the city,
where there is still quite a lot of farmlands south of Goldenstein Lane. It is
peaceful and well unified in design. This plan would degrade the character
of South Third Avenue, not to mention the trails.
This proposed development 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.
Any development on this site needs to meet the full parking demand to
comply with the Commission's Order. 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.
The overall 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. 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).
I am especially concerned about the large patio space proposed, 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.
Before approval of the site plan, I would ask that a provision for sidewalks
along the South 3rd frontage be enforced 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.
I request that you 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.
Katherine L Wright
Katherine L Wright
KLWright Artist
WWW.klwright.comklwrightartist@gmail.com