HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-22 Public Comment - E. Skidmore - To_ Planning. Please Deny Application 22047, Sundance SpringsFrom:Eva Skidmore
To:Agenda
Subject:To: Planning. Please Deny Application 22047, Sundance Springs
Date:Friday, November 18, 2022 8:22:15 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:
Eva Skidmore
454 Peace Pipe Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
To whom it may concern:
Please deny application 22047. For many reasons, this application does not reflect the values
of the city, the spirit of the neighborhood, or the opportunity we have to create an incredible
and beneficial commercial use for that land. In addition, there are elements of the application
that are just not appropriate for this neighborhood.
I have lived in Bozeman since 1997, and I LOVE the way we are growing and the types of
businesses and investments we are making as a community, so this letter is not because I do
not appreciate growth and development. I truly do, and I take advantage of many of our new
developments often.
This one is not right. I walk our trails twice each day with my dog. I am able to breathe in the
views, the quiet and the open space. While I accept that commercial development is going to
happen here on this site, I am very very concerned that we are going too far with exceptions
on this development, especially because the application appears speculative instead of
intentional.
So, please accept this letter as sincere, even though I am citing facts that have been
researched by others. I have met with our community and agree with the statements below. I
expressly oppose 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.
While I am not familiar with your current parking lot and hardscaping rules, let's ask for some
creativity here. Is there a way to have the lot more open and permeable to enable water to
seep into the ground instead of paving and guttering and installing all of that hardscape? I
personally don't mind parking on South 3rd as a way to reduce parking requirements to keep
enough open space that the trails don't feel like we're walking through a strip-mall parking lot,
but even so, I think the way the parking is designed is any-town USA and not in line with our
opportunity to evolve as a city for our environment.
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.
This is the most important concern to me: retain the residential character of the area.
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), and keep the development intentional and within the character of the
neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Eva Skidmore
406-570-0604