HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-22 Public Comment - B. Madden - Comments on Sundance Springs development, Site Plan #22047From:Beth Madden
To:Agenda
Subject:Comments on Sundance Springs development, Site Plan #22047
Date:Tuesday, November 22, 2022 6:33:02 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: City of Bozeman Planning Department
From: Elizabeth Madden, 408 Overbrook Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715
Dear City Planners:
Please accept my comments expressing opposition to the proposed Sundance
Springs Commercial Development, Site Plan #22047.
Although I understand that commercial development on this site is going to occur, I
oppose the developer’s requested departures from laws describing the City's block
frontage standards. I regularly (2-3x/week) use these trails and open spaces for
hiking, running, and birdwatching, and they are an important respite for the thousands
of people living in these south Bozeman subdivisions. I had understood that a corner
store and/or a coffee shop and other shops and businesses might be installed, but amnot happy to see the scale of what is being proposed now.
BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d states "Departures may be considered provided the locationand 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 will degrade 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, not tomention 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 thePUD, 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 thatany development on this site meet its full parking demand in order to complywith 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 residentialcharacter of the area.
I am also concerned about the provision for large patio space which will support
outdoor business uses on the site. The 1992-era B-1 zoning prohibits outdoorbusiness 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. Theproposed patios are decidedly incompatible with the character of the trail system and
surrounding neighborhood.
Importantly, I would ask that a provision for sidewalks along the South 3rdfrontage 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 sidewalksdefeats the intention of making our city a walkable one.
Please deny application #22047 until the site plan complies with the 1992-era zoning
requirements (without conditional uses) and the block frontage standards (withoutdeparture), 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 considering my concerns, and for your work on our behalf.
Beth Madden
408 Overbrook Drive
Bozeman