Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-22 Public Comment - C. Whitlock - Opposition to Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan 22047From:Cathy Whitlock To:Agenda Subject:Opposition to Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan 22047 Date:Friday, November 25, 2022 11:50:00 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: Cathy Whitlock 226 Silver Cloud Cir, Bozeman To whom it may concern: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs CommercialDevelopment, 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 frontagestandards. 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 notcompatible 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 alongthe 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 fromparking 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 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 ReviewComments. 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 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 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. Noise and light pollution, overspill parking and increased neighborhood traffic with the addition of a popular brewery and outdoor drinking area are unacceptable outcomes for residential neighborhoods and trails. I refer to the issues associated with MAP brewery as an example of what should be avoided in Sundance Springs. Finally, I would ask that a provision for sidewalks along the South 3rd frontage beenforced 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 makingour 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 frontagestandards (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.