HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-25-22 Public Comment - B. McBee - Site Plan 22047 Development_ Public CommentFrom:Brannin McBee
To:Agenda
Subject:Site Plan 22047 Development: Public Comment
Date:Friday, November 25, 2022 6:04:23 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:
Brannin McBee, Meghan McBee and Sophie McBee
520 S Willson Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715
To whom it may concern:
I live in downtown bozeman and frequent the area of the proposed development as it is where
my retired mother lives. She takes our daughter, her granddaughter, on walks into theneighborhood and trail system daily. We greatly cherish the access to the area and general
quiet and relaxing nature. This proposed development would take that joy away from ourfamily, something that was promised to my mother and other residents of the area with the
agreed upon original planning. This is an innapropriate violation of a family neighborhood. Iencourage the council to consider the comments below that summarize the numerous
infractions this development proposes.
Please keep this family neighborhood intact
Thank you for your consideration.
I am writing to express my opposition to 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.
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.
Thanks for considering my comment.
-- Brannin McBee
Direct: 720-320-1675