HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-22 Public Comment - R. Culver - Public Comment on Site Plan 22047_ Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot # 2 DevelopmentFrom:paige culver
To:Agenda
Cc:Lynn Hyde
Subject:Public Comment on Site Plan 22047: Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot # 2 Development
Date:Saturday, November 26, 2022 9:43:51 AM
Attachments:Bozeman City Planning.pdf
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.
Please see the letter attached.
To: Bozeman City Commission
Bozeman Community Development Board
Bozeman Community Development Directors
Bozeman City Planning Department
From: Paige and Graham Culver, Bozeman, MT
RE: Public Comment on Site Plan 22047: Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot # 2
Development
Dear City Commissioners, Members of the Community Development Board, Community
Development Directors, and Planning Department Staff:
First, it is important to note that I am not a resident of Sundance Springs. My parents are. The
city, its commissioners and development “experts” have consistently put the residents of
Bozeman on the defense. The process by which these developments and re-zoning efforts are
considered and reviewed needs to be changed. Progress is a given. There is no doubt. However,
we (YOU) are in grave danger of destroying the very qualities of the city and valley that make it
an attractive place to be in the first place. Outside of the objections clearly lined out below, I
would ask the following, in addition: Do the city officials reviewing these applications seek
counsel from the wildlife and waterway experts who have substantive knowledge of key
migratory patterns and historical wintering grounds for valley wildlife and water runoff,
respectively?
I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to the
development of Lot # 2, Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services. However, the current City of
Bozeman Commission must follow the rules and covenants ordered by the 1990’s era City
Commission when the PUD was adopted.
I am writing to express my concern about Site Plan 22047, which is currently under review.
Overall,
the design outlined in the site plan does not reflect the requirements of the site’s covenants, to
which
the city is a party. The plan is not compatible with requirements of the Sundance Springs PUD,
including the requirement for sidewalks along the South Third frontage. Finally, the requested
departures from the block frontage standards, which I oppose, do not meet the approval
criteria
outlined in the Bozeman Development Code.
Specifically, first, this development bills itself as contributing to the walkability of our city, yet
there is
no provision for, or even room allotted for sidewalks to be installed along South Third Avenue.
When
development is allowed to proceed without sidewalk installation, the future walkability of our
city is
degraded. Allowing this development to proceed without sidewalks on South 3 rd will prevent
the
future continuity of sidewalks in our neighborhood as more land is developed.
Second, both the site covenants and the PUD designate this site’s zoning as B-1 Neighborhood
Services District, according to the 1992-era zoning. Yet the site plan is incompatible with both
the
covenants and the requirements of the Neighborhood Services District. As a resident of the City
of
Bozeman, I expect the city to adhere to the orders of the 1990’s era City Commission. In this
case,
the Commission ordered that the city be a party to the site covenants. Therefore, I expect the
city to
follow the requirements of the covenants, and to enforce the covenants per the authority of
BMC
38.100.100.
The current site plan ignores the following requirements of the covenants, which also stipulate
that
the 1992-era zoning requirements are in effect. I ask that these violations of the covenants and
1992-
era B–1 zoning be rectified in the plan before it is approved:
12. requirements for traditional gable, hip, and shed roofs
13. siding requirements (which preclude buildings with glass walls)
14. maximum building size limits of 5000 square feet.
15. parking requirements outlined in Chapter 18.50 of the 1992-era zoning
16. 25-foot front and 20-foot rear set backs
17. Foundations that are constructed “high” to avoid problems with high ground water
18. Outdoor lighting design restrictions outlined in the covenants
19. Requirements to design of buildings that avoid the appearance of commercial development
(per the covenants) and maintain residential character (per B-1 Neighborhood Services
District)
Especially disconcerting is the inclusion of a 2000 square-foot patio and other structures that
would
facilitate outdoor business use. The 1992-era B-1 Neighborhood Services District set the
expectation
that all business uses be confined within buildings. I, as a neighbor who lives within a short
distance
of this development, expect those zoning requirements to be enforced to maintain the
tranquility and
residential character of our neighborhood – which is the stated intent of the B-1 Neighborhood
Services District requirements.
Allowing a 2000 sq ft patio would simply create a source of continuing future conflict between
business owners, who would want to use the patio for outdoor business purposes, and
residential
neighbors, who have the right to the undisturbed peaceful use of our property written into the
covenants. Designing a building to support outdoor activities under zoning that presumes uses
fully
enclosed within buildings seems disingenuous.
Third, the current block frontage standards of the Municipal Development Code require that
the
buildings front the streets and that the parking be behind or to the side of the buildings. The
site plan
is requesting multiple departures from the block frontage standards. I am opposed to the
approval of
any of these departures on the grounds that they don’t meet the required approval criteria.
The approval criteria require that the building placement be compatible with the surrounding
area. The buildings are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood because they do not
comply with the design requirements of the covenants. Allowing these buildings to be placed
away from the street will only compound the incompatibility and magnify the impacts on our
neighborhood because the incompatible buildings will be closer to residences and will
encroach even more on our neighborhood’s open space.
The approval criteria require that any departure improve the character of the street front.
Placing parking lots along 100% of our neighborhood street frontages, including the corner of
South 3 rd and Little Horse Drive, represents a degradation of the street front, especially when
considered in comparison to the alternative intended by the covenants and PUD: a street-front
building that complies with the building design guidance and mandated 1992-era B-1 zoning.
In summary, the 1990’s era City Commission ordered that the City of Bozeman is a party to the
covenants associated with the Sundance Springs Commercial lots. In making this order, the
Commissioners expected the city to be bound by applicable terms of the covenants and
empowered
the city to enforce the covenants. As a resident of the City of Bozeman, I expect the city to
abide by
the covenants agreed to by the city in the PUD and exercise its authority to enforce the
covenants to
which the developers agreed when they purchased the property. The intent of the PUD and
covenants are clear. Development on this lot is to occur in compliance with the 1992-era B-1
Neighborhood Services District and other restrictions outlined in the covenants.
Further, the requested departures from the block frontage standards do not meet the
requirements of
being compatible with the surrounding area nor enhancing the character of the street (BMC
38.510.020.F.1.d) and therefore should be denied.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Printed Name
Paige Culver
Address
115 N. Pheasant Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59718