HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-23 Public Comment - J. King - Sundance SpringsFrom:Jeffrey King
To:Lynn Hyde; Agenda; Susana Montana; Cyndy Andrus
Cc:Terry Cunningham; I-Ho Pomeroy; Jennifer Madgic; Christopher Coburn
Subject:Please see attached letter
Date:Sunday, June 11, 2023 5:12:46 PM
Attachments:SS Comm Dev Letter-W.docx
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 addressees,
Please see attached letter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey L. King
lhyde@bozeman.net agenda@bozeman.net smontana@bozeman.net (Susanna Montana) candrus@bozeman.net June 9, 2023 RE: Application 22047 I have been a Sundance Springs resident for 22 years and I served on the initial SSHOA Board of Directors. I regret that the City has lost our Final PUD Master Plan; it provides guidance that would be invaluable today. The Plan is also the only document on which development decisions can legally be founded. The City apparently wants to make decisions based on the currently available historic documents rather than spending time with interested parties to recreate our Master Plan. I guess that we may all get an opportunity to hear a court’s opinion on the process in motion regarding application 22047. In the meantime, I offer the following comments: The Civil Sheets presented by the applicant contain critical errors. The Civil Cover Sheet uses an aerial photo of the site that is at least 15 years old. A decision maker would not know from this photo that there are now houses bordering the north side of Lot 2 on what is now called Ellis View Loop. Eight homes line Ellis View Loop, in what was a meadow at the time the dated and now inaccurate Cover Sheet photo was taken. A decision maker would not know from the Civil Site Plan that there are paved sidewalks on both sides of Peace Pipe Drive, on both sides of Ellis View Loop and on both sides of Little Horse Drive because these paved and maintained sidewalks are omitted from the Civil Site Plan. Pedestrians will be in harm’s way when walking across the only entry driveway to the crowded, proposed development; but you sure wouldn’t know that from the inaccurate drawings. The applicant’s desire to omit a paved and maintained sidewalk on the west side of their development seems very much out of character - and unsafe – when one is aware of the sidewalks that exist in the developed spaces surrounding Lot 2. My first suggestion is that any decision maker should pull this site up on Google maps to see what the site and surroundings actually look like now. And please note that the “Existing Walking and Bike Path” noted on the Site Plan is narrow, uneven, weedy and not maintained for winter pedestrian and bike travel. Think of these as informal summer paths. They are no substitute for the paved sidewalks that the bordering neighborhoods built, and that are meticulously kept clear by the HOAs for all season use.
The Findings of Fact and Order for the PUD in paragraph 29 states:
“A documented market study shall be provided prior to submittal of the final site plan for the zoning PUD that shows the proposed uses within the neighborhood service area (Blocks 10 and 11) will be supported by the area residents. If the study does not conclude that 50% of the business will be generated from the area, development of the neighborhood service area will not be allowed.” The Findings go on to suggest that Blocks 10 and 11 could be developed into single-family lots if commercial development on these blocks cannot gain 50% of business revenue from the neighborhood. Since there has never been a “market study” a commercial development such as that being proposed should, according to the Findings, “not be allowed”. I suggest that the City stop spending any time on this commercial development application. I further suggest that the city should be seeking a change in the zoning of Blocks 10 and 11 to residential lots as spelled out in the Findings, which are the most reliable existing chronicle of the City’s binding requirements for any development on these lots. The Covenants for the Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Property (Blocks 10 and 11) are readily available, and they were integral to the “missing” Master Plan and to the Final PUD, to which the City is a party. In regards to these commercial lots, Page 19, paragraph 8.1 states: “ All initial or subsequent improvements to the privately owned Lots shall be subject to the following architectural and landscaping requirements and guidelines. Approval by the Sundance Springs Building and Landscape Review Committee (BLRC) shall be obtained prior to the application to the City of Bozeman for a building permit.” Neither the applicant nor their legal counsel has presented proof of approval of their plans by the BLRC as spelled out in the Covenants attached to the deed to their property. While the City might choose not to enforce specific covenants, I think that the City, as party to the PUD and to the Covenants, at least has the obligation to insist that this applicant, and all future applicants, follow the development approval process and sequence as spelled out. To that end, I ask that the City stop this site plan review until the applicant obtains the required building and landscape approvals from Sundance Springs BLRC. This should be a requirement along with the market study prior to the City considering any applications for building on these lots. I wish to point out another requirement, that a Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services/Commercial Property Owners Association should approve any proposals before they are submitted to the City. The commercial property owners have not maintained an Association since 2003, and so they have no entity for such design review. I again request that the City stop this application review, and all others in Blocks 10 and 11, until it is clear to all concerned how this will be handled. It
appears to me that these commercial lots must revert to residential lots per the Findings of Fact and Order. Why isn’t the City following the path outlined in the Findings? In his letters to the City, the applicant’s lawyer would have you believe that this is a plain vanilla proposal with no specific tenant in mind. I grow tired of this subterfuge. We all know better. The large outdoor drinking and dining space, that sucks up ground that should be used for parking and sidewalks, is the footprint for a restaurant and/or brewery with – forbidden by Covenants - outdoor seating, and parking that is insufficient by current City rules. The walking and bike paths shown on the proposal’s renderings are pipe dreams that must be approved by 67% of the Sundance Springs residents because we control what goes on in our Open Space. I sincerely doubt that our Open Space will be given to a development that is so at odds with our community and it’s covenants. Even if we join the delusion and assume the paths will exist, gravel paths that are covered in snow and ice half the year should not be a substitute for properly designed and maintained sidewalks. The applicant is asking permission to crowd two structures onto a lot that was platted for one building. They are asking you to eliminate safe pedestrian access and to cut parking space requirements and allow overflow parking onto streets not designed for it. Really, they are seeking space for a destination drinking and dining establishment at which the vast majority of patrons will not be from the neighborhood. Let’s call this development what it is, a drive-to, outdoors drinking and eating plaza. But whatever one wants to call it, I suggest that you enforce the rules and processes laid down in the Findings of Fact and the Covenants and deny the proposal. My final comment is again about process. It has been said in other comments, that there is no legal precedent and nothing that I see in the UDC that allows for a “pause” in the application review process. During that 150 day “pause” I know there was communication between the City and the applicant about which the public has not been made aware. 150 days of invisible-to-the-public dialog between the City and the applicant, after which we-the-public are given two weeks, starting on a national holiday week, to make comment – but only on a poorly organized slice of documents and letters determined by the City. The rest we cannot see. Beyond what a court might someday say about this “pause”, it is just poor treatment of interested parties to keep us in the dark for 150 days and then to insist that we formulate comments on limited and poorly formatted information. I suggest you organize the materials for comment in chronological files with file names that make sense and that you add files of all other communications between the developer and the City during the 150-day “pause”. I ask that another 4 weeks get added to the comment period and that you immediately, directly email all of those who have commented on Proposal 22047 in
the past and notify them that there is more information about which you want their comments. If, indeed, that is what you are seeking. Sincerely, Jeffrey L. King 339 Peace Pipe Drive Bozeman, MT 59715