HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-23 Public Comment - C. Lewis - My Opposition to Site Plan #22047From:chasTo:Agenda
Subject:My Opposition to Site Plan #22047
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 11:37:31 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.
On 6/13/2023 11:27:23 AM, SYLVIE KERN <sylviesadventure1@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I oppose this development application, despite every effort being made by the city to approve this atrocity of a development plan,which ignores decades of city planning. Below are my comments.
The Sundance Springs PUD
The Sundance Springs PUD is a "Master Plan and Development Guidelines Only" PUD. Therefore the requirements of the PUD arecontained within the "Master Plan" and "Development Guidelines" contained within the PUD's Approved Final Plan (Document Z-9812).
The Master Plan and Development Guidelines
BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d forbids City Personnel from issuing development approvals that do not comply with the terms of a PUD'sApproved Final Plan. Therefore, any development under the PUD must comply with the PUD's approved final Master Plan andDevelopment Guidelines.
The missing Approved Final Plan
Apparently the record of the Approved Final Plan has been lost by the City. Based on the recent correspondence between the Cityand the Applicant for Site Plan #22047, I also understand that the City is attempting to "reconstruct" the terms of the missingApproved Final Plan in order to approve Site Plan #22047.
Approving a Site Plan in the absence of the PUD's Approved Final Plan is a violation of the law (BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d).
Further, the PUD's Approved Preliminary Plan (Document Z-95125) should contain a draft of the Master Plan and DevelopmentGuidelines approved by the City Commission. However, I understand that the portion of the record describing the PUD's preliminaryMaster Plan (listed in the Z-95125's table of contents) is missing from document Z-95125. The same record is also missing from P-9539 (the Approved Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat for Phase 1 of Sundance Springs). Therefore, the only remaining record ofthe PUD's Master Plan is the Master Plan Map found in what remains of Z-9812.
It also appears that the City is planning to ignore most of the Development Guidelines and all of the Master Plan Map in its attemptto reconstruct the PUD's requirements. Instead, the City appears ready to assess Site Plan #22047 against only the Commission's"Conditions of Approval" for the preliminary PUD plan (Z-95125). This is, again, against the law (BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d), not onlybecause the Approved Final Plan is missing, but because known elements of the Approved Final Plan (the Master Plan Map and the
Development Guidelines) are being ignored.
In the end, Site Plan #22047 violates virtually all of the Architectural Guidance and many other requirements includedin the PUD's Development Guidelines and Master Plan Map, and therefore must be disapproved.
Business Uses on the Site
In a recent letter, the Applicant argued that the PUD permits any business uses associated with the modern B-1 zoning district. Thisis incorrect. The Staff Report for Z-95125 makes clear that the PUD did not approve ANY business uses on the NeighborhoodServices lots whatsoever, and that approval of ANY proposed business use would be required as part of the Site Plan applicationor as a subsequent conditional use approval. Because there are no uses specified by the Site Plan, the City must conduct a fullconditional use approval for any proposed business use on the site in the future.
Large Outdoor Patios
In reference to the unapproved business uses, the large outdoor patios would create spaces for outdoor business uses, which havebeen neither applied for nor approved (see "Business Uses" above). The size of the patios (3000 sq ft) are disproportionate to the
5000 sq ft building limit and are not shown on the Master Plan Map and therefore represent "improvements" that were not approved
under the PUD and cannot be allowed by the City (See BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d). The PUD's Development Guidelines (enforceable
under BMC 38.100.050.A) forbid occupation of any lot in a manner that will disturb the peaceful enjoyment of other lots in thesubdivision, which outdoor use at this scale surely would. The proposed patios are therefore fatal to Application #22047; it must bedenied.
The 1992 Zoning
In its recent letter, the City has argued that only a subset of the covenant must be enforced. However, ANY applicable subset of thecovenants must be considered in the context of the covenants' legal declaration. The declaration states that all covenants shall beenforced beyond the requirements of the zoning and development code that was in effect on the date the covenants were executed(the zoning in effect in 1998). Therefore, because the City acknowledges that at least some of the covenants must be enforced, theymust be enforced beyond the requirements of the 1992-era zoning (which was in effect in 1998).
Site Plan #22047 violates many of the terms of the 1992-era zoning including setbacks and building sizes. It must be denied.
Parking
The City's recent letter addressed the City's position on Parking requirements. The Site Plan has a parking demand of 68 spaces but
only provides 41, thereby creating a demand for on-street parking, which was explicitly prohibited by the City Commission toensure that Emergency Response Vehicles can access the subdivision on the 24' wide roads. Because the demand for on-streetparking will create a public safety issue, the Site Plan must be denied (BMC 38.100.040, BMC 38.100.050).
In the end, the Site Plan violates the 1992-era parking requirements specified in both the Introduction to the DevelopmentGuidelines and in the body of the Development Guidelines. Therefore, again, Site Plan #22047 must be denied.
Market Study
The City Commission ordered a Market Study. In order for the Commercial Development to be allowed, the Market Study had toconclude that 50% of the market for Commercial Development on the Neighborhood Service's lot would come from the surroundingresidences. The Market Study reached this conclusion by assuming that Neighborhood Services Lot #2 (the subject of Application#22047) would contain a 5000 sq ft convenience store.
By violating the assumptions of the Market Study, Site Plan #22047 invalidates the Study's conclusion that 50% of the market would
come from the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed commercial development on Lot #2 is disallowed.
Constructive Notice
The Development Guidelines state that the Applicant is on "constructive notice" of the PUD's requirements, agrees to the same, andis legally bound to them. I expect the City to ensure the applicant lives up to the terms of the PUD's Master Plan Map andDevelopment Guidelines, which are requirements of the PUD that are known at this time -- even in the absence of the ApprovedFinal Plan.
SummaryI insist that the requirements of BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d be followed by the City and that Application #22047 be disapproved untilsuch time as the Approved Final Plan is located or there has been an formal process to reconstruction of the terms of the PUD'sApproved Final Plan, including the opportunity for public participation in such a reconstruction.
Any reconstruction must include a reconstruction of the terms of the Master Plan and the Development Guidelines. Enforcement ofthe same is binding upon the City.
Until such time, Site Plan #22047 must be disapproved because the Approved Final Plan is missing (See BMC
38.430.040.A.3.d), and because Application #22047 violates the PUD's Master Plan Map, Development Guidelines, andthe 1992-era zoning, all enforceable under modern BMC 38.430.080.A, BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d, BMC 38.100.050, and BMC38.100.080.
Thank you.
Charles Lewis bigbluesky2017@outlook.com