The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-13-23 Public Comment - T. Steinmetz - public comment on Site Plan #22047From:TODD STEINMETZ To:Agenda Subject:public comment on Site Plan #22047 Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:33:38 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 who it may concern: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Ellis View Estates HOA to reiterate our opposition to any approval of Site Plan #22047. Proposed changes to the Site Plan do not address our previously stated concerns. Sidewalks: The developers have still not reached out to us requesting approval for the proposed trail across our property. Pedestrian access from our subdivision will be restricted during the winter if the proposed trail is allowed in lieu of sidewalks along South Third. Without such sidewalks, our subdivision is relegated to being a pedestrian island in the winter. The Sundance Springs Plat and Orders of the Commission in the Findings of Fact and Order require that sidewalks be installed before any development can commence. Master Plan and Development Guidelines: The City's recent proposal to reconstruct the terms of the PUD are wholly inadequate. First, the proposal is illegal under BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d. Second, the proposed method of reconstructing the terms of the Approved Final Plan ignores the PUD's Development Guidelines (Z-98125) and Master Plan Map (remaining folder for Z-9812), which are binding requirements of the PUD. Market Study: A Market Study required by the City Commission clarifies the rationale for specifying a Convenience Store on the Master Plan Map for Lot #2. Specifically, a Convenience Store would be unlikely to draw traffic *into* the neighborhood and reduce the need for traffic *leaving* the neighborhood. Allowing anything other then the Convenience Store specified by the Master Plan Map would nullify the assumptions of the Market Study and disallow commercial development on the Neighborhood Services Lots, by order of the City Commission (Condition 29 of the findings of fact and order approving the preliminary plan for the Sundance Springs PUD). Constructive Notice: When purchasing our lots, we were on constructive notice of the commercial development potential of the lots. Therefore, we have no right to protest commercial development that complies with PUD's terms of development on the site. However, PUD's Development Guidelines state that the Applicant is also on constructive notice of the PUD's requirements, agrees to the same, and is legally bound to them. We expect the City to ensure the applicant lives up to the terms of the PUD's Master Plan Map and Development Guidelines. The Development Guidelines were approved by the City, in part, as a way to protect our neighborhood from the effects of disproportionate commercial development, as is proposed by Application #22047. Specifically, the Application Criteria included in Z-95125 states: "[a]ll future construction will be controlled by the city zone and building codes, covenants and developmental guidelines for the project, which further specify architectural and landscaping treatments to individual lots” and “[t]hese Covenants and Development Guidelines assure that the neighborhood services portion of the property will remain in scale with the surrounding residential developments." Further, the Staff Report for Z- 98125 states that the City will "ensure that construction applies with the [development] guidelines. Site plan review will occur for all development within the neighborhood services area, and that review will ensure compliance with the [Development] Guidelines." 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. This is incorrect. The Staff Report for Z-95125 makes clear that the PUD did not approve ANY business uses on the Neighborhood Services lots whatsoever, and that approval of ANY proposed business use would be required as part of the Site Plan application or as a subsequent conditional use approval. Because there are no uses specified by the Site Plan, the City must conduct a full conditional use approval for any proposed business use on the site in the future. We are entirely opposed to outdoor business uses on the site. Large Outdoor Patios: In reference to the unapproved business uses, the large outdoor patios would create spaces for outdoor business uses, which have been 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 the subdivision, which outdoor use at this scale surely would. The proposed patios are therefore fatal to Application #22047; it must be denied. 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 the covenants must be considered in the context of the covenants' legal declaration. The declaration states that all covenants shall be enforced 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, they must 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 Site Plan violates the 1992-era parking requirements specified in both the Introduction to the PUD's Development Guidelines and in the body of the Development Guidelines. Therefore, again, Site Plan #22047 must be denied. Summary: As homeowners adjacent to the commercial development proposed by Site Plan #22047, we insist that the City follow the BMC. Further, we note that planning staff assured the City Commission (in the Staff Report for Z-95125) that the Development Guidelines would be enforced, and that assurance was a precursor to the Commission's approval of the PUD. We expect the City staff to enforce the Development Guidance. We insist that the requirements of BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d be followed by the City and that Application #22047 be disapproved until such time as the Approved Final Plan is located or there has been an formal process to reconstruct of the terms of the PUD's Approved Final Plan, including the opportunity for public participation in such a reconstruction. Any reconstruction must include the record of the terms of the PUD's Master Plan and the Development Guidelines. Enforcement of the same is binding upon the City. 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 known terms of the PUD's Master Plan Map, Development Guidelines, and the 1992-era zoning, all enforceable under modern BMC 38.430.080.A, BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d, BMC 38.100.050, and BMC 38.100.080. Todd Steinmetz President Ellis View Estates HOA Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphoneGet Outlook for Android