HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-23 Public Comment - G. Poole - Public Comment, Sundance Springs, Application #22047From:Geoffrey Poole
To:Lynn Hyde; Agenda
Cc:tswanson46@gmail.com; nsswanson04@gmail.com
Subject:[SENDER UNVERIFIED]Public Comment, Sundance Springs, Application #22047
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 4:40:45 PM
Attachments:Site Plan 22047 - Comments On North Property Line.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.
Hi Lynn.
Please accept the attached public comment on the north property line setback for application
#22047.
Thank you!
-Geoff
June 13, 2023
Lynn Hyde
Development Review Planner
City of Bozeman
Dear Lynn:
As an addendum to the comments submitted yesterday by my attorney, I submit the following comments regarding the
recently proposed adjustment to the setback on the north boundary of Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot #2
(Application #22047).
According to the concept review of the Site Plan1, the north property line is governed by rear setback requirements and also
serves as a trail frontage regulated under BMC 38.510. This creates an unusual situation where a rear boundary is also a
frontage. BMC 38.500.020.A states that provisions of Article 5 of the BCM (including regulation of frontages) shall prevail
when in conflict with other sections of the UDC. Thus, this north boundary must be treated as a frontage.
As we have noted in prior comments, Site Plan #22047 proposes to degrade this trail frontage by creating parking along
more than 50% of the frontage.2 The applicant’s departure request still has not been modified to cover the same, and any
such a departure requires landscaping elements necessary to mitigate the visual impacts to the frontage (BMC
38.510.030.C.3.c). In other words, a screened vegetation berm is required along the north trail frontage to meet both the
letter and the intent of the Block Frontage Standards.3 If the City refuses to enforce the architectural guidance of the PUD’s
Development Guidelines, I ask that the City condition any approval of #22047 on installation of a tall vegetated berm on the
north boundary to screen the trail and adjacent neighborhoods from the visual impact of the parking lots as well at the
architecturally non-compliant buildings. The requirement of a vegetated berm as a condition of approval would be
consistent with approval criteria BMC 38.230.100.A.7.a.
Further, the east building is proposed to front a yet-to-be-built trail extension proposed on adjacent Residential HOA
property4. If the residential HOA does not give its permission for the trail extension, the effect is to leave: 1) the east
building fronting a parking lot while the north trail frontage is unaddressed (violating 38.510.020.F.1), and 2) a parking
along the length of the north trail frontage without required mitigation of visual impact (violating 38.510.030.C.3.c). The
Applicant has not requested departure from 38.510.020.F.1. The Applicant further acknowledges the buildings “would not
match the low-density agricultural/residential feel of the adjacent neighborhoods5”, thereby eliminating any potential for
departure from 38.510.020.F.1.6 Therefore, the Applicant’s recent changes to the north boundary setbacks and departure
requests have not cured associated issues with #220477.
Recent correspondence from the City indicates that the City is considering granting the departure requests and waiving most
of the requirements of the PUD’s Master Plan Map, Development Guidelines, and declaration of covenants (including the
enforcement of 1992-era zoning). Yet for the Site Plan to comply with BMC 38.510.020.F.1, the proposed trail extension
must be built. Therefore, any approval of #22047 must be conditioned upon the completion of the trail extension.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Geoff Poole
Bozeman, MT
1 Development Review Comments for the Sundance Springs Phase 1B Commercial Lot 2 Conceptual Review Application No. 20298;
Sundance Springs Subdivision Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2
2 BMC Table 38.510.030.C prohibits more than 50% of a frontage being occupied by parking.
3 BMC 38.510.010.B defines the intent of the block frontage standards as “To design sites and orient buildings with an emphasis on
compatible development and creating a comfortable walking environment.”
4 Public comment from the Sundance Springs HOA stated that approval of the trail would require a vote from the residential lot
owners. The HOA stated that no approval for the trail has been granted to the Applicant, and, given the opposition to Site Plan
#22047 among residential lot owners, approval of the trail is unlikely.
5 See Departure narrative for Site Plan #22047.
6 38.510.020.F.1.d states that departures from 38.510.020.F.1 require that the “location and front orientation of the buildings are
compatible with the character of the area.”
7 Additionally, the criteria for the requested departures are still not met, as noted in our comments of Dec 13.