HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-23 Public Comment - J. Booth - Project 22047Please be aware that the neighbors of this area are requesting a vote of NO on the this project.
BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d forbids City Personnel from issuing development approvals that do not comply with the terms of a PUD's
Approved Final Plan. Therefore, any development under the PUD must comply with the the PUD's approved final Master Plan and
Development Guidelines.
I recognized that the record of the Approved Final Plan has been lost by the City. Based on the recent correspondence between
the City and the Applicant for Site Plan #22047, I also understand that the City is attempting to "reconstruct" the terms of the
missing Approved Final Plan in order to approve Site Plan #22047.
I remind the City that 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, I recognize that the PUD's Approved Preliminary Plan (Document Z-95125) should contain a draft of the Master Plan
and Development Guidelines approved by the City Commission. However, I understand that the portion of the record describing
the PUD's preliminary Master 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 of the PUD's Master Plan is the Master Plan Map found in what remains of Z-9812.
Third, it appears that the City is planning to ignore most of the Development Guidelines and all of the Master Plan Map in its
attempt to 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 only because 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 included in 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.
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.
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 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 to
ensure that Emergency Response Vehicles can access the subdivision on the 24' wide roads. Because the demand for on-street
parking will create a public safety issue, the Site Plan must be denied (BMC 38.100.040, BMC 38.100.050).
From:James BoothTo:AgendaSubject:Project 22047Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 2:52:17 PM
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 whom it may concern
What confidence can we have in the city if the rules are not followed and what protection does a citizen have when they purchase a
home thinking those rules with be enacted.
Thank you
Rhet L. Booth
In the end, the Site Plan violates the 1992-era parking requirements specified in both the Introduction to the Development
Guidelines 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 to
conclude that 50% of the market for Commercial Development on the Neighborhood Service's lot would come from the
surrounding residences. 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, teh proposed commercial development on Lot #2 is disallowed.
Summary
I 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 reconstruction of the terms of the PUD's
Approved 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
of the 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, 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.
-- Booth Dental, P.C.Dr. James L. Booth, D.D.S.Dr. Jamie E. Booth, D.D.S.Dr. Lindsay B. Tarkleson, D.D.S.
P. (406) 586-5888F. (406) 586-7037
PRIVACY ACT/HIPPA STATEMENT- This document may contain information covered under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (a), and/or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (PL 104-191) and its variousimplementing regulations and must be protected in accordance with those provisions. Healthcare information is personal and sensitive and must be treated accordingly. If this correspondence contains healthcare information it isbeing provided to you after appropriate authorization from the patient or under circumstances that don't require patient authorization. You, the recipient, are requested to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality without additional patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited. If you have received this correspondence in error, please notify the sender at once and destroy any copiesyou have made.