HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-23 Public Comment - L. & C. Green - Public Comment for Sundance Springs Commercial Lot 2 (Project 22047)"Application #22047" or "Site Plan #22047"
is the development application
"Sundance Springs PUD" is the planned unit
development, or the rules that govern
development in the Sundance Springs
subdivision.
"The Applicant" is the developer
The "Master Plan" and "Development
Guidelines" spell out the requirements of the
PUD
The "Approved Final Plan (City document Z-
9812)"contains the formal requirements of
the PUD in written form. It contains the
PUD's Master Plan and Development
Guidelines. This document is missing from
City records.
The "Approved Preliminary Plan" (City
document Z-95125) is the precursor to the
Approved Final Plan, and contains a draft of
the Development Guidelines that were
approved by the City Commission. The Table
of Contents of Z-95125 lists the "Master Plan
Objectives" which would be the precursor to
the approved Master Plan, but the Master
Plan Objectives themselves are missing from
Z-95125.
The "Conditions of Approval" are changes to
the "Approved Preliminary Plan" that were
required by the City Commission.
From:Les and Ciretta Green
To:Agenda
Subject:Public Comment for Sundance Springs Commercial Lot 2 (Project 22047)
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 1:23:28 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.
please deny permission for this project. This will ruin the integrity of our peacefulneighborhood due to the lack of parking and the noise level ( noise carries in this area) frompeople seated and drinking g in outside areas till late at night.
"BMC" means "Bozeman Municipal Code" or
the laws enacted by the City, including the
Unified Development Code (BMC Chapter 38)
which governs development in the City.
Public comment carries more weight when it
cites the BMC.
--Example public comment -------------------
The Sundance Springs PUD
The Sundance Springs PUD is a "Master Plan
and Development Guidelines Only" PUD.
Therefore the requirements of the PUD are
contained 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's
Approved Final Plan. Therefore, any
development under the PUD must comply
with the the PUD's approved final Master Plan
and Development Guidelines.
The missing Approved Final Plan
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.
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 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).
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.
Constructive Notice
The Development Guidelines state that the
Applicant is on "constructive notice" of the
PUD's requirements, agrees to the same, and
is legally bound to them. I expect the City to
ensure the applicant lives up to the terms of
the PUD's Master Plan Map and Development
Guidelines, which are requirements of the
PUD that are known at this time -- even in
the absence of the Approved Final Plan.
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.
SentFrom my iPhone