HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-23 Public Comment - M. Spencer - Application #22047From:Mark Spencer
To:Agenda
Subject:Application #22047
Date:Tuesday, June 13, 2023 7:51:25 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.
All the items/guidelines/zoning conditions have been submitted before, so I will start with my
personal viewpoints on the matter of the application #22047.I remember when public servants (you are elected to represent the public.....AND LISTEN TO
THEM) worked for the betterment of the community and not only maintain the quality of life,but guard that quality of life and community for the future generations. There has been as
steady erosion of that quality of life in previous commissions......but this commission has, inthe view of a shocking number of community members, been on a mission to kill the quality
of life and community we wish to preserve and maintain. There exists a subversiveconnection and communication between developers, commission members, city lawyers and
planners......all of which is against the quality of life and community we fell in love with yearsago. This building project/application is the perfect example of what the community members
and residents of Sundance Springs DO NOT WANT.........and please don't tell me the old "notin my back yard" comment. The city has done its best to avoid finding and acknowledging the
original planning documents for Sundance Springs.....they are there, filed and preserved.....youjust don't care. This application is so wrong on so many levels and planning requirements, it
should NEVER have seen the light of day........but here we are.....fighting to say no, and youwill not listen.....SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!!!!
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 donot comply with the terms of a PUD's Approved Final Plan. Therefore, any developmentunder the PUD must comply with the the PUD's approved final Master Plan and DevelopmentGuidelines.
The missing Approved Final Plan
I recognized that the record of the Approved Final Plan has been lost by the City. Based onthe recent correspondence between the City and the Applicant for Site Plan #22047, I alsounderstand that the City is attempting to "reconstruct" the terms of the missing ApprovedFinal 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 Planis 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) shouldcontain a draft of the Master Plan and Development Guidelines approved by the CityCommission. However, I understand that the portion of the record describing the PUD'spreliminary Master Plan (listed in the Z-95125's table of contents) is missing from documentZ-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 andall 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 thelaw (BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d) not only because the Approved Final Plan is missing, butbecause known elements of the Approved Final Plan (the Master Plan Map and theDevelopment Guidelines) are being ignored.
In the end, Site Plan #22047 violates virtually all of the Architectural Guidance and manyother requirements included in the PUD's Development Guidelines and Master Plan Map, andtherefore must be disapproved.
Business uses on the Site
In a recent letter, the Applicant argued that the PUD permits any business uses associatedwith the modern B-1 zoning district. This is incorrect. The Staff Report for Z-95125makes clear that the PUD did not approve ANY business uses on the Neighborhood Serviceslots whatsoever, and that approval of ANY proposed business use would be required as partof the Site Plan application or as a subsequent conditional use approval. Because there areno uses specified by the Site Plan, the City must conduct a full conditional use approval forany 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 spacesfor outdoor business uses, which have been neither applied for nor approved (see "BusinessUses" above). The size of the patios (3000 sq ft) are disproportionate to the 5000 sq ftbuilding 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 theCity (See BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d). The PUD's Development Guidelines (enforceable underBMC 38.100.050.A) forbid occupation of any lot in a manner that will disturb the peacefulenjoyment 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 beenforced. However, ANY applicable subset of the covenants must be considered in thecontext of the covenants' legal declaration. The declaration states that all covenants shallbe enforced beyond the requirements of the zoning and development code that was in effecton the date the covenants were executed (the zoning in effect in 1998). Therefore becausethe City acknowledges that at least some of the covenants must be enforced, they must beenforced 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 andbuilding sizes. It must be denied.
Parking
The City's recent letter addressed the City's position on Parking requirements. The Site Planhas 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 thatEmergency Response Vehicles can access the subdivision on the 24' wide roads. Becausethe 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 DevelopmentGuidelines. Therefore, again, Site Plan #22047 must be denied.
Market Study
The City Commission ordered a Market Study. In order for the Commercial Development tobe allowed, the Market Study had to conclude that 50% of the market for CommercialDevelopment on the Neighborhood Service's lot would come from the surroundingresidences. The Market Study reached this conclusion by assuming that NeighborhoodServices Lot #2 (the subject of Application #22047) would contain a 5000 sq ft conveniencestore.
By violating the assumptions of the Market Study, Site Plan #22047 invalidates the Study'sconclusion 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'srequirements, agrees to the same, and is legally bound to them. I expect the City to ensurethe applicant lives up to the terms of the PUD's Master Plan Map and DevelopmentGuidelines, which are requirements of the PUD that are known at this time -- even in theabsence of the Approved Final Plan.
SummaryI insist that the requirements of BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d be followed by the City and thatApplication #22047 be disapproved until such time as the Approved Final Plan is located orthere has been an formal process to reconstruction of the terms of the PUD's Approved FinalPlan, including the opportunity for public participation in such a reconstruction.
Any reconstruction must include a reconstruction of the terms of the Master Plan and theDevelopment Guidelines. Enforcement of the same is binding upon the City.
Until such time, Site Plan #22047 must be disapproved because the Approved Final Plan ismissing (See BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d), and because Application #22047 violates the PUD'sMaster Plan Map, Development Guidelines, and the 1992-era zoning, all enforceableunder modern BMC 38.430.080.A, BMC 38.430.040.A.3.d, BMC 38.100.050, and BMC38.100.080.
Submitted respectfully,
Mark Spencer4112 East Graf
Bozeman52 year resident of Bozeman