HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-24 Public Comment - S. Bischke - Please deny site plan number 22047 as currently formulated.From:Scott Bischke
To:Agenda
Cc:Katie Gibson
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Please deny site plan number 22047 as currently formulated.
Date:Tuesday, February 20, 2024 4:26:20 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: Decision makers at the City of Bozeman Planning Department:
From: Scott Bischke and Katie Gibson, 3940 E Graf Street (in Sundance Springs), Bozeman, MT 5975;406-582-4442 (Scott)
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs Commercial Development,site plan number 22047. Please deny site plan number 22047 as currently formulated.
While we accept that commercial development on this site is likely at some date, even anticipated, westrongly oppose the developer's requested departures from laws describing the City's block frontagestandards. Why?
BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d states "Departures may be considered provided the location and front
orientation of the buildings are compatible with the character of the area and enhance the
character of the street." Site plan 22047 does not meet either criterion. Placing large
commercial buildings along the designated open space is not compatible with the tranquil
character of the trail system or surrounding residential neighborhood.
Further, an underlying premise of the Block Frontage Standards is that parking lots along
streets cause a visual impact on the street-scape, even if mitigated with a berm (BMC
38.510.030.C.3.c). Proposal 22047 places parking along the entire South 3rd frontage, on the
street corner with Little Horse Drive. It even degrades the trail user's experience by placing
parking along the entire trail system to the east, without incorporating mitigating landscaping!
The plan would therefore degrade the character of South Third Avenue, not to mention the
trails.
The proposed buildings have a higher parking demand than will fit on the site. In the 1996
Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission, which created the PUD, the City
Commissioners explicitly forbade Neighborhood Services District patrons from parking on the
streets. The requested reduction in parking requirements from 68 spaces to 44 spaces may be
allowed under current zoning, but is incompatible with the City Commission's order regarding
this site. We ask that any development on this site meet its full parking demand in order to
comply with the Commission's Order.
The site plan fails to live up to the Planned Urban Development governing the site, which
incorporates zoning under the 1992-era B-1 Neighbors Service District, as established by the
Planning Department in its October 1, 2020 Development Review Comments. The PUD
therefore requires a small commercial development, residential in character. When site plan
22047 is weighed against the 1992-era B-1 standard (Chapter 18.28), yard sizes (setbacks) are
inadequate, building sizes are too large, parking is inadequate, and the building is designed
specifically to house a disallowed business use (a brewery). Overall the character of the
development fails to meet the legal intent of the 1992-era B-1 zoning law (18.28.010) -- to
maintain the residential character of the area.
We are concerned for our neighbors living in the SW corner of Sundance Springs about the
provision for large patio space which will support outdoor business uses on the site. The 1992-
era B-1 zoning prohibits outdoor business use on the site as a principal use. We are
against any conditional use or other permission that might be granted by the city that
would allow for outdoor business use or alcohol consumption on the site because such
uses are not compatible with the tranquil nature of the open spaces and residential areas
adjacent to the lot. The proposed patios are decidedly incompatible with the character of the
trail system and surrounding neighborhood.
Finally, we ask that a provision for sidewalks along the South 3rd frontage be enforced before
approval of the site plan. This is a requirement of note 5 on the Sundance Spring SubdivisionPhase 1B Final Plat and by the 1996 Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission thatcreated the Sundance Springs Subdivision. Allowing development to proceed without sidewalksdefeats the intention of making our city a walkable one.
We request the following:
1. That the developer *not* be allowed to place large commercial buildings along the designated
open space, a process disallowed by the compatibility decree under BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d.
2. That any development on this site meet its full parking demand in order to comply with the
Commission's Order.
3. Please disallow any outdoor business or alcohol consumption on whatever business may
eventually be accepted for the site. Have a heart for your fellow Bozemanites living right next
door.
4. That a provision for sidewalks along the South 3rd frontage be enforced before approval of any
site plan.
5. And most importantly, please deny application 22047 until such time as the site plan
requests no conditional uses or departures and complies with the 1992-era zoning
requirements and the block frontage standards parking for proposed buildings can be contained
on site (as required by the City Commission), and sidewalks are included on South Third Ave, to
keep pedestrians safe as commercial areas of the city expand outward.
This is our neighborhood and we care both for its peace and sanctity, for all of us regarding noise
and traffic, and especially for our neighbors living right next door to the proposed development. The
current proposal does not reflect that care, and in fact explicitly requests conditions and departures from
the City planning mandates that gave people moving into the neighborhood a reasonable expectation that
the tranquility of their neighborhood would be protected in perpetuity. That's a travesty.
We worry that our city has changed dramatically (one of us started in MSU in 1977, so that comment
reflects 45 years of observation), spurred in part by the seemingly endless catering of the Planning
Department to developer requests. We can do better and denying site plan #22047 is a perfect place to
start.
Thanks for considering our input; thanks for considering what's best for our community -- both Sundance
Springs and surrounding neighborhoods, and Bozeman as a whole. ____________