HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-24 Public Comment - J. Rogers - Public Comment Against Site Plan #22047 (This letter addressed specifically to Com Dev)From:John Rogers
To:Agenda
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment Against Site Plan #22047
Date:Saturday, February 24, 2024 3:01:58 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.
Dear City of Bozeman Community Development Division,
I am writing to express my concern with Site Plan #22047 and ask you to overturn approval
for this project. I grew up in Bozeman just a few blocks from the lot where Site Plan #22047 isproposed. As a longtime resident of South Bozeman and property owner in Sundance Springs
I have watched the character of our community rapidly change.
I am not opposed to growth and appreciate the challenges facing our community planners.However, the series of events leading to your approval of Site Plan 22047 is disturbing. Now
is the moment where the city development division should reflect on their obligation to followthe law. Your residents expect you to make fact-based, unemotional decisions that are in the
best interest of the community, not just in the best interest of every developer asking forexceptions to the rules.
The intent of the city-approved Master Plan for this site is crystal clear and well understood. I
find it appalling that the city has conveniently “lost a document” that has been approved andon file for 25 years. Now, the City planning division and City Attorney want to selectively
interpret the law to the benefit of the developer. Original PUD aside, your own market study in1997 concluded that “lot #2 should be used for a one-story store.” Then again in 2020, you
confirmed the intent of the master plan, specifying that the commercial site was designed for a“Village Store.” You cannot conveniently ignore these studies and approve a development that
vastly departs from the original intent of what you approved.
The list of departures from the approved site plan is captured well in the 200+ publiccomments made against Site Plan #22047 over the last 2 years, but here are a few examples
that stand out:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->You approved 2x two-story buildings for a total of
over 12,000 sq. ft. Only a single, one-story 5,000 sq. ft. building is allowed.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->You approved a flat roofed buildings with mostly
large glass exteriors. Flat roofs and glass exteriors are not allowed.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->You approved infrastructure for outdoor activities
including fire pits, large patios, and seating for up to 250 people. All outdoor activities are not allowed.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->You approved multiple departures (exceptions to
code) that do not comply with the PUD and do not enhance the site plan.
Examples: Building placement violates numerous codes like block frontage standards,setbacks, open space requirements, and lack of permission to access trails not owned by the
developer.Parking in front of buildings violates the code that requires parking to be at the sides, above,
or below the building.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->You approved a departure from the approved (1990s
era zoning) parking requirement, planning for only 43 parking spaces in the development.This decision will create a public safety hazard as vehicles spill onto the narrow residential
streets of Sundance Springs and the surrounding neighborhoods. This will block egress andlimi access for emergency services. Your own Fire Marshall identified this reduced parking
approval as a safety hazard. Your decision to “accept this risk” is reckless, putting the publicand our first responders unnecessarily at risk.
I am not opposed to developing this site for its original, approved intent: a one-story “village
store” that provides a value-added service to the surrounding neighborhoods. Clearly therewas a lot of thought put into that design when the subdivision was originally approved. The
positive impact of a village store is well understood by longtime South Bozeman residentswho frequent the Kagy Korner Store, a “village store" design that has served the surrounding
neighborhoods since the 1980s.
I expect the city attorney and community development director to follow the law. The PUDdevelopment guidelines and master plan are not optional and cannot be selectively interpreted.
Overturn the approval of Site Plan 22047.
Regards,
John Rogers
Lot 92, Sundance Springs