HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-24 Public Comment - L. Poole - Appeal of Site Plan 22047 ApprovalFrom:Lawrence H. and Jean Y. Poole
To:Agenda
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Appeal of Site Plan 22047 Approval
Date:Sunday, February 25, 2024 8:11:36 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 the Attention of the City Commissioners:
I am once again submitting public comment in objection to site plan 22047 (Sundance Springs
Neighborhood Services Lot 2 at S 3rd and Little Horse). I have been a half-time resident of
Bozeman for the past number of years and prior to that, a frequent visitor spending many
weeks a year. In recent years I have observed numerous development projects that were
allowed to negatively impact the residents of Bozeman. Site plan 22047 is just one more
example. Specifically in this regard, my primary objection is based on the fact the final plan
for the approved PUD covering the site in question has been lost. Bozeman’s UDC states that
no plan can be approved without the final plan and yet the Director of Community
Development gave approval. Additionally, I have listed below just of few of the site plan’s
many violations of not only the PUD that was approved by the City Commission, but also the
City’s UDC:
1. While the PUD allows for a single one-story 5,000 sq. ft. building, the Director of
Development approved two two-story buildings for a total of over 1 2,000 sq. ft.
2. The Director of Development approved two-story flat roofed buildings with mostly large
glass exteriors, under the PUD flat roofs and glass exteriors are not allowed.
3. Under the PUD ALL outdoor activities are disallowed, yet the Director of Development
approved infrastructure for outdoor activities including fire pits, large patios, and seating for
up to 250 people.
4. The City’s Director of Development approved three departures (exceptions to
code). Departures are required to enhance the site plan. Examples of departures that do not
comply with the PUD and do not enhance the site plan are:
a. 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.
b. Parking in front of buildings violates the code that requires parking to be at the
sides, above, or below the building.
In closing I would ask the City Commission to uphold the PUD and their own UDC by
OVERTURNING the Director of Development approval of Site Plan 22047
Sincerely,
Lawrence Poole