HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-24 Public Comment - C. Robinson - City Commission Public Hearing Appealing the City’s Approval of Site Plan 22047 - Appeal Letter AttachedFrom:Charles Robinson
To:Agenda
Cc:Charles Robinson
Subject:[EXTERNAL]City Commission Public Hearing Appealing the City’s Approval of Site Plan 22047 - Appeal LetterAttached
Date:Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:45:40 PM
Attachments:Letter of Appeal - Charles Robinson.pdf
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.
In connection with tonight's public hearing, please find the attached letter.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Charles E. D. Robinson
Charles and Nancy Robinson
115 Rocking Bear Circle
Bozeman, MT 59715
February 27, 2024
City of Bozeman Community Development Division
ATTN: Anna Bentley
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Sent via email: agenda@bozeman.net
Re: Notice of the City Commission Public Hearing Appealing the City’s Approval of Site Plan 22047
(Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Lot 1 at S 3rd and Little Horse)
6:00 PM February 27, 2024, City Hall of Bozeman
Dear City Officials -
The undersigned are concerned full-time residents of Bozeman in the Sundance Springs residential development. The
purpose of this letter is to communicate our extreme disappointment in and opposition to the recent decision by the City to
approve the site plan submitted by the developer for the captioned site. In reference to the captioned public hearing, we
hereby request that the City overturn its previous decision and disapprove the Site Plan 22047.
The following are some of the reasons we oppose the City’s previous decision and make this request:
1.) The City lost the Approved Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development's final Master Plan. Without the final Master Plan,
there is no legal basis to proceed. Despite this fact, the City continued the process of approving this site plan.
2.) The approved site plan violates many PUD development guidelines. Some examples:
a. Approved two two-story buildings.
Only one one-story building is allowed.
b. Approved flat roofed buildings with mostly large glass exteriors.
The flat roofs and glass exteriors are not allowed.
c. Approved extensive outdoor infrastructure for outdoor activities.
ALL outdoor activities are prohibited.
3.) The City approved three departures (exceptions to code). Departures are required to enhance the site plan. Some
examples that do not comply with the PUD:
a. Building placement violates numerous codes like setbacks, open space requirements, permissions to access trails.
b. Parking in front of buildings violates safety codes, among others.
In addition to the above, we’d like to highlight the following from the development guidelines for this property: … any
development must be harmonious with the overall plan for the subdivision (Sundance Springs). All plans, materials and
specifications of a proposed development must be suitable to the site and the adjacent properties in the neighborhood. All
improvements must be compatible with the surrounding properties so as not to impair or degrade property or aesthetic values.
Residents close enough (adjacent) to experience the vehicle traffic, congested parking and the activity at such a commercial
site will actually see, hear and otherwise experience the activity from their homes at all times - this will degrade their current
relatively quiet residential living atmosphere and therefore ultimately negatively impact and/or impair their home values.
Those of us not actually living next to the development but passing by on our way to or from our home will experience the
same activities. So will the public who use the nearby nature trails. Wildlife will experience and be repelled by the pressure.
A big part of the appeal of the residential properties in Sundance Springs and the use of the nature trails weaving through the
development’s meadows and open spaces, is the relative quietness, beauty, solitude and “wildness”. The several
interconnected publicly accessible trails, live creeks and open vista meadows teaming with all types of wildlife attract people
of every age - all of this is tucked “away” from the buzzing city. When home values decline because of a misplaced and
incompatible commercial development “in their backyard”, sales of similar residential properties in the immediately
surrounding neighborhoods will be negatively impacted by those comparable sales. There can be no question that if given a
choice on where to live, with all things being equal, a typical prospective home buyer would always choose the better
location, and the better location will NOT be next door to a commercial development as currently proposed - that is the
antithesis to the privacy, beauty and tranquility most people desire and seek for a home.
Aesthetically (speaking to “aesthetic values”), Sundance Springs is a picture of privacy, beauty and tranquility among the
existing natural vistas, landscapes and wildlife - the activity on the public trails and the abundant wildlife are proof the area is
very attractive to those living there, to those visiting and to the wildlife thriving in the natural habitat. We should all hope to
attract people for those reasons and not to spoil a wonderful thing - there is no need or desire to “citify” this raw land with
the proposed development. The city and all it offers is very accessible just a few minutes away.
In the context of the existing Master Plan rules, PUD Development Guidelines and the 1990’s Era Zoning laws, and for all of
the reasons outlined above, we think there are very compelling legal arguments to disapprove the Site Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinions and opposition to the development plan and thank you for listening. We
hope the City will hear the numerous other voices opposing the subject plan and disapprove the Site Plan accordingly.
Sincerely,
Charles and Nancy Robinson