Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA1.Growth Policy Sundance15-580, Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment NOTE: UPDATES TO THIS STAFF REPORT THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE ITS PRESENTATION TO THE ZONING COMMISSION ARE SHOWN IN RED. Public Hearing Dates: Planning Board February 2, 2016 City Commission February 22, 2016 Project Description: A growth policy amendment to revise Figure 3-1, the future land use map from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential on 6.2294 acres. Project Location: The property is addressed at 640 and 675 Little Horse Drive and is legally described as Commercial Lots 1 & 2, Sundance Springs Subdivision, Phase 1B, located in the North East One-Quarter (NE ¼) of Section 25, Township Two South (T2S), Range Five East (R5E), City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Recommendation: Approval with contingencies to complete processing Planning Board Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report and recommend approval of the growth policy amendment application no. 15-580 with contingencies. Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for Resolution 4676 a resolution of intent to amend the growth policy per application 15-580 and move to approve the growth policy amendment with contingencies and subject to all applicable code provisions. Report Date: February 17, 2016 Staff Contact: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Agenda Item Type: Action - Legislative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unresolved Issues None 274 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 2 of 22 Project Summary The application seeks to change the Future Land Use Designation from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential on 6.2294 acres. The change is preparatory to developing the area for residential development. Commercial Lots 1 and 2 were created with the platting of the Sundance Springs Phase 1B subdivision in 1998. Phase 1B was platted concurrently with the Sundance Springs Phase 1A residential subdivision adjacent to the subject property. The zoning designation of R-S (Residential Suburban) requires a planned unit development (PUD) to establish setbacks, open space, parks and may include uses typically not associated with a suburban residential development. The Sundance Springs PUD was approved with a commercial node at the intersection of Goldenstein Lane and South 3rd Avenue. The underlying zoning was not modified. However, during subsequent Community Plan updates the future land use designation was modified to reflect the expected and approved use for the subject property. The 1990 Bozeman Master Plan, adopted on October 29, 1990, shows this area as Public Open Space and Suburban Residential. The Bozeman 2020 Plan, adopted on October 22, 2001 shows the area with a designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The current Bozeman Community Plan reflects the current name of Community Commercial Mixed Use. The Community Commercial Mixed Use designation is the new name for Neighborhood Commercial. Staff has identified three primary community interests when considering the change from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential in addition to the specific review criteria discussed in Section 4: 1. The predominately suburban residential and agricultural character of the land in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; 2. The proximate location of Sacajawea Middle School; and 3. Anticipated City growth in the area. As further discussed under the growth policy amendment criteria in Section 4 of the report, Staff is required to make a key finding that the growth policy amendment proposed is better for the community as a whole and not just for the current property owner, or potential new property owner. If a single parcel of land is proposed for a growth policy amendment, all responsibilities to support this finding are held by that parcel alone. Two parcels are proposed to be modified with this application. The growth policy amendment criteria give guidance in evaluating an amendment proposal. To reach a favorable decision on the proposed application the Planning Board and City Commission must find that the application meets all of criteria 1-4 and that the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes. As elaborated in Section 17.4 of 275 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 3 of 22 the Bozeman Community Plan, “Unless all criteria are successfully met by demonstrable facts, an amendment shall not be approved.” Staff’s analysis and findings conclude that the Sundance Springs Growth Policy Amendment meets the amendment criteria, and therefore is recommending that the Planning Board and City Commission approve the amendment request. Alternatives 1. Approve the application with the recommended contingencies; 2. Approve the application with modifications to the recommended contingencies; 3. Deny the application based on the Commission’s findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 4. Open and continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. Planning Board Action The Planning Board held their public hearing on February 2, 2016. Public testimony from three persons was taken at the public hearing and 21 written public comments were entered into the record. The written comment is summarized in the “Public Comment” section of this report. In conclusion the Planning Board voted (8:1) to recommend that the City Commission amend the growth policy from Commercial Mixed Use to Residential as described in Application No. 15-580. The link to the video recording of this public hearing can be found here: February 2, 2016 Planning Board Meeting TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 2 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 2- RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF APPROVAL .............................. 11 276 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 4 of 22 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS .................................... 11 SECTION 4 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 11 Section 17.4, Bozeman Community Plan Amendment Criteria. ...................................... 12 APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............. 17 APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.............. 19 APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................... 21 APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF............................ 22 FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 22 ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 22 277 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 5 of 22 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES 278 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 6 of 22 279 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 7 of 22 280 281 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 9 of 22 282 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 10 of 22 Subject Properties 283 SECTION 2- RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF APPROVAL If the City Commission approves the application the following contingencies are recommended. Please note that these contingencies are necessary for the City to complete the processing of the proposed amendment. Recommended Contingencies of Approval: 1) The applicant shall submit, within forty-five (45) days of approval by the City Commission, an 8½- x 11-inch or 8½- x 14-inch exhibit entitled “Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment” to the Department of Community Development containing an accurate description of the property for which the growth policy designation is being amended. The exhibit must be acceptable to the Department of Community Development. 2) The resolution for the growth policy amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides an exhibit of the area to be re-designated, which will be utilized in the preparation of the resolution to officially amend the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman Community Plan. SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS Project Name: The Sundance Springs Phase 1B Growth Policy Map Amendment File: 15-580 Having considered the criteria established for a growth policy map amendment, the Staff recommends approval with contingencies for the application as submitted. The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment on January 6 & 13, 2016. The DRC recommended approval of the application noting there is sufficient capacity in the existing City services to accommodate residential development on the subject property. The Planning Board held a public hearing on this GPA on February 2, 2016 and recommended 8:1 to the City Commission that the application be approved. The hearing will be held at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the growth policy map amendment on February 22, 2016. The hearing will be held at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. SECTION 4 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following criteria. As an amendment is a legislative action, the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy direction. The burden of proof that the application should be approved lies with the applicant. 284 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 12 of 22 Few proposals are uniformly positive or negative in their effects. Especially in a legislative policy arena such as a growth policy amendment the legislative body must balance competing priorities and issues. The following criteria give guidance in evaluating a proposal. To reach a favorable decision on the proposed application the City Commission must find that the application meets all of criteria 1-4 and that the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes. In making these findings, they may identify that there are some negative elements within a specific criteria but that on balance other elements outweigh the negative. Section 17.4, Bozeman Community Plan Amendment Criteria. 1. The proposed amendment must cure a deficiency in the growth policy, or improve the growth policy, to better respond to the needs of the general community; The term “deficiency” is not defined in the growth policy. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as: “a lack of something that is needed; the state of not having enough of something necessary: a problem in the way something is made or formed”. The applicant asserts amendment will result in an improved growth policy by providing development of Commercial Lots 1 and 2 consistent with the desires of the community. The applicant continues stating that there is strong support from the members of the Sundance Springs Home Owners Association and other adjacent land owners for eliminating the commercial lots and allowing the land to develop residentially. However, that support is contingent on any residential development includes similar amount of parkland and open space and density as the existing neighborhood. The vast majority of buildable residential lots within the Sundance Springs subdivision have been developed. The two commercial lots in Phase 1B remain vacant since their creation for the past 18 years. Additional housing is needed for the expected growth of the City of Bozeman. However, there are significant areas available for residential development which is expected to be adequate to meet the need in the near future. On the other hand there are relatively few R-S zoned properties available for development. Conversion of the area to residential will supply the market with additional residential properties. There appears to be four properties within the Sundance Springs Subdivision currently for sale. The average price is $723,250 and one vacant has an asking price of $325,000. As described in Appendix B, the property has been included in the City’s long range planning documents for many years and the designation has changed during that time. If the property was re-designated by error then the change to Residential would be a correction of a deficiency. Finally, the property was originally classified as residential and was subsequently modified after the approval of the PUD which established land use for the development at the request of the developer of Sundance Springs. 285 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 13 of 22 In conclusion, the proposed change improves the Community Plan. The property was originally designated as residential. In an effort to provide necessary commercial space the City determined this area was suitable for such activity. However, time has shown that this location is not suitable for commercial development at this time. As traffic and building trends have evolved over the last 20 years a more suitable location may be emerging to the west on South 19th. In addition, the general pattern of development is for very low density residential development which is generally not dense enough to support viable commercial activity. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed modification moderately improves the growth policy, to better respond to the needs of the general community. Staff has identified three public discussion points relating to the potential change to Residential. 1. The predominately suburban residential and agricultural character of the land in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; 2. The proximate location of Sacajawea Middle School; and 3. Anticipated City growth in the area Consideration 1: The predominately suburban residential and agricultural character of the land in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. As the City expanded in a southerly direction an awareness of the lack of community commercial area became noticeable. Currently the nearest commercial area is 1.95 miles to the north at the Southtown Square development. The Growth Policy describes two different commercial scales to serve different purposes within the Community Commercial Mixed Use category. The smaller Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10 - 15 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers support and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal point. These smaller scale centers should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials and/or collectors. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations the size and scale is to be smaller within the local service placements. Goldenstein Lane is a designated Minor Arterial and South 3rd Avenue is a designated Collector Street. The next closest existing commercial area is west of South 19th between Kagy Boulevard and Stucky Road. Alternatively, the intersection of Goldenstein and South 19th may evolve as a viable commercial node to serve the needs of residents on the south side of Bozeman. The property to the south across Goldenstein Lane is designated as “present Rural” according to the Figure 3-1, the Future Land Use Map. This category designates areas where development is considered to be generally inappropriate over the 20 year term of the Bozeman 286 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 14 of 22 Community Plan. This may be either because of natural features, negative impacts on the desired development pattern, or significant difficulty in providing urban services. The extent of the wastewater and water distribution system ends at Goldestein Lane. Any further development would require annexation and construction of service lines, if capacity is available. Also, the subject property is bounded on two sides by the City and is classified for residential use. The other two sides fall within the Gallatin County Bozeman Area Zoning District and are zoned A-S (Agricultural Suburban and R-S (Residential Suburban). As noted earlier the property has remained undeveloped for the past 18 years. To assume a reason would be speculative although a number of possibilities have been floated including the commercial viability of the parcels and the perceived value of “commercial property.” The property is zoned residential, the PUD was approved with a commercial component and the future land use designation was modified to reflect that desire. However, it appears that the change in designation does not affect this public concern and there is no deficiency to be corrected or improvement to be made in the growth policy by the proposed change. Consideration 2: The proximate location of Sacajawea Middle School. The entrance to Sacajawea Middle School is 2,300 feet from Wild Horse Drive. Clearly residential development in close proximity to educational facilities is advantageous. Diverse housing types and housing prices are needed to accommodate the needs of all potential home buyers. It would be a spurious argument to suggest housing development following the existing Sundance Springs development character would meet the needs of all potential residence. The need for future commercial services remains for the City. Staff did suggest exploring moving the commercial node across the street to maintain the previously identified commercial need. This proposal does not include an alternative location for a commercial node. Consideration 3: Anticipated City growth in the area According to the City’s Future and Use Map the general area is designated for residential development as needed and when services become available. The City has experienced consistent, and compared to other cities, faster than average population growth. Although residential development has tended to occur mostly west and north of the City center due to a number of reasons residential developments may increase on the southern edge of the City in years to come. Primarily due to added street network, wastewater capacity improvements, and water supply improvements. Also, the proximity of a middle school is a desirable reason to locate additional residences in the area. 287 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 15 of 22 2. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the maps or between different goals and objectives. Although the size of the proposal is relatively small at 6.2294 acres there are limited commercial nodes currently shown on the future land use map. Removing this node creates some uncertainly to where potential service center will evolve. However, it does not appear the amendment create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the maps or between different goals and objectives. More appropriate locations may develop as traffic and residential housing develops on the south side of Bozeman. Given the size and location of the parcel, the overall effect on the growth policy is small. The proposed change does not alter the basic future land use map principals established in the growth policy and contained on pages 3-3 through 3-6. Review of any proposed residential development on this site will require modification to the Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development and subdivision review which will include careful consideration of the elements of natural amenities, sense of place, and the existing pattern of development. The Residential land use designation description in Section 3.4 includes the statement: “In limited instances the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy.” As discussed above in Criterion 1, issue 1, the proposed amendment is in an established residential/agricultural area. The application materials propose benefits that may occur due to the change. Staff has reviewed all the goals and objectives of the growth policy. The conclusion is that it does not appear that the application creates inconsistencies. 3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy; The proposed change will not materially alter the desired land use pattern by removing commercial area and convert it to residential. The intent of the growth policy as expressed in Sections 1.2, 2.1, and 3.2 does not appear to be in conflict with the application. There are goals and objectives addressing and encouraging both residential development and commercial development. A balance must be made between both. On page 3-4 the growth policy states: “The center-based development pattern is supported in this plan by locating centers at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. Such locations allow not only immediately adjacent residents but also passing travelers to support the commercial activities. Centers are further supported through careful location of higher density housing in a manner that provides support for commercial operations while providing 288 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 16 of 22 amenities to residents.” The existing land use pattern in Sundance Springs subdivision which was established in the mid 1990’s is not dense with approximately one dwelling per acre. The Growth Policy continues on page 3-17 to say: “Continued development of the community brings change. These changes will bring mutual costs and benefits, as well as some detriments and benefits from the actions of others which are felt more individually. In preparing and executing implementation it is important to preserve fairness and reasonableness. Regulations may be expected to seek mitigation of substantial actual impacts, not minor or only perceived impact on preferences which are not supported by evidence. The established review criteria are an effort to provide balance and consideration for all the affected parties in the evaluation of development impacts. The use of public facilities in conformance with the standards and programs adopted by the City is not an unreasonable or burdensome impact of development. The City’s standards, while respectful of the community values and diversity of interests, will not yield outcomes which satisfy every person in each situation.” As discussed under Criterion 1, the public interests have been addressed. Therefore, the application appears to be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy. 4. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant portion by: Significantly altering land use patterns and principles in a manner contrary to those established by this plan, The requested Growth Policy Amendment will make minor alterations to land use patterns and principles. Further discussion related to this criterion is presented under the analysis of the criteria above. Requiring unmitigated larger or more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer, or other public facilities or services, thereby impacting development of other lands, The area is already served with water and sewer services. Public right of way is in place although some additional right of way may be required with future development those requirements would be required with the development process to meet the standards of the long range transportation plan. Exact required improvements would be identified through the development review process as would occur elsewhere in the community. Development of the site does not appear to require unmitigated improvements. Adversely impact existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services, No extraordinary impacts have been identified at this time. Additional review would occur during site development and mitigation of impact will be required. Development as a residential use has well documented impact levels. 289 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 17 of 22 Negatively affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents. This criterion needs to be applied to two different groups, the existing residents of the area and those who would be future residents of the application site after development. For existing residents the change to Residential would over time likely increase the number of homes with associated increased use of municipal services. It appears that capacity exists to serve the area so there should be no negative impacts. There would be incremental traffic increase but the existing street network has capacity to handle the additional traffic. Traffic loads may be less with residential development than commercial development. Therefore, there appears to be no negative impact to the health and safety of the existing residents. Although it would be pleasant for the adjacent owners to have the property left open there can be no expectation that property will remain unoccupied unless it is legally reserved from development. A growth policy is by state law a non-regulatory document. Any future residential development will be subject to the same standards as other neighborhoods in the City. Those standards have been found by the City Commission to be adequate to protect against negative impacts. Future residents share many of the same potential health and safety issues as existing residents. The City’s development standards are adequate to address issues relating to availability of water, sewer, and other municipal services. APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS Zoning Designation: The property is annexed and zoned R-S (Residential Suburban District). The intent and purpose of the R-S residential suburban district is to allow open space, resource protection and primarily single-household development in circumstances where environmental constraints limit the desirable density. All new subdivision and site plan developments in this district shall be subject to the provisions of article 20 of this chapter, pertaining to planned unit development, and shall be developed in compliance with the adopted city growth policy. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The following designations are applicable to this application. Proposed – Residential The proposed designated is “Residential.” The Plan indicates that “This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire 290 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 18 of 22 stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development.” The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre. Existing – Community Commercial Mixed Use Activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are integrated with significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A Floor Area Ratio in excess of .5 is desired. It is desirable to allow residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities are anticipated, appropriately designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant streets and intersections, an equal emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided. High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including residential units on sites within this category, typically on upper floors, will facilitate the provision of services and opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at two different scales to serve different purposes. Large Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding them. These are intended to service the larger community as well as adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller Community Commercial areas are usually in the 1015 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers support and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal point. 291 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 19 of 22 The following excerpt from the growth policy describes the future land use map. 3.5 Future Land Use Map Figure 3-1 (pocket in back) is the future land use map for the Bozeman Community Plan. It is a synthesis of many different ideas, public input, existing conditions, and existing and desired land use patterns for the future. The map is the visual representation of the land use patterns and ideas discussed in this chapter, and elsewhere throughout this document. The map shows in a very broad manner acceptable uses and locations throughout the community. It does not represent a commitment by the City to approve every development proposed within each category. Neither does a designation indicate that a property is free from constraints to development. The map and other elements of this plan must be weighed and evaluated in conjunction with the specific details of a proposed project which are beyond the scope of this plan but will be addressed through the implementation tools discussed in Chapter 16 and Appendix I. The provisions of any intergovernmental agreement between the City and County regarding land use will influence the final development pattern with the defined planning area. The boundaries shown on the map are of necessity at a large scale. As a result some interpretation may be required in the future. It is the intent of the map to follow natural and visible boundaries such as streams or right-of-ways where possible. Within developed areas, boundaries generally follow parcel boundaries established by recorded plats or certificates of survey. Where such natural or legal boundaries do not exist, some minor flexibility in the interpretation of the boundary is allowed to the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development so long as the exercise of that flexibility is not contrary to the intent, purposes, or goals of this plan and does not materially alter the desired land pattern in an area. If significant alterations or modifications are desired, an amendment to this plan must be undertaken. This plan looks at a twenty-year horizon as well as the current situation, so it is to be expected that some areas which are not in conformance with the plan will be identified. This plan recognizes the presence of these uses without specifically mapping or otherwise identifying them. It is desired that these anomalies be resolved over the term of this plan so that the land use pattern identified herein may be completed. APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Project Description 292 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 20 of 22 A proposal to change the Future Land Use Map, Figure 3-1, of the Bozeman Community Plan from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential on 6.2294 acres. Project Background The property is located on the northeast corner of Goldenstein Lane and South 3rd Avenue. The property is privately owned and the application for the change is signed by the land owner. The purpose of the amendment is to enable residential development of the site. Commercial Lots 1 and 2 were created with the platting of the Sundance Springs Phase 1B subdivision in 1998. Phase 1B was platted concurrently with the Sundance Springs Phase 1A residential subdivision adjacent to the subject property. The zoning designation of R-S (Residential Suburban) requires a planned unit development (PUD) to establish setbacks, open space, parks and may include uses typically not associated with a suburban residential development. The Sundance Springs PUD was approved with a commercial node at the intersection of Goldenstein Lane and South 3rd Avenue. The underlying zoning was not modified. However, during subsequent Community Plan updates the future land use designation was modified to reflect the expected use for the subject property. The 1990 Bozeman Master Plan, adopted on October 29, 1990, shows this area as Public Open Space and Suburban Residential. Given the scale of the 1990 map now available it is difficult to clearly show the parcel, especially as individual property lines were not reliably shown on the map. 1990 Master Plan Future Land Use Map Excerpt – “6” is suburban residential, “1” is park. Subject Area 293 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 21 of 22 The Bozeman 2020 Plan, adopted on October 22, 2001 shows the area with a designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The current Bozeman Community Plan reflects the current name of Community Commercial Mixed Use. The Community Commercial Mixed Use designation is the new name for Neighborhood Commercial. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Future Land Use Map Excerpt Vicinity Land Use The property to the east is part of the Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development. Across the Sundance Springs open space to the north is the newly subdivision Ellis View Estates subdivision and planned unit development. The property across South 3rd Avenue to the west is the Gallatin Valley Sod Farm and Eagle Mount further to the west. The sod farm is zoned A-S (Agricultural Suburban). The south side consists of Chesnover Subdivision and the Goldenstein Ranch property. APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Board and City Commission was given by first class US mail to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. The site was posted with a copy of the notice. The notice was also published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle at least 15 days and not more than 45 days prior to the public hearings. 294 Staff Report for the Sundance Springs, Phase 1B GPA, Application 15-580 Page 22 of 22 Twenty five public comments have been received and are attached to this report. All comments received at the time of production of this report have been forwarded to the City Commission for consideration. Growth policy amendments lend themselves to complexity. A number of comments are in favor of the proposed change and some are not. However, the vast majority are supportive of the modification assuming any future residential development follows the existing development patterns of the Sundance Springs community and as established in the original Planned Unit Development approval in 1998. APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: William Thompson, 414 South 9th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 Applicant: William Thompson, 414 South 9th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative: Rocky Mountain Engineers, PLLC, 1700 West Koch Street, Suite 7, Bozeman, MT 59715 Report By: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this growth policy amendment. ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Application materials Public Comment to date Draft Planning Board Resolution No. 15-580 Commission Resolution 4676 295 296 297 298 Growth Policy Amendment, Map Amendment Sundance Springs Commercial Lots 1 & 2 Project Narrative: Summary: Request for the removal of the “Community Commercial Mixed Use” designation on two parcels (Comm Lots 1 & 2 of the Sundance Springs Subdivision, Phase 1B) Located at the corner of South 3rd Avenue and Goldenstein Lane. Comm lot 1 and Comm Lot 2 are currently zoned as RS (see Zoning Map) with a B-1 “overlay” zoning per the Growth Policy Map and the Sundance Springs PUD. It is the intent to remove the B-1 commercial “overlay” zoning and revert the property to the underlying R-S low density residential zoning as reflected on the zoning map. Responses to GPA Questions: 1a. Does the proposed amendment cure a deficiency in the growth policy or result in an improved growth policy which better responds to the needs of the general community? The proposed amendment will result in an improved growth policy by providing development of Comm Lots 1 and 2, consistent with the desires of the community. There is strong support from the members of the Sundance Springs Home Owners Association and other adjacent land owners for the removal of the commercial zoning and reversion to residential zoning. The consensus from the neighboring community is that commercial development of these two lots is not desirable and doesn’t fill a community need. Letters and comments from neighboring land owners are being submitted directly to the planning office. 1b. Does the proposed amendment create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the map or between goals? Why not? If inconsistencies are identified then additional changes must be provided to remove the inconsistencies. We put forth the argument that in this particular location the existing Growth Policy’s “Community Commercial Mixed Use” and its concept of a “walk or bike to the local store or shops” has not been embraced by the local community and is not considered economically viable by commercial developers and therefore not a viable nor realistic zoning application at this location. This may not be the case in other communities so we are reluctant to suggest that there should be a Growth Policy Text Amendment but rather be a Map Amendment applicable to this particular situation. The applicant will be submitting to the planning office an example of a similar request to remove the “Community Commercial Mixed Use” (overlying B-1) and rezone a similar 299 “commercially zoned node” to residential that was approved in 2014. SEE Laurel Glenn Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 9 exhibits. 1c. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy? Yes. The proposed amendment will enhance the existing Sundance Springs neighborhood. The existing open space and trail system provide opportunities for the residents to casually interact with other residents, and residents of the surrounding area who also enjoy the existing open space resources. The proposed amendment will enhance the sense of place that has developed in the Sundance Springs neighborhood. Residential development on these two lots will preserve and strengthen the unique features of the Sundance Springs neighborhood. Residential development is more appropriate for the land adjacent to the existing natural amenities of the property. The irrigation ditch that flows along the west side of Comm Lot 1 can be enhanced and supported by additional vegetation that will naturally occur with residential development, rather than trampling the banks by overuse of the commercial traffic that would be attracted to the site, and potentially becoming a hazard. The potential for Comm Lots 1 and 2 to become viable commercial properties is unlikely. The area is too small to provide a centralized location for synergistic businesses. Businesses depend on volume to be profitable, and volume requires access to a larger population. A more likely location for community commercial mixed use would be along South 19th Avenue. Although the lot size in Sundance Springs is not that of a high density development, many people do not want to live in a tightly packed environment. A diversity of housing options should be available for people and families within the city limits. If there were no option for larger lot size within the city, those families would look outside the city, thereby causing more sprawl and reducing the efficiencies and cost-effectiveness of urban services. 1d. Does the proposed amendment adversely affect the community as a whole or significant portion by: i. Significantly altering acceptable existing and land use patterns, as defined in the text and maps of the plan? How does it not? The Bozeman Community Plan Future Land Use Map proposes the land use designation for the property as “Community Commercial Mixed Use”. However, the City of Bozeman Zone District Map shows the existing underlying zoning of the property is Residential Suburban (R-S). Through the Sundance Springs Subdivision PUD, the property was given the overlying zone designation of Neighborhood Business (B1). The property owner wishes to remove the overlying Neighborhood Business (B1) zone and allow the property to revert back to the underlying Residential Suburban (R-S) zone*. The R-S zone is consistent with the existing adjacent land use 300 to the north and east inside the City Limits, and it is also consistent with the zoning designation of the Gallatin County / Bozeman Area Donut for the lands to the south and west (R-S and A-S). ii. Requiring unmitigated larger and more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer, or other public facilities or services and which, therefore may impact development of other lands? No, we propose to develop this property in a manner that will result in a seamless incorporation of the two subject lots into the Sundance Springs subdivision. Implementing the exact same specifications for improvements to streets, water, sewer, or other public facilities. iii. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services. How does it not? No, the “low density residential/suburban” (R-S) zoning will result in less impact on facilities and services, particularly with regards to transportation, than the existing B-1 commercial development. iv. Negatively affecting the livability of the area of the health and safety of residents? How does it not? No. The neighboring property owners prefer a residential land use for the two lots. A residential land use will reduce the potential traffic to and from the properties, thereby enhancing the health and safety of the residents. 2. Not applicable. This is not a growth policy “text amendment”. 3. Please see map attachment. 301 302 From:Don Beeman To:Tom Rogers Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Sunday, January 31, 2016 10:03:19 AM Hi Tom. Please include the below public comments on this subject. Thank you. Don Beeman Public Comment 15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment - Rezoning of corner of Goldenstein, Little Horse and Third St January 31, 2016 To: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner, Bozeman From: Don Beeman, 425 Peace Pipe Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715 Big Picture Goals Development of Southside should focus on the more major thoroughfares, forexample 19th St., and its intersection with Goldenstein. The same could be saidabout the corner of 3rd and Goldenstein. The west side of 3rd and the north side ofGoldenstein near Eagle Mount are the more logical choices for commercialdevelopment as there are fewer people dislocated by that development. (In all duerespect to those folks). Commercial versus Residential Assuming the longer term view leads to development of commercial property asdescribed above, rezoning the property Comm Lot 1 & 2 seems acceptable. As longas these are single family homes. And 1) have a density similar to SS. And 2) ageneral appearance like SS and 3) whose homeowners are required to participate inthe SSHOA. Concerns about Residential Development I recognize that the process for reviewing the development plans may be in its initialstages but it seems important to list some of the concerns now so full thought canbe given to these items. The primary goal should be to gain agreement that the new development follows theguidelines that were used to develop Sundance Springs, and most importantlyrequires participation and dues for the SSHOA. Cul de sacs in SS currently have no more than 8 lots. Should this new developmenthave the same density? While more houses on smaller lots aligns with the density 303 goal thus reducing sprawl, the idea that there may be room for x number of housesand an equal number (or slightly less) of acres for open space (60 - 40 is the SS mixof developed versus open space) may simply not work as the adjacent streets limitthat balance. It seems to me that the issue is density. Regarding trails and open space, notably,the trail that goes along 3rd and Goldenstein is retained as noted on the map. Andthinking back, the open space maintained by SSHOA, as was likely envisioned whenthe SS subdivision was first developed, without a doubt included the Comm lots 1 &2 as part of SS, implying that those areas would be a guided by SS policy, a densitythat would be more likely achieved with 6 or 8 homes, not 10 on lot 1. Further, given the access to Little Horse which is part of the SSHOA snow removalarea implies that the new court would be plowed by SSHOA. That and other SSHOArequirements should be mandated. 304 From:Pam Bittner To:Tom Rogers Subject:Sundance Springs - GPA; 15-580 on communication. Date:Monday, February 08, 2016 9:14:36 PM I’m writing to voice my opinion on the proposed amendment to the Sundance Springs PUD referenced. We live at 4210 Morning Sun Drive. Sundance Springs is a wonderful community because of its open space. I am okay with the loss of the commerical space on that corner of Third, and would welcome residential neighbors. However, I am very much against that parcel having any tighter density than the rest of the PUD. I believe the PUD should fully maintain the 60/40 lots-to-open space that exists for the whole of the project. Why would you change what is working so well? Any tighter density could put pressure on the open space that we treasure. Thank you for your consideration. Pamela Bittner 406-624-6188 305 From:Thomas Bosché To:Tom Rogers Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Wednesday, February 03, 2016 12:02:29 PM Mr. Rogers: We have owned our home in Sundance Springs since 2004. We understand that the owner of the commercial lots in Sundance Springs near the corner of South 3rd and Goldenstein have applied for a change of use from commercial B-1 to residential, and have submitted a plan requesting 13 homesites on those two lots. Our preference is as follows: We request that the change of use be denied, and that the lots remain designated for commercial use. The site is perfect for light commercial - coffee shop, cafe or restaurant, small market, any of myriad uses that could benefit residents on the south side and reduce the need for us to travel into town for these services. The small development on the southeast corner of South 3rd and Kagy is a great example of what could be done on these lots, on a smaller scale. If the change in use is granted, we request that the number of lots be reduced to keep it compatible with the open space/homesite land use ratio currently in use for the remainder of Sundance Springs. If the owner must develop as residential, at least keep the current standards in effect. We appreciate your consideration of our preferences on this matter. Regards, Tom & Kelly Bosché3903 Rain Roper DriveBozeman, MT 59715H: 406.582.8163C: 949.697.8873E: tsb@bosche.com 306 From:Kelly Bosche To:Tom Rogers Cc:brad.ogrosky@yahoo.com; glindemeier@bresnan.net; popkohtz@yahoo.com; timdietz1107@gmail.com; philgouveia@q.com Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Monday, February 01, 2016 10:45:09 AM As a member of the Sundance Springs Homeowner’s Association, I want to give the City myopinion related to the request for zoning change from commercial to residential made by the owner of the two lots zoned for commercial use within our subdivision, and also therequested change to add additional residential lots to our subdivision through the splitting and reconfiguration of these areas within our subdivision. First, I would like the City to deny the request for a change as I believe that the areas shouldremain for commercial neighborhood services as I would like some service areas in and around our neighborhood as originally designed. In the event that the City is inclined to rezone the area to residential, then as a conditionprecedent to granting such change in zoning, the City should require the commercial lot Owner to (1) obtain the approval of the residential Board of our homeowner’s associationrelated to the size and placement of the lots, the density, the amount of open space areas within the new residential areas, and all other necessary issues to make sure the designstandards required by our Covenants are all complied with for these new residential areas, (2) obtain the consent of at least 67% of the homeowners in Sundance Springs for creatingadditional lots within the subdivision, and (3) reimburse the residential homeowners’association for all costs related to the requested change in zoning and splitting the lots,including reimbursing the association for all attorneys’ fees. Please note that the Original Covenants and Amended Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (collectively “Covenants”) provide that the Covenants apply to all lands withinthe Sundance Spring Subdivision and provide requirements for the development and maintenance of the land beyond the minimum requirements of the Bozeman Zoning Code. In addition to the many covenants that apply to both the commercial and residential portionsof the subdivision, the residential properties within our subdivision have very specific requirements related to the development and maintenance, including residential Boardapproval of any lot splitting and lot configuration as stated in Section 3.14(c) of the Covenants that states that: Any change in the lot configuration shall be approved by theBoard and appropriate governmental authorities (City of Bozeman, Gallatin County State of Montana). Also, Section 3.20 of the Covenants currently provides that the Board may not approve anyvariance to the Covenants that has the effect of creating additional lots. This means if once the Board is satisfied with the plan to add these new residential lots to the subdivision, thenthe plan to create these additional residential lots would have to be approved by 67% of the homeowners. It is my understanding that Board approval has not been obtained for the change in lotconfiguration to create additional residential lots within the subdivision and our Board needs time and reimbursement of fees and cost associated with the review and negotiations relatedto the proposed plan and configuration, and also to determine whether or not 67% of 307 homeowners approve such a change. Although my personal preference would be to keep the lots under their existing zoning, Iwould approve a change in the zoning of one or both of the commercial lots, but only to add a certain limited amount of residential lots in the number similar to our current subdivisionconfiguration (with the appropriate amount of open space retained for public use), all of which must be approved by our Board, and 67% of the other homeowners. Finally, our association should not be required to incur costs in handling this request and ifthe owner of the commercial lots wants to move forward, then that owner should reimburse our association for all costs and attorneys’ fees incurred to handle the owner’s request forsuch a substantial change to our subdivision plan. If you have any questions about my position, please let me know. Kelly B. Bosche 3903 Rain Roper DriveBozeman, MT 59715 406-582-8163Email: kbb@bosche.com   308 From:mbothamley@bresnan.net To:Tom Rogers; Gloria Lindemeier; brad.ogrosky@yahoo.com Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Monday, February 01, 2016 2:24:18 PM Senior Planner Tom Rogers,   As homeowners in the Sundance Springs subdivision, we are very concerned about the new development that has been brought to our attention. We feel it is imperative that thedeveloper of this new tract of land continue with our existing development pattern ratio of 60% developed acres and 40% open space.   At the present time the Developer's current Proposed Plat Revision for Tract #1 isapproximately 80% developed acres and 20% open space. The smaller Tract #2 is well below the 20% open space level.   Clearly the Developer has failed to conform to Sundance Springs development patternwhich will have negative consequences for all current homeowners if the revised development is accepted as is by the by the Planning Board and City Commission. It seemsfair and reasonable to insist the developer meet or exceed the 60/40 ratio.   In accordance with a previous email of 1/27/16 from the Planning Board Staff Report found on P.14 Paragraph 2:   "Review of any proposed residential development on this site will require modification to theSundance Springs Planned Unit Development and subdivision review which will includecareful consideration of Sundance Springs natural amenities, sense of place anddevelopment pattern."   As mentioned above, please take in to consideration the impacts to our "elements of natural amenities, sense of place and the existing pattern of development" if the developer's currentrevised residential development plan is accepted under its current form.   We trust you will come to an informed decision that is best for us all.   Sincerely,   Mark and Marie Bothamley 4104 Rain Roper Drive,Sundance Springs   309 From:Stephanie Cain To:Tom Rogers Subject:15580 sundance springs phase 1B growth policy amendment Date:Saturday, January 30, 2016 12:31:14 PM Dear Tom,My husband and I would be happy to have Phase 1B rezoned from commercial to residential, so long as allcontingencies are met. Thue current proposal is for a development pattern unlike the one we have had in Sundance Springs, since the beginning. We would like the new developer to meet or exceed the ratio that we all have maintained of 60% development, 40% open space. We do not want any sort of high density housing here. I also question if the current infrastructure can handle a great increase. Even as far back as ten years ago, we had to put a pressure booster on our house, just to get the shampoo rinsed out of our hair. At that time, our water pressure was 26 ppi: significantly below normal and the subdivision was not even completely built out, at that pointSo, please consider the impact of having an 80% development/20% open space may have on this neighborhood, as a whole, not just how an increase in the number of houses will increase funds for the city via property taxes. Sincerely, Kevin and Stephanie Cain 310 From:Tim Dietz To:Tom Rogers Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs Phase 1B Growth Amendment Date:Sunday, January 31, 2016 4:46:43 PM TO SENIOR PLANNER TOM ROGERS We are residence of Sundance Springs and are opposed to the rezoning of two tracts of land in the southwest corner of the subdivision. We know that this change to higher density would not only impact the value of homes in Sundance Springs but also jeopardize the atmosphere of the subdivision. When we purchased this lot as our future home site we took into account the open space that not only added monetary value to our home but included an open concept that is unique to the Bozeman area. Thank you for your consideration. Tim and Syd Dietz 311 From:PHIL G To:Tom Rogers Subject:Re: 15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:57:33 AM I live at 4458 White Eagle Cir in Sundance Springs subdivision. The attached letter by John Mills reflects my feelings as to any rezoning and subdividing of the commercial propertywithin Sundance Spring. Subdivision. After everything in said and done, it should look like and fit in with rest of the established neighborhood. Thanks for your consideration, Phil Gouveia 556-8575 From: John Mills [mailto:jammer.mills@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 7:01 PMTo: Tom RogersCc: Sue Mills; Gloria Lindemeier; Brad O'Grosky; Phil Gouveia; Tim Dietz; Neal KolhtzSubject: 15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Dear Mr. Rogers, My wife Sue and I live on Peace Pipe Drive, a short distance from the commercial Lots 1 & 2 involved with the subject amendment. We are providing our comments regarding the Growth Policy Amendment for consideration by the Bozeman Planning Board and City Commission. Our understanding is there are three steps to considering the Developer’s request: 1. Amend the Growth Policy to allow rezoning of the two commercial lots, 2. Rezone both lots from B-1 to RS, and3. Create subdivision lots. We also understand that unless step 1 occurs, steps 2 & 3 will not occur. Our PositionWe support amending the Growth Policy so long as the Developer agrees during step 3 that at most 60% of Lots 1 & 2 acreage in total is developed, and at least 40% of the acreage in totalfor both Lots is dedicated to open space. This 60% - 40% split occurred when Sundance Springs was originally platted and developed. Unless the Developer agrees to these conditions for step 3, we do not support amending theGrowth Policy. DiscussionSundance Springs was originally platted for development in 1998. The amount of open space was an important factor in determining the size and spacing of the subdivision lots. As quoted from our Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions forSundance Springs, as amended 11/19/2007, page 34: “The intent of the Open Spaces within this project is to provide: 312 a) a general feeling of opennessb) buffer zones between lot clusters and existing neighbors c) corridors for trails networksd) recreational space for residents and general public e) areas for wildlife habitat and wildlife habitat enhancement” Of the 147.13 total acres in Sundance Springs PUD, 58 acres, or 40% of the total acres arededicated to open space that is owned in common by all 134 residential lot owners, and 89.13 acres, or 60% for residential lots, roads, etc. The Developer’s proposed plan calls for 10 residential lots on Lot 1, and 3 residential lots onLot 2 (see attached Proposed Plat Revision From Developer Aerial Map). For Lot 1 this results in approximately 80% of the total acreage for development and approximately 20%for open space, while Lot 2 is well below 20% open space. The attached Sundance Springs Silver Cloud Circle Aerial Map shows the layout of the six residential lots at the end of the street and surrounding open space. We consider this layoutto be a reasonable alternative to the Developer’s proposed plan for Lot 1 as Silver Cloud Circle has a similar configuration and is based on Sundance Springs’ 1998 design. Theattached Proposed Lot 1 Revision, Silver Cloud Overlay Map is a tracing of the six lots overlaid on a Lot 1 aerial map showing how they fit. If in 1998 both Lots 1 & 2 had been zoned RS and platted with residential lots, they wouldresemble the existing 134 Sundance Springs residential lots. The Silver Cloud Circle alternative should be considered for Lot 1, and no more than two residential lots consideredfor Lot 2. We therefore only support amending the Growth Policy if the Developer agrees that at most 60% of Lots 1 & 2 acreage in total is developed, and at least 40% of Lots 1 & 2 acreage intotal is dedicated to open space. Respectfully, John & Sue Mills 418 Peace Pipe Drive----- John MillsHome 406-587-6379 Cell 406-599-4190 City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law. 313 From:jlkingmail@netscape.net To:Tom Rogers Cc:tswanson46@gmail.com Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1 B, Growth Policy Amendment Date:Sunday, January 31, 2016 7:06:08 PM Dear Planning Board and City Commission Members, We write today to express our thoughts about the modification to the Sundance Springs PUD and the request to add new residential lots to our neighborhood. We think you all will agree that Sundance Springs is a one of a kind Bozeman neighborhood. The open space, views, lot size, lack of fences, pond and open-to-the- public trail system simply will never be duplicated in any future Bozeman subdivision. We were among the first fifteen homes built and we intend to stay for a long time. We think that the developer of Tract 1 and 2 should strictly adhere to the design and layout pattern of our neighborhood. Unlike the developer, we do not call the middle of our culdesacs "Open Space". Instead, we have a ratio of at least 40% of our lands in open fields that are home to deer, fox, songbirds, sandhill cranes and the occasional bear. Use the wildlife as your barometer. Would these animals thrive in the 20% fragments of green the developer has set aside in Tracts 1 and 2 ? Would our sandhills wander in the culdesac? The developer wants to label the new subdivision as a part of Sundance Springs. That will immediately add 314 value to the new lots as well as to the homes that are built. We simply ask that any new Sundance lots adhere to the development pattern and sense of space that is evident in our neighborhood. The Silver Cloud culdesac overlays nicely onto Tract 1 of the proposed addition. Please use that as your guideline. Tract 2 should only have two homes so that the additional of true Open Space connects to our existing dedicated acres. The designers of Sundance Springs have shown you what any residential lot additions should look like. Please uphold the layout pattern and amenities that make our neighborhood unique. Please protect the unity of design that adds value to our homes. Thank you for your consideration on this important matter! Sincerely, Jeff and Molly King 339 Peace Pipe Drive Bozeman, Montana 59715 315 From:mlarson@mhlarson.com To:Tom Rogers Subject:Lot ratio Date:Monday, February 08, 2016 2:33:59 PM Good afternoon: I have been a resident of Sundance Springs since 2003 and am definitely n favor of holding the developer to a 60% development/40% open space ratio as part of the approval process. It only makes common sense to develop land (unfortunate as it is inevitable) in a consistent manner as the rest of the subdivision. As a soil scientist with more than 30 years of experience, I can tell you that Bozeman subdivisions are being developed on the #2 out of over 600 soil types in the State of Montana. The Bozeman Silt Loam is quickly becoming roads, concrete, and housing tracts. Loss of prime farmland should be the number one reason to give pause to further sprawl in the Gallatin Valley. However, money talks and common sense walks. Why do we always yield to the developers? What is in it for the current residence, except sprawl, more traffic, more vandalism, and more loss of aesthetics? Follow the Oslo or Stockholm or Copenhagen examples..............build within the donut, not outside of it.....build up - not out. At a minimum, 60/40 ratio similar to Sundance Springs, otherwise this entire valley will all too soon look like Highlands Ranch or Ft.Collins, Colorado!!!! Mike Larson 316 From:Cory Lawrence To:Tom Rogers Cc:brad.ogrosky@yahoo.com; glindemeier@bresnan.net; popkohtz@yahoo.com; timdietz1107@gmail.com; philgouveia@q.com; Carrie Lawrence Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Sunday, January 31, 2016 10:38:12 PM Dear Tom, Please include this letter with the public comment received regarding the above referenced development proposal that is currently before the City Planning department and City Commission. We are residents of the Sundance Springs subdivision and would like to request that this development be held to the existing development pattern associated with the Sundance Springs subdivision whereby a development to open space ratio of 60-40 is prescribed. The Developer's current Proposed Plat Revision for Tract #1 is approximately 80% developed acres and 20% open space and the smaller Tract #2 accounts for even less than 20% open space relative to developed acres. I strongly oppose any consideration of development of these tracts in a ratio that does not meet the 60-40 ratio associated with the Sundance Springs subdivision. Allowing development of the plan as outlined will have adverse consequences to homeowners in Sundance Springs on a number of fronts, in our view. As a result, we strongly urge you and the City Commission to reject the current plan and require a redesign of the development to meet the 60-40 ratio of the larger Sundance Springs subdivision before further consideration of the proposed development is allowed. Thank you for your consideration and prudent oversight of the development pattern in this neighborhood of Bozeman. Respectfully, Cory T. Lawrence Carrie L. Lawrence 4510 Morning Sun Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 317 From:Gloria Lindemeier To:Tom Rogers Cc:Brad Ogrosky; Tim Swanson; Phil Gouveia; Neal Kohtz Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Sunday, January 31, 2016 2:44:07 PM Mr. Rogers, As the owner of residential property in the Sundance Springs neighborhood I offer the following comments regarding the proposed steps 1 -2 -3 of the proposed GPA, rezoning, and subsequent lot creation. I realize that only step 1 is currently being considered, but all steps are very closely entwined so I have chosen to address as such. Hopefully this one comment can be submitted for each of the three steps. RE: 15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment I understand this is a step 1 - 2 - 3 process and if step 1 is approved there would be no reason to not approve steps 2 & 3. Current ratio of open space to residential lots in Sundance Springs is approximately 60% residential lots and 40% private open space.The Developer's current Proposed Plat Revision for Tract #1 (10 lots) is approximately 80% developed acres and 20% open space. The smaller Tract #2 (3 lots) is well below 20% open space. Had the subject parcels been plated as residential lots concurrently with the existing residential lots there would likely be 6 lots on B-1 lot 1 and perhaps no more than 2 on B-1 lot 2. My comments: 1)Growth Policy Amendment: Support the amendment if the developer will be required to develop with a similar 60-40 ratio as has already been established in Sundance Springs. 2)Rezone to RS – Support this if the developer will be required to develop with a similar 60-40 ratio as has already been established in Sundance Springs. 3)Create subdivision lots - Support this if the developer will be required to develop with a similar 60-40 ratio as has already been established in Sundance Springs. If the developer is not required to develop with a similar 60-40 ratio then I am opposed to steps 1, 2 & 3. Gloria Lindemeier168 Peace Pipe Dr. 318 From:Gary Lister To:Tom Rogers Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:05:27 PM Dear Mr. Rogers, I am a resident in the Sundance Springs subdivision, at 382 Peace PipeDr. I am writing to express my preferences related to the possiblerezoning of the two commercial lots in Sundance Springs. I, like CarsonTaylor, our current mayor, would like to see neighborhoods developedwith some commercial/retail development included. Thus, my firstpreference, is that these lots remain commercial. If the lots arerezoned to residential, I would hope the development density would bereflective of Sundance's current ratio of development to open space (60%/40%). I think it is imperative that any new development within oursubdivision should have a "similar look and feel" to the currentdevelopment within our subdivision.Thank you for your consideration and time in this matter. Respectfully, Gary L. Lister382 Peace Pipe Dr.Phone: 587-9376 319 From:John Mills To:Tom Rogers Cc:Sue Mills; Gloria Lindemeier; Brad O"Grosky; Phil Gouveia; Tim Dietz; Neal Kolhtz Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Sunday, January 31, 2016 7:01:48 PM I first ask Mr. Rogers that you please send a brief reply to me so I know yousuccessfully received this email. Dear Mr. Rogers, My wife Sue and I live on Peace Pipe Drive, a short distance from the commercial Lots 1 & 2 involved with the subject amendment. We are providing our comments regarding the Growth Policy Amendment for consideration by the Bozeman Planning Board and City Commission. Our understanding is there are three steps to considering the Developer’s request: 1. Amend the Growth Policy to allow rezoning of the two commercial lots,2. Rezone both lots from B-1 to RS, and3. Create subdivision lots. We also understand that unless step 1 occurs, steps 2 & 3 will not occur. Our Position We support amending the Growth Policy so long as the Developer agrees during step3 that at most 60% of Lots 1 & 2 acreage in total is developed, and at least 40% ofthe acreage in total for both Lots is dedicated to open space. This 60% - 40% splitoccurred when Sundance Springs was originally platted and developed. Unless the Developer agrees to these conditions for step 3, we do not supportamending the Growth Policy. Discussion Sundance Springs was originally platted for development in 1998. The amount ofopen space was an important factor in determining the size and spacing of thesubdivision lots. As quoted from our Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictionsfor Sundance Springs, as amended 11/19/2007, page 34: “The intent of the OpenSpaces within this project is to provide: a) a general feeling of openness 320 b) buffer zones between lot clusters and existing neighbors c) corridors for trails networks d) recreational space for residents and general public e) areas for wildlife habitat and wildlife habitat enhancement” Of the 147.13 total acres in Sundance Springs PUD, 58 acres, or 40% of the totalacres are dedicated to open space that is owned in common by all 134 residential lotowners, and 89.13 acres, or 60% for residential lots, roads, etc. The Developer’s proposed plan calls for 10 residential lots on Lot 1, and 3 residentiallots on Lot 2 (see attached Proposed Plat Revision From Developer Aerial Map). ForLot 1 this results in approximately 80% of the total acreage for development andapproximately 20% for open space, while Lot 2 is well below 20% open space. The attached Sundance Springs Silver Cloud Circle Aerial Map shows the layout ofthe six residential lots at the end of the street and surrounding open space. Weconsider this layout to be a reasonable alternative to the Developer’s proposed planfor Lot 1 as Silver Cloud Circle has a similar configuration and is based on SundanceSprings’ 1998 design. The attached Proposed Lot 1 Revision, Silver Cloud OverlayMap is a tracing of the six lots overlaid on a Lot 1 aerial map showing how they fit. If in 1998 both Lots 1 & 2 had been zoned RS and platted with residential lots, theywould resemble the existing 134 Sundance Springs residential lots. The Silver CloudCircle alternative should be considered for Lot 1, and no more than two residentiallots considered for Lot 2. We therefore only support amending the Growth Policy if the Developer agrees thatat most 60% of Lots 1 & 2 acreage in total is developed, and at least 40% of Lots 1& 2 acreage in total is dedicated to open space. Respectfully, John & Sue Mills 418 Peace Pipe Drive -----John MillsHome 406-587-6379Cell 406-599-4190 321 From:Martha Muth To:Tom Rogers Cc:"Brad O"Grosky"; "Gloria Lindemeier"; "Neal Kohtz"; Tim Dietz; Phil Gouveia; John Mills; Sue Mills; Nancy Swanson; tswanson46@gmail.com; bobswinth@mac.com; "Carol Anderson"; muthmontana@gmail.com; "Kelly Muth" Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 6:04:03 PM RE: 15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Mr. Rogers, We are homeowners in Sundance Springs subdivision, live on Peace Pipe Drive within sight distance of the commercial Lots 1 & 2, and almost exclusively use Little Horse as our accessto and from our home. We feel maintaining and enhancing our property value is not only an economic benefit to us, to our neighbors, to our subdivision, and to the City, but is also alifestyle benefit that we treasure on a daily basis. In addition, we consider our property value to include areas surrounding and adjacent to us, and areas we might drive, bike, ski or walkthrough to come and go from our property. Our understanding is there are three steps to considering the Developer’s request: 1. Amend the Growth Policy to allow rezoning of the two commercial lots,2. Rezone both lots from B-1 to RS, and 3. Create subdivision lots. We also understand that unless step 1 occurs, steps 2 & 3 will not occur. Our PositionWe support amending the Growth Policy so long as the Developer agrees during step 3 that a maximum 60% of Lots 1 & 2 acreage is developed, and a minimum 40% of Lots 1 & 2 isdedicated open space. This 60% - 40% split occurred when Sundance Springs was originally platted and developed.Unless the Developer agrees to these conditions for step 3, we do NOT support amending theGrowth Policy. If a developer would like to benefit from the lifestyle and economic value of Sundance Springs, we would expect that developer and the City to conform to the standards establishedfor this neighborhood in 1998, and maintained by Sundance Springs homeowners. We are in our 11th year here in Sundance, and have actively participated in the HOA. Asany member of an HOA knows, there is an indefinite expense of time, money and effort that goes into maintaining and improving a subdivision. Sundance Springs residents, former andcurrent, have worked towards this common goal for over 15 years. DiscussionSundance Springs was originally platted for development in 1998. The amount of open space was an important factor in determining the size and spacing of the subdivision lots.As quoted from our Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Sundance Springs, as amended 11/19/2007, page 34: “The intent of the Open Spaces withinthis project is to provide: a) a general feeling of opennessb) buffer zones between lot clusters and existing neighbors 322 c) corridors for trails networksd) recreational space for residents and general public e) areas for wildlife habitat and wildlife habitat enhancement”It is important to note that much of the open space is “private” open space with a 20-foot public easement where established trails exist to provide trail access to the public andhomeowners alike. Therefore, it is important that the distinction of “private” versus “public” open space be considered when reviewing any developer’s plan, consistent with the existingSundance Springs open space. Private open space buffers lots from public open space (i.e. trail easements), and is a desirable amenity here in Sundance Springs. I understand you have received some aerial map illustrations showing a preferred residentiallot layout for Lot 1, conforming to our existing ratio of developed lots to open space. We concur with other Sundance Springs homeowners that a maximum six (6) lots is reasonableon Lot 1, and two (2) residential lots on Lot 2. If the ratio is maintained, this density would conform to our current density and be faithful to the intent of the original Sundance SpringsPUD. We therefore support amending the Growth Policy only if any residential developer agrees to a maximum 60% developed acreage of Lots 1 & 2, and a minimum of 40% dedicated openspace acreage of Lots 1 & 2. Thank you for carefully considering the original PUD, the intent of the original PUD, and helping any future development conform with the density and open space we currently enjoy.Respectfully, Jim & Martha Muth467 Peace Pipe Drive ___________________ James & Martha Muth muthmt@gmail.com Ph: 406-587-4462 Cell: 406-579-7077   323 From:Brad OGrosky To:Tom Rogers Subject:Sundance Springs commercial reoning Date:Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:37:50 PM Tom, i am writing in reference to Sundance Springs, Phase 1B, Commercial Lots 1 & 2, GPA Application No. 15-580. iI will support this rezoning only if the residential deign is the same as the present Sundance Springs design and the lot sizes and amount of open space is the same. I do not support rezoning if it is an inferior design including less open space and is to the benefit of the developer only. if it is not the same design as Sundance Springs i oppose it. Thank you for your efforts, and expertise. Bradley O'Grosky 4324 Graf St. Bozeman, Mt 324 325 326 From:Clarence Sanders To:Tom Rogers Cc:Ogrosky-brad.ogrosky@yahoo.com; Lindemeier-glindemeier@bresnan.net; Popkohtz-popkohtz@yahoo.com; Dietz-timdietz1107@gmail.com; philgouveia@q.com Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Saturday, January 30, 2016 12:05:23 PM 15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Senior Planner Tom Rogers Dear Mr. Rogers: We are residents of Sundance Springs and are writing to comment on the 15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment (hereafter, "Amendment.") Our comments are set out below: 1. Residential development in Sundance Springs is subject to a common building plan (hereafter, "Plan.") Moreover, the development pattern under the Plan uniformly mandates a ratio of 60 percent developed acres and 40 percent open space. 2. The Developer's Proposed Plat Revision is applicable to two separate tracts of land. Under the proposed Amendment, Tract #1 would include only about 20 percent open space, while Tract #2 would include even less than 20 percent open space. 3. The Developer's proposed Amendment fails to conform to Sundance Springs' development pattern. Thus, if approved, the Amendment would effectively violate the existing development pattern previously adopted under the Plan. 4. Because of the Amendment's non-compliance with the existing Plan, the Amendment, if approved, would adversely impact all current homeowners in Sundance Springs. If approved, the Amendment would adversely dilute the reach, force, and effect of the existing development pattern under the Plan. This in turn would of necessity detract from and substantially impair the natural amenities, sense of place, and development pattern of Sundance Springs. 5. Not only would the Amendment adversely impact the homeowners of Sundance Springs, but would also (1) confuse the public about differing development patterns within a single- named Subdivision -- Sundance Springs -- and (2) set a bad precedent for dilution of development patterns under other common building plans, as applicable to subdivisions other than Sundance Springs. 6. We strongly object to the Amendment's revision of the existing development pattern of 327 the Sundance Springs subdivision. The Developer should be required to meet existing requirements for Sundance Springs open space. 7. For the above reasons the Amendment should be denied, and the Developer should be required to meet existing rules applicable to Sundance Springs open space under the Plan. Thank you for your careful consideration of our comments. Clarence Sanders Charmaine Bora 4416 Morning Sun Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 328 From:terry smith To:Tom Rogers Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment. Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:46:11 AM Tom, This is Terrence Smith, 528 Peace Pipe Drive the corner of White Cloud and Peace Pipe. My neighbor John Mills wrote a detailed comment on his position regarding the proposal for rezoning and creation of new residential Sundance Springs subdivision lots in Tracts #1 and #2. I concur with his position. I will try and attend the meeting tonight. Thank you, Terrence Smith 329 From:Gloria Lindemeier To:Tom Rogers Cc:Brad Ogrosky; Tim Dietz; Phil Gouveia; Neal Kohtz Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 12:49:30 PM The Sundance Springs Residential Owner’s Association Board of Director’s understand the 1-2-3 process and offer the following public comment: Some homeowners would prefer the area remain B-1 others would prefer it become residential. In summary it seems safe to say that most homeowners would be okay with amending the Growth Policy as long as future residential development follows the current 60-40% of residential to private open space. On behalf of the Board of Directors we comment as follows: 1)Growth Policy Amendment: Support the amendment if the developer will be required to develop with a similar 60-40 ratio as has already been established in Sundance Springs. 2)Rezone to RS – Support this if the developer will be required to develop with a similar 60-40 ratio as has already been established in Sundance Springs. 3)Create subdivision lots - Support this if the developer will be required to develop with a similar 60-40 ratio as has already been established in Sundance Springs. If the developer is not required to develop with a similar 60-40 ratio then we are opposed to amending the Growth Policy. Brad O’Grosky - Chairman Phil Gouveia Tim Dietz Gloria Lindemeier - contact person Neal Kohtz 330 331 From:Tim To:Tom Rogers Cc:Nancy S Swanson Subject:Fwd: Comments Needed ASAP re: Developer"s current revised development plan for Sundance Springs Date:Sunday, January 31, 2016 3:05:40 PM The information below has been emailed to SSROA members. The developer has also received a copy. Please include it as Tim and Nancy Swanson's comments regarding 15-580Sundance Springs 1B Growth Policy Amendment. We will not support the Growth Policy Amendment until the developer's planconforms to the current Sundance Springs development pattern of 60 percentdeveloped/40 percent open space. Thanks you. Tim and Nancy Swanson SSROA members375 Peace Pipe DriveBozeman MT 59715 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Tim Swanson <tswanson46@gmail.com>Date: January 29, 2016 at 5:30:37 PM MSTTo: The Planning Board Public Hearing regarding the "Growth PolicyAmendment" is next Tuesday 2/2/2016 at 7:00 P.M. in the CityCommission Room, 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman MT. Comments from SSROA members as well as non-members should besubmitted by email to Senior Planner Tom Rogersat trogers@bozeman.net. The subject line should read: 15-580Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment. The public isalso encouraged to make comments in person during the hearing. Allcomments will be included in the City Commission Public Hearingscheduled for 2/22/16 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Commission Room. This email deals with rezoning to residential and creating newresidential Sundance Springs subdivision lots in Tract #1 and#2. If the City Commission amends the Growth Policy on 2/22/16 theseactions will take place concurrently. If the Growth Policy is not amended,rezoning and creation of new residential Sundance Springs subdivisionlots in Tracts #1 and #2 will not take place. Senior Planner Tom Rogers encourages comments and 332 suggestions NOW from SSROA members and the public regardingresidential rezoning and the creation of new residential Sundance Springssubdivision lots, even though the City Commission will not take a vote onthe Growth Policy amendment until 2/22/16. The previous email included the following quote from the 1/27/16Planning Board Staff Report found on P.14 Paragraph 2: "Review of any proposed residential development on this site will requiremodification to the Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development andsubdivision review which will include careful consideration ofSundance Springs natural amenities, sense of place anddevelopment pattern." Our existing development pattern is a ratio of 60% developed acres and40% open space. The Developer's attached current Proposed Plat Revision for Tract #1 isapproximately 80% developed acres and 20% open space. The smallerTract #2 is well below the 20% open space level. Clearly the Developer has failed to conform to SundanceSprings development pattern which will have negative consequences forall current homeowners if the revised development is accepted as is bythe by the Planning Board and City Commission. Take a look at the attached Sundance Springs Silver Cloud culdesacwhich seems like a good comp to Track #1 as it has a similar 45 degreecorner. The 6 lots around the circle of the culdesac have been traced andoverlaid on Tract #1 as a possible alternative plat revision. The revisionwould bring the ratio up to approximately 63% developed and 37%open space. Track #2 would also have to be revised to accomplish the 60/40 ratio. It seems fair and reasonable to insist the developer meet or exceed the60/40 ratio. It is imperative that Mr. Rogers receives SSROA members'comments as soon as possible regarding the impacts to our"elements of natural amenities, sense of place and the existing pattern ofdevelopment" if the developer's current revised residential developmentplan is accepted under its current form. Thanks for your attention to this matter! PS Please copy Sundance Springs Board members: BradOgrosky brad.ogrosky@yahoo.com; GloriaLindemeier glindemeier@bresnan.net; Neal Kohltz popkohtz@yahoo.com;Tim Dietz timdietz1107@gmail.com and Phil Gouveia-philgouveia@q.com. 333 334 335 From:Robert L Swinth To:Tom Rogers Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs Date:Monday, February 01, 2016 6:30:56 PM Mr Rogers, I strongly oppose the proposed intensive development for the corner of Sundance Springs at Goldenstein and 3rd. It would degrade the character of Sundance Springs and is not what was intended when we and many others purchased our property in Sundance Springs. This piece of property should remain zoned as is or the developer should be required to maintain the current ratio of 60% development to 40% open space as has been done for all of us. I concur with the letter to you from John and Sue Mills. It lays out in detail a sensible plan for this corner piece. Sincerely, Robert L. Swinth478 Peace Pipe DriveBozeman, MT 59715406 581 8409bobswinth@mac.com 336 From:Lance Trebesch To:Tom Rogers Cc:brad.ogrosky@yahoo.com; glindemeier@bresnan.net; popkohtz@yahoo.com; timdietz1107@gmail.com; philgouveia@q.com Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Sunday, January 31, 2016 7:30:30 PM Dear Tom, I am writing to request that the proposed development (listed above) conform to Sundance Springssubdivision’s existing development pattern, which as you know, is a ratio of 60% developed acres and40% open space. The Developer's current Proposed Plat Revision for Tract #1 is approximately 80% developed acres and20% open space. The smaller Tract #2 is well below the 20% open space level. Clearly the Developer has failed to conform to Sundance Springs development pattern which will havenegative consequences for all current homeowners if the revised development is accepted as is by theby the Planning Board and City Commission. I strongly urge you and the Commission to reject this plan and ask the developer to redesign thedevelopment meeting the 60/40 pattern. As residents of Bozeman and Sundance Springs, we greatlyappreciate it, and we also appreciate all of your hard work. Thank you,Lance TrebeschBarb Dahlgren4160 Graf St.600 6321 337 From:Kelly Gaisford To:Tom Rogers Cc:Sue Mills; Gloria Lindemeier; Brad O"Grosky; Phil Gouveia; Tim Dietz; Neal Kolhtz; Neal Zandonella Subject:15-580 Sundance Springs, Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment Date:Monday, February 01, 2016 1:49:43 PM Dear Mr. Rogers, My name is Kelly Gaisford Zandonella and I reside with my husband Neal Zandonella at 340 Peace Pipe Drive in the Sundance Springs Development. I am writing to you regarding the potential amendment of the Growth Policy that would allow the rezoning of the two commercial lots currently part of Sundance Springs. As a resident of Sundance Springs since 1999 I have watched the development grow and build out from its infancy and like the majority of my fellow neighbors in the subdivision, I agree that the rezoning of the two commercial lots to residential makes the most sense for the subdivision for many obvious reasons. However, I only support amending the Growth Policy, rezoning both lots from B-1 to RS, as long as the developer agrees to maintain the current Sundance Springs PUD of maintaing 40% of the acreage to Open Space while creating the subdivision lots. When the original developers created Sundance Springs careful consideration was given to the size and spacing of the subdivision lots as well as the amount of open space that was to remain. Many residents in the surrounding neighborhoods weighed heavily on this issue and a considerable amount of time and effort was put forth by both the city and the developers to plan the Sundance Springs development and make it the unique neighborhood that it is. The uniqueness of the development is why I and many of my neighbors chose to purchase homes and lots in Sundance Springs. For the last 17 years, The Sundance Springs Homeowner's Association, at great financial expense, time and effort, has purposely maintained the open space and trail system for its residents and the public. At the same time it has vigorously protected the open space from encroachment, leaving it untouched and open for its beauty, for the wildlife that inhabits it and for the migratory patterns of the wildlife that constantly passes through it. I am opposed to changing the development to accommodate the vision of the new developer who has not carefully considered his proposed plan in light of the current Subdivisions intent for its open space. As quoted from our Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Sundance Springs, as amended 11/19/2007, page 34: “The intent of the Open Spaces within this project is to provide: a) a general feeling of openness b) buffer zones between lot clusters and existing neighbors c) corridors for trails networks 338 d) recreational space for residents and general public e) areas for wildlife habitat and wildlife habitat enhancement” The developers proposed plan for 10 residential lots on Lot 1 only allows for 20% open space and Lot 2 far less. The Silver Cloud Circle located in Sundance Springs shows an alternative development plan that meets the subdivisions current objectives and should be considered for Lot 1 and no more than 2 residential lots considered for Lot 2. An attached arial photo of the Silver Cloud Circle is attached. I therefore only support amending the Growth Policy if the Developer agrees that at most 60% of Lots 1 & 2 acreage in total is developed, and at least 40% of Lots 1 & 2 acreage in total is dedicated to open space. If in the event the developer were to agree to the 60%-40% split and the Growth Policy amended, I am in favor to include those future lots into our current residential association as the cost to maintain the egress, Little Horse, is a public street which The Sundance Springs residents are required to maintain, including but not limited to; snow removal, crack sealing, sealcoating, chip sealing, replacement, landscaping etc. In addition to the open space issues, I do have additional concerns regarding the safety of pedestrian, bicycle and automobile traffic by increasing the number of vehicles that will accompany 10 homes and the access from their proposed cul-de-sac drive to the Little Horse artery that is used to enter and leave the subdivision to the west and south. Most homes have two vehicles. Limiting the number of homes will greatly reduce the increase in vehicular traffic at that tight juncture. Not only is that juncture the main artery onto Peace Pipe Drive where the majority of the traffic comes from the west and south but many other vehicles not from our subdivision already cut and speed through that artery going from S. 3rd to Goldenstein and vice versa to avoid the intersection that backs up at S.3rd and Goldenstein. I watched a bicyclist almost get hit there this fall by a car speeding across Little Horse and another vehicle this winter lose control on the ice and slide into the culvert while speeding and using that artery as a shortcut. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments and concerns, we all greatly care for our subdivision and welcome those with the right intent to develop Lots 1 & 2. Respectfully yours, Kelly Gaisford Zandonella cc: Neal Zandonella, Sue Mills, Gloria Lindemeier, Brad O'Grosky, Phil Gouveia, Tim Dietz, Neal Kolhtz 339 340 341 342