HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-22 Public Comment - J. Rugemer - to the Bozeman Planning DepartmentFrom:John Rugemer
To:Agenda
Subject:to the Bozeman Planning Department
Date:Friday, December 9, 2022 10:34:48 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From John Rugemer 3416 Wagonwheel Rd. Bozeman, MT 59715
This is regarding the unwanted development of site plan #22047.
Please do not allow any exceptions or departures from the standards that the city hasdeveloped and is the law.
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my concern over the Site Plan #22047 in the
Sundance Spring Subdivision. I understand that the Approved Final Plan
for the Planned Unit Development (PUD), which lays out the rules
governing development on the site, has been misplaced and is not
available.
With respect to the PUD, Sec. 38.430.040.A.3.d of the Bozeman Municipal
Code states that “Issuance of building permits and other development
approvals are based on the approved final plan and any conditions of
approval. No city administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits
for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan.”
Using other documents (such as the original application for the PUD’s
Final Plan) as a substitute for the Approved Final Plan is unacceptable. No
document other than the Approved Final Plan would provide a record of the
“conditions of approval.” Therefore, no other document can meet BMC
38.430.040.A.3.d, which requires the City to base permits on the approved
final plan and conditions of approval.
Further, I understand that the city has still not acknowledged that the 1998-
era zoning applies to the site, despite the fact that the 1998-era zoning is
specifically identified as the applicable zoning in the introduction to the
PUD’s covenants.
I would ask that the public comment period on this site be paused until such
time as the City of Bozeman has: 1) found the Approved Final Plan for the
PUD and made it available to the public for review, 2) acknowledged the
applicability of the 1998-era zoning to the site; and 3) provided a copy of
said zoning for public review. At that point, I would ask that a customary
two-week public comment period be provided so that the pubic can review
the proposed development against the applicable zoning. The public should
not be left to guess what development criteria apply to a site, as has been
the case during the current comment period. I ask that the city rectify the
issues regarding the current comment period and ensure that the public has
two weeks to comment after the applicable zoning and PUD's approved
final plan have been made available for review.