Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-29-22 Public Comment - B. Gallik - Sundance Springs Site Plan Review, 22047 GALLIK, BREMER & MOLLOY, P.C. Attorneys 777 East Main Street PO Box 70 Bozeman, Montana 59771-0070 406.404.1728 December 29, 2022 Kelley Rischke Assistant City Attorney VIA EMAIL ONLY City of Bozeman, Bozeman, MT 59715 RI : Sundance Springs Site Plan Review 22047 Dear Kelley: I write in response to recent public comments received by the City with respect to my client's site plan application for Commercial Lot 2 in the Sundance Springs subdivision. This follows up on my earlier letter. My client appreciates the City's efforts to work toward site plan approval, which has been ongoing since 2020. They are, however, frustrated. I am aware certain neighbors, who purchased their lots in Sundance Springs, with actual and/or constructive knowledge of the commercial planning for the property, now raise objections to the site plan, on the basis of hypothetical commercial uses that may require further public notice, a hearing and approval by the City. That is unfortunate, but not unexpected. One of the issues raised is the inability of the City to produce or account for the "Approved Final Plan" approval for the approved PUD. Opponents imply that is fatal to the Application. Not true. While we have reached out to the County Planning Office, which has not found anything and the engineering firm responsible for the Application, and I attached the Final Site Plan from that engineering firm. Further, the Sundance Springs PUD Finding of Fact advise the following PUD specific development standards for the commercial lots: 1. Uses permitted on Blocks 10 and 11 include professional offices and other permitted uses listed in B-1. 2. Hours of business for all uses limited to lam through 9pm. 1 3. A maximum building height of 34 feet. 4. Prohibit all parking of cars or other vehicles on the streets. 5. Exterior lighting not to exceed the height of the building or 20 feet, whichever is less.' These items set forth standards for the property. Recent claims of denial of a"reasonable opportunity to participate," nearly 25 years after the City provided public notice, took public comment and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law are ill informed and fly in the fact of the that the historic record concerning the property and the growth policy reflects this historical fact. They have been and are on constructive notice of those standards when they purchased their properties, if not actual notice as they likely received title reports for their property, at the time of purchase reflecting the commercial designation for this property. In short, they are not good faith purchasers for value in the eyes of the law. Further, residential building permits in the same subdivision have been applied for and approved by the City based upon the same documents the objecting neighbors now assert are flawed. In the law, this is also known as unclean hands and/or bad faith and give rise to estoppel. My client asks that the City give direction on where, if at all, its Application does not comply with applicable standards. They have been, and remain, committed to following the applicable standards for commercial development of this property without favor and simply ask the City for that instruction. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29" day of December, 2022 GAL & MOLLOY, P.C. -1 Brian K. Gallik C: client Randy Johnson Marlen Sadaj 1 My client acknowledges its application does not meet this standard. It will correct the same. 2 U UUUUUU U I ! N OOJ Ip^. y( w § 00 ;U OF-r10 p 3 rt Ems_p Y��11 �� �1�•� ! 55 � F Z 4 O CO Z ,CO AyI' i IJcr CL vJ \` 5 1 � 1 I ;r w d9 p a I. � F • k ���� \I v��V c: a ei L y z°tz�z dus 55 MII ° u.�m•+ C U a O ff: ©O 0- Q ff CA