HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-25 Public Comment - M. King - Project #25238From:Molly Siddoway King
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Project #25238
Date:Sunday, November 9, 2025 8:08:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Erin George, Director, and Community Development Staff,
Nearly two years ago, during an appeal process, the City Commission rejected this developer's plan (which had been
approved by the planning/development staff) by a 4 to 1 vote due to many of the same concerns present in this re-
application. You should reject this plan outright as it once again fails to follow the legally binding Master Plan and
will only cost the city more time and money to hear our appeals and go to court if needed.
Here are a few things you may not have noticed on the application. The Developer's renderings are at best inaccurate
and quite possibly disingenuous.
* On the 017 Civil Coversheet C-001, the photo of the vicinity Map was taken at least 10-15 years ago, before
the Ellis View Subdivision was developed on the land just north of the project location. There is now a "U" shaped
street (Ellis View) with two entrances onto South 3rd and 7 houses. The photo labeled "facing northeast" is actually
the view to the east or slightly southeast across the open space. A photo facing northeast would show several of the
houses on Ellis View, and their close proximity to the project. I just stood there with a compass and took
photos. None of this shows in the applicant's photos.
* On the site drawing of the landscaping, 048 Landscape Plan Arch l1.1, the Developer shows two proposed
pathways and vegetative screening on the North side of the proposed main parking lot. Most of the vegetation
shown is on open space property that is owned and cared for by Sundance Springs Residential Owners' Association.
The developer has not approached the Sundance Springs owners about the possibility of encroaching on our open
space, and it seems unlikely that 2/3 of us (required by our covenants) would approve this request to encroach. (The
massive infestation of thistle and knapweed on the developer's property that has not been addressed is a concern
about his interest in caring for the property). The conclusion here is that the two oversized buildings (prohibited by
the Master Plan) occupy so much of Commercial Lot 2, that the Developer has to pretend that he can screen the
parking lot with trees planted on property he does not own nor have permission to use.
* On the drawings of the West Building [030 west building arch plan g1.1, 031 west bldg arch plan a1.1, and 032
west building arch plan a1.2] the developer has nefariously labeled the narrow south end of the building as the
entrance so it can pass Block Frontage Standards. The actual main entrance to the building is on the West side,
(similar to the east building's entrance on its long north side), visible from everywhere in the proposed parking lot
with a door into the Atrium/foyer that connects to the stairway, elevator, and all inside businesses. The "Entrance"
labeled on the developer's drawings, which is not visible from the parking lot, leads one only into the back corner of
a bar/restaurant/pub. This back door that the developer has mis-labeled as "Entrance" does not lead patrons to
access any of the other businesses.
This kind of obfuscation would be unnecessary if the Developer would adhere to the legally binding Master Plan
that guides this P.U.D.
* One building no larger than 5000 square feet.
* Building is one story.
* No outdoor seating allowed.
* Adhere to Block Frontage Guidelines.
* Set backs left intact and open space respected.
These are the rules that you must uphold. Please reject Project #25238.
Sincerely,
Molly Siddoway King
--
Molly Siddoway KingBozeman, MT 59715
406-581-4582
mollysidking@gmail.com