Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-25 Public Comment - J. Rugemer - Sundance Springs Development PUD plan still ignoredFrom:John Rugemer To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Sundance Springs Development PUD plan still ignored Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 4:39:21 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. To: Erin George, Director of Community Development, City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771. Planning Department City of Bozeman From: John Rugemer 3416 Wagon Wheel Road Bozeman, MT 59715 To whom it may concern: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sundance Springs Commercial Development, site plan number 25238. I live nearby the location. The parking, the noise, and the type of business all of concerns to me. The parking seems inadequate and based on the MAP Brewery parking fiasco, it seems like a departure from something like this is poor planning. The noise from the type of business is not in alignment with the neighborhood or the area. The proposed “country store” from the 1996/98 planning is great. Leave it at that. While I accept that commercial development on this site is inevitable, I oppose the development's requested departures from laws describing the City's block frontage standards. BMC 38.510.020.F.1.d states "Departures may be considered provided the location and front orientation of the buildings are compatible with the character of the area and enhance the character of the street." Site plan 25238 meets neither criterion. Placing large commercial buildings along the designated open space is not compatible with the tranquil character of the trail system or surrounding residential neighborhood. Further, an underlying premise of the Block Frontage Standards is that parking lots along streets cause a visual impact on the street-scape, even if mitigated with a berm (BMC 38.510.030.C.3.c). Proposal 25238 places parking along the entire South 3rd frontage, on the street corner with Little Horse Drive. It even degrades the trail user's experience by placing parking along the entire trail system to the east, without incorporating mitigating landscaping! The plan would therefore degrade the character of South Third Avenue, not to mention the trails. The new proposed berm does not negate. The proposed buildings have a higher parking demand than will fit on the site. In the 1996 Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission, which created the PUD, the City Commissioners explicitly forbade Neighborhood Services District patrons from parking on the streets. I would ask that any development on this site to meet its full parking demand in order to comply with the Commission's Order. The site plan fails to live up to the Planned Urban Development governing the site, which incorporates zoning under the 1992-era B- 1 Neighbors Service District, as established by the Planning Department in its October 1, 2020 Development Review Comments. The PUD therefore requires a small commercial development, residential in character. When site plan 25238 is weighed against the 1992-era B-1 standard (Chapter 18.28), yard sizes (setbacks) are inadequate, building sizes are too large, parking is inadequate, and the building is designed specifically to house a disallowed business use (a brewery). Overall the character of the development fails to meet the legal intent of the 1992-era B-1 zoning law (18.28.010) -- to maintain the residential character of the area. I am especially concerned about the provision for large patio space which will support outdoor business uses on the site. The 1992-era B-1 zoning prohibits outdoor business use on the site as a principal use. I am against any conditional use or other permission that might be granted by the city that would allow for outdoor business use or alcohol consumption on the site because such uses are not compatible with the tranquil nature of the open spaces and residential areas adjacent to the lot. The proposed patios are decidedly incompatible with the character of the trail system and surrounding neighborhood. Finally, I would ask that a provision for sidewalks along the South 3rd frontage be enforced before approval of the site plan. This is a requirement of note 5 on the Sundance Spring Subdivision Phase 1B Final Plat and by the 1996 Findings of Fact and Order of the City Commission that created the Sundance Springs Subdivision. Allowing development to proceed without sidewalks defeats the intention of making our city a walkable one. Please deny application 25238 until such time as the site plan complies with the 1992-era zoning requirements (without conditional uses) and the block frontage standards (without departure), parking for proposed buildings can be contained on site (as required by the City Commission), and sidewalks are included on South Third Ave, to keep pedestrians safe as commercial areas of the city expand outward. At the risk of repeating myself: 1.) TOO MANY BUILDINGS AND ACTIVITY ON TOO SMALL OF A LOT: As noted, the latest Application #25238 proposes two, two story buildings totaling 10,000 square feet. Those buildings include a restaurant/bar with over 100 seats for patrons, nearly half of which are outdoors. Such outdoor seating is forbidden by our Master Plan. This latest proposal also suggests a 2,500-square-foot health gym, a 1,200 square foot retail space and a total of 4 second-story office suites in the two buildings. 2.) TWO BUILDINGS ARE NOT ALLOWED: Our PUD and Master Plan allow only one, single story building of less than 5,000 square feet. This proposal asks for two, two story buildings totaling nearly 10,000 square feet. The city should follow our legally binding Master Plan. Only one building is allowed! 3.) OUTDOOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED: The proposed plan shows extensive outdoor seating for a restaurant/bar. Even more seasonal seating is possible in the grassy area adjacent to the proposed patio. This is a direct violation of our Master Plan which states that there is no outdoor activity allowed. 4.) NOT ENOUGH PARKING: The proposed uses include businesses in two large buildings that - as designed - may at times need 150 or more parking spaces, and yet there are only 51 spaces provided on site. Our PUD prohibits on-street parking. But the two oversized buildings will flood our streets with parked cars. This proposal creates major safety issues because our narrow streets will become one-lane alleys, restricting our safe access to our homes and endangering us all with increased traffic, constricted traffic lanes and poor access for emergency vehicles. 5.) NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES ARE REQUIRED; NOT CITYWIDE DESTINATIONS: The proposal of two buildings housing as many as 7 businesses will draw destination traffic into our neighborhood from all over town. The original intention of the Master Plan was just the opposite. The neighborhood commercial lots at the western entrance to our neighborhood are exclusively for neighborhood businesses serving mainly local residents. Future proposed businesses are not meant to draw outside patrons into our neighborhood. But the current proposal will violate this key provision of the Master Plan. 6.) PARKING LOTS ABUT THE TRAILS - SETBACKS AND BLOCK FRONTAGE STANDARDS CODES ARE VIOLATED: The proposed plan gobbles up setback space and damages the character of our open space. Sundance Springs homeowners own the open space surrounding this commercial lot. The relevant building code does not allow parking to lap over into the bordering setbacks that are meant to buffer our open space. The relevant code also does not allow buildings with main entrances that front onto parking lots. We must insist that the legally binding Master Plan and PUD be enforced. This proposal must be entirely rejected! Thanks for considering my comment. Regards, John Rugemer 3416 Wagon Wheel Rd.