HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-26 Public Comment - L. Wallace - My Objection to the Sundance Springs development From: Laurie Wallace
To: Bozeman Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL]My Objection to the Sundance Springs development
Date: Tuesday,February 24,2026 9:32:25 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.
My husband and I own a property In the Alder Creek subdivision (3167 Madrona Lane).
We appreciate its single-family residences, low traffic and green spaces. I am writing you
today in opposition to the development proposed by Sundance Springs.
Though my reasons we're not developed by me, I am grateful to my community members
who have put them together with such clarity. How this development has gotten as far as
it has is mind-boggling.
You have a chance to do the right thing by this Bozeman neighborhood, and maybe use it
as a precedent when the next well-educated,well-informed and respectful group of
residents joins to give you strong elements for saying no to developers.
The arguments against this development are
presented in my three attached photos.
Sincerely,
Laurie Wallace
Get Outlook for iOS
1.The Master Plan and Development
Guidelines were the binding terms of
the PUD when it was approved. The
evidence for this finding is:
a.The Master Plan and Development
Guidelines were required elements of
the PUD application (1992 BMC
18.54.080.D);
b. The Master Plan and Development
Guidelines were presumed to be
binding when the Commission
approved the PUD application (1992
BMC 18.54.080.C);
c. The 1996 order of the Commission
stated that the Sundance Springs
Subdivision must comply with
Z-95125 and the conditions of
approval,which contained the
preliminary Master Plan and
Development Guidelines;
d. The Montana Supreme Court has
ruled that the requirements of
approved planning documents
cannot be treated as optional
(Heffernan v. Missoula City Council,
2011 MT91, P77).
2. The 1996 Commission ordered
that proposed uses be added to the
Master Plan (condition of approval
#29); upon final approval of the PUD,
the proposed uses became final
uses, which are binding.
3.The Development Guidelines
incorporate the requirements of the
1992 Zoning Code by reference.
Therefore,the requirements of the
1992 Zoning Code are enforced
pursuant to BMC 38.440.030, BMC
38.440.050, and BMC 38.100.050.A.
4.The building and parking
configuration disapproved by the
Commission in 2024 continues to
violate the Block Frontage Standards
and remains ineligible for departure.
5. The differences between the
proposed Site Plan and the
conditions described in the Master
Plan and Development Guidelines
alter the character of the
development and require
amendment of the PUD before they
can be approved.
6. The review was pretextual and
therefore improper.
As the appellants conclude : "An
even - handed application of the
current municipal code reveals that
Application #25238 is non -
compliant ... ,11 and therefore App
#25238 should be overturned .