Well, good evening and welcome and thank you for joining us.

As we begin tonight, I'd like to remind everyone of a few things to make it easier for you to follow along and to make public comment.

You can watch us in real time in several different ways.

Attend in person in the committee room as the commission room as uh most of you are here today.

You can stream us live on your computer by going to the city commission page at Bozeman.net and clicking on the view live event link.

You can watch this meeting on cable TV on channel 190.

And you can also join us via video conference.

You'll find that link on the meet by clicking on the meetings icon on Bozeman's main webpage to find the city commission agenda.

Click on the link to register and follow the prompts to enter the meeting.

Lastly, you can go old school and just listen.

You'll find the phone number for the video conference and the access code on the agenda, and please note that this is listening only, and you will be unable to give verbal public comment using this method of participation.

If you would like to offer public comments this evening, there are two ways to do so.

You can make your person your public comment in person here in the meeting room.

Or if you're joining us through a video conference, you can use the raise your hand feature.

When it is your turn to comment, staff will call you by name.

A reminder that you can always provide public comment, written public comment before the meeting by sending an email to Comments at Bozeman.net or by visiting our public comment webpage on Bozeman.net.

Any public comment received by noon today has been distributed to the commission and read by all of us.

And it was a lot of reading.

We will hear in person public comment first.

We'll hear in-person public comment first, and followed by those joining via video conference to allow time for the remote attendees to cue up for the comments.

Mayor Morrison is joining us via video from Great Falls.

So there are five of us here today.

And if you are now willing and able or willing or able, uh, we ask that you you stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.

That is correct.

Excellent.

Do we have any FYI from the commission?

Yes, just Commissioner Magic.

Thank you.

Um so many of us may know that the 2005 legislature made some changes to our property taxes.

And the intent is to raise property taxes on second homes.

And I just wanted to let everyone know who might have a second home who rents their second home.

That March 1st is the deadline to get an application in to the Department of Revenue.

And you could have your taxes potentially remain the same as if that were your uh primary residence.

So Sunday, March 1st is the deadline to get your application in.

And those applications can be found on the Department of Revenue's website at homestead mt.gov.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to give two updates on advisory boards that met last week.

Um at the historic preservation advisory board meeting, we met the consultants from the Lakota group that will be working on our neighborhood conservation overlay district design guidelines update.

The board was overall impressed with the consultants and their grasp of the situation in Bozeman and their acknowledgement of the correlation between historic character and economic vitality.

One public commenter during the meeting expressed interest in a tool that the consultant had used in the creation of design guidelines in other areas.

The tool was the inclusion of color coding of the design guidelines that would differentiate between things the developer or homeowner must do and a guideline that has some leeway in it.

So folks are already engaging.

The board gave several really constructive recommendations on the engagement plan for this project, and I hope this body will agree to adopt those.

When we review the plan at our regular meeting on March 10th, it's occurred to me that there are three ingredients necessary for a successful NCOD design guideline rewrite.

Those are first that we engage a capable firm of consultants to draft a robust, defensible code and policy.

Second, that the whole community show up to participate, making sure that the consultants hear them and incorporate their feedback into the final adopted policy and code.

And third, finally, now that we are under the regulatory framework of the Montana Land Use and Planning Act, we need a city staff willing to uphold, apply, and defend the final adopted code and policy that does indeed reflect the wishes of the community.

After meeting with the Lakota group, I am satisfied that we have the first ingredient.

Through the coming months, we shall endeavor together to make sure we also have the other two.

I also wanted to give an update on the tax increment finance board.

Uh also met last week to review staff's proposed projects and budget for TIFF awards for the next two years.

This is a brand new board.

It was required by the state legislature coming out of the 2025 session to oversee our spending in TIFF districts, other than the downtown Bozeman, which has its own dedicated board.

Asking things like what has been accomplished, are there things unfinished on the docket that are still a priority to stakeholders?

We've been informed that having the board weigh in on staff proposed projects and budgetary awards is necessary right now.

It's due to the approaching deadlines for this city commission's two-year budget discussion, which needs to be adopted by the end of June, I believe.

One public commenter has already made a suggestion at the meeting, followed up in writing, that would use the tax increment in the Northeast District in better alignment with neighborhood preferences and goals.

And it was exciting that this comment also suggested tying in some of the TIFF projects with the recently launched C.

Bozeman Creek initiative.

So we do get great insight when the public participates.

That is all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Sweeney.

Any other FYI?

Mayor Morrison.

I have a short one.

Our former mayor speak of Terry Cunningham.

Our former mayor, speaking of Terry Terry Cunningham, Terry Cunningham hosted the community Pachka.

He was resplendent last this was last week.

He was resplendent in his top hat and absolutely unfettered with his bad puns.

I suspect even you, Commissioner Sweeney, uh Commissioner Bodie would have had trouble matching him on the on his run.

And the FYI from staff.

Just real quickly, um, I want to make the commission and the community aware of a pretty incredible exhibit that's coming to the Bozeman Public Library.

It is um designed to experience life during the Holocaust through one of World War II's most famous writers, Anne Frank.

Um Frank, a history for today exhibit will be at the Bozeman Public Library in the atrium from March 2nd through the 31st.

The exhibit was developed by the Ann Frank House of the University of South Carolina and has traveled all over the world.

There's an opening reception uh on March 4th from 6 to 7 p.m.

in the library's community room.

Uh this is a self-guided tour available.

Uh during all library.

Open hours.

The library is open.

Check that out.

Personal meeting, Mike.

Wow.

Mike, are you turning this off on me?

Thank you.

My grandfather um helped.

Wow.

This is perfect for me.

I talk too much.

Um my grandfather uh was over in um Europe in uh the Netherlands and uh Germany after World War II to help um kind of bring things together after that horrible thing.

So I I did go to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam last year, and it was pretty emotional.

I think there's a lot of lessons for all of us in this time, and I would encourage the public to uh get over there if they can.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Wynne.

That brings us next to Commission disclosures.

Do we have any uh disclosures that commissioners need to make about items on today's agenda?

Mayor Morrison.

No.

I do have one.

Um my wife is uh Dr.

Jeffrey Poole, who is one of the appellants of of the um uh uh action items that we'll be hearing tonight is a colleague of my wife's at Montana State University.

We've had um um dinners and and I've met met with Dr.

Poole in in in department functions.

I've uh that has not happened for the past two, three years, and uh I certainly have not talked with Dr.

Poole about any uh about the uh appeal or any of the issues that are that are before us today.

All right, and that brings us to consent.

Um do you have anything you'd like to point to the community to?

I'll try here.

Um just F5.

This is a bailment agreement with um an amazing local photographer, Craig Herger.

If you've seen uh walked around City Hall and you can see some of his work here.

Uh he has uh graciously let the City of Bozeman display his artwork for free at no cost to the taxpayers here in uh City Hall and other locations, and we are just so thankful that he has done that.

This is an agreement that um allows us to ensure his work to display it, and we're just um really happy that uh we get to do that.

It's beautiful to showcase our area or city.

Uh so thanks to uh Craig for that.

Yes, thank you.

That that it does it is beautiful artwork.

Um let's take public comment on consent items.

So this is the time for anybody to speak about items F1 through F16 on our agenda.

Please step forward.

We'll take again comment from in the room.

You'll step forward and we'll have uh you'll have three minutes.

First call.

Second call.

Third call for public comment.

Mr.

Moss, do we have anybody online?

I'm showing no request for comment.

We'll close public comment and bring it up here for a motion and a vote.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um, I move to approve consent items F1 through F 16 as submitted.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Mr.

Moss, will you poll the commission, please?

Commissioner Bodie.

Aye.

Commissioner Magic.

Aye.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Passes unanimously.

So this brings us to public comment on non-agenda items falling within the purview and the jurisdiction of the commission.

This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of Bozeman City Commission.

There is also time in conjunction with items on our agenda for public comment.

And just to be very specific, we'll we'll be taking public comment on action item I.

We will not be taking public comment on the special presentation.

You may only speak once per topic.

And please note the City Commission cannot take any action on any item that does not appear on the agenda tonight.

All persons addressing the City Commission are asked to speak in a civil and courteous manner, and members of the audience are asked to be respectful of others.

Please state your name and state whether you are a resident of the city or property owner within the city and limit your comments to three minutes.

I believe most of you know the drill, but you'll get a two minute of the green light will go on as soon as you start speaking.

At two minutes in, the yellow light will go on to indicate that you have one minute left.

And at three minutes, the red light will go on, and we just ask that you wrap up your comments.

Ms.

Bateson.

Thank you.

Mary Bateson, Bozeman resident.

I want to thank you in advance for adding the discussion of the height limit in B3 zones to the City Commission meeting agenda within the four-month window that Douglas Fisher initially spoke of on December 16th, 2025.

It is so important to citizens to know that our commissioners make good on their words.

At the February 17th, 2026 downtown Urban Development Board meeting, the chairperson, Jake Van Dusen, responded to Douglas Fisher's questions about the height limits by stating that six months would not be long enough to determine how a 90-foot height allowance in B3 zones would affect Bozeman.

But he went on to say, I think it is an appropriate amount of time to receive enough feedback from the community that did we miss something that the community wanted differently than we thought.

It's critical to have this discussion.

Before we get more tall buildings that can ruin Bozeman's historic character.

Before we lose a single dollar of affordable housing support.

Before another shadow is cast on our landscape.

Tall versus sprawl is a false choice.

Having a stricter height limit is the best position from which to see how this works.

Representing the Bozeman community.

Thank you for listening to me.

I appreciate you.

We do ask that you not applaud or cheer or cheer or jeer at folks who are testimony.

We're trying to keep this as as friendly and welcoming to all perspectives, and some folks do feel intimidated to offering a counter perspective if there's a lot of applause in the room.

And Mr.

Cardi, if you can forgive me one more minute.

We do also, I forgot to mention this.

Our um our action item tonight, the consideration of the appeal is a uh it's a quasi-judicial item.

We need to have public testimony in in that hearing container, in that hearing, during that hearing, in order to officially consider it.

If you come up and start testifying about action item I1, I am going to interrupt and ask you to wait and hold your comments for that public comment period during that period.

Mr.

Cardi, thank you.

Uh Daniel Cardi, uh Northside Bozeman resident who lives within the NCOD and across the street from a block zone to B3.

I'm speaking tonight to ask this commission to schedule a public hearing to revisit the previous commission's December 16th, last minute sudden move to allow 90-foot tall buildings in B-3 by right.

I'm asking for such a hearing to be held on or before May 31st, because May 31st is within the four-month time frame suggested by Deputy Mayor Fisher for revisiting the 90-foot in B3 by right issue.

The arguments for overturning the previous commission's decision to allow 90-foot buildings in B3 by right are compelling and include that are not limited to the following.

First, allowing 90-foot buildings in B3 by right will irreversibly and irreparably damage the historical character and sense of place of down Bozeman's downtown core, which are embodied by the concept of heritage conservation, a concept that is all about managing change in ways respectful to Bozeman's existing downtown neighborhoods.

Second, allowing 90-foot buildings in B3 by right will cede all of B3 to the ultra-wealthy, while the city will get no community benefits in return.

In other words, the city will get no cash in lieu of affordable housing for going from 60 or 70 feet to 90 feet.

In addition, seeding all of B3 to the ultra-wealthy will push Bozeman's workforce farther from their downtown jobs, resulting in longer commutes and increased sprawl and less environmental sustainability.

Third, allowing 90-foot buildings in B3 by right will exacerbate downtown parking problems, which already discourage many locals from venturing downtown unless there's a special occasion.

To conclude, I asked the commission to schedule a public hearing by May 31 to revisit the 90-foot in B3 by right issue with a goal of returning maximum building height in B3 to 60 or 70 feet by right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment on non-agenda items in the room?

Second call.

Third call for non-agenda items, public comment.

Mr.

Moss, do we have anybody online?

I'm showing no request for comment.

All right.

I will close the non-agenda public comment.

And that brings us up to the special presentation.

Mr.

Wynn.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um I'd like to welcome uh Captain Anthony Hutchins to uh the podium.

Um tonight starts our monthly uh special presentation schedule with things that the community might not know about.

Things that are happening in our town that are interesting or important to know about.

And Anthony is our first uh presentation.

Thank you, Mayor.

Perfect.

Hopefully you guys can hear me.

Uh members of the commission, thanks for having me tonight.

Uh hopefully I'll give you some informative information that's pretty near and dear to my heart, which is with the time I've spent in this division.

So uh like city manager uh Wen said, my name is Anthony Hutchings.

I'm the currently the detective captain of the Bosan Police Department.

I've been here for 18 and a half years, and I started my career back in 2005 with Broad Order County.

Uh part of that time, uh I spent eight years in our detective division as an investigator of child sexual and physical abuse.

So a lot of this information, unfortunately, I've seen in the past, and it continues to be a problem in this community.

Um it's one of those things where just you know, generally I don't think people have a good idea of what's really going on behind closed doors.

Uh just to speak a little more into this and how we you know look into these things.

Uh we have a special victims unit within our division.

It was formed back in 2017.

Uh we collaborated with the Montana State University Police Department for this unit, and really the focus is on uh physical and sexual abuse of both adults and children.

Um currently we have two investigators assigned to handle adult cases in that that area.

Uh we have two that are assigned to child uh crimes in that that nature, too, one being an MSU detective.

We also have an investigator with uh Montana ICAC, which is Internet Crimes Against Children.

They specifically handle uh child exploitation using digital devices and um, you know, social media and all that stuff.

So and then we have a digital forensic unit, which is staffed by a civilian position, and really their main goal is to help us uh corroborate the crimes we investigate and recover digital evidence on a plethora of different devices.

And really the ultimate goal for for our division, uh, you know, it's gain experience doing what they're doing, becoming better at their job as a service to this community.

We should have a bunch of investigators that are highly skilled and they are at what they're doing.

Um part of that is their training is specific to their role.

Um prior, you know, my past, we kind of shotgun approach training and it cover all kinds of different things by really focusing on a specific area, they can get the education they need to be even more successful.

Um part of this too is identifying trends we're seeing in our community, also community outreach and education, which I think this probably falls into.

Uh and then just collaboration and then uh mental wellness of those those investigators are part of this unit.

So kind of the title, what is unseen?

Um it's a lot of different crimes.

Uh I could go into Montana Code annotated, but that'd take a while.

Um the list is here.

A lot of them have unfortunately a sexual element uh attached to them, or uh, you know, physical domestic violence type uh element as well.

Um some of our bigger ones, you know, sexual intercourse without consent, the acronym we call it PSYWAC, but it's commonly referred to as rape and uh I guess common vernacular.

Uh stalking cases, strangulation, a partner friendly member, assault.

Um we have a lot of these crimes in the community that people don't realize are pretty prevalent, uh especially with the strangulation.

That's a newer statute that the legislature created.

Uh don't quote me on about 10 years ago.

Um part of it's the National Health Institute stats that are on there.

Uh 10% of all PFMA related crimes involve strangulation, 43 or sorry, 45 percent of attempted homicides, and 43 percent of actual homicides.

So it's one of those key indicators that uh when people are in situations of domestic violence that oftentimes they lead to something worse if it goes unchecked.

And so uh a big focus of ours is to hold people accountable that uh to commit these acts and hopefully uh start the healing process for the people that survive those.

Uh I guess kind of the misconception for our group is that you know, people call 911 and the uniform shows up and things are handled.

Um our line of work, especially with the special victims unit.

A lot of the crimes and cases that we generate don't come from your traditional 911 center or someone walking into the lobby.

Um we have a lot of good working relationships with different groups in this community.

Healthcare providers like Bozem Deaconists or local pediatrics offices, Bridger Care, Zoe Care.

Uh we do get a lot of referrals from those those groups, which is important.

Uh the school district is another um you know avenue where we get a lot of information from, especially with our school resource officers or embedded uh in all the schools, and which has been a great asset to the district, and I think this community too.

Uh also counselor therapists, I could go into all of it.

We have a lot of groups that we work with, and we're fortunate enough to have those in this this area that we work collaboratively and we can get notified of these these types of incidences and hopefully we can address them, investigate them, and at the end of the day uh hold people accountable and get these survivors the treatment and help that they need.

Um what what is the uh impact of the community?

Uh you know, some of the numbers.

So we're we're typically running just our general detectives, which there's sorry, 12 uh around 350 cases, plus or minus every year.

Um and that's been pretty pretty steady for a while since I even when I was back there.

Um these are high-level felony cases.

Um they're they're typically pretty severe.

Um they take a lot of work, a lot of uh hours of uh casework and resources and um there are things that people don't know about.

I know we we do, I feel very good job of uh social media presence and media releases and just informative stuff to the public, but a lot of these don't reach those things just because you know they're involved in the privacy of homes, schools.

For whatever reason, it's something that you you just don't want to broadcast to the public.

You have to take into account the people impacted by these crimes.

Um, you know, in their heads, they might feel that people are gonna know them on the street.

Well, it probably won't, but we take all this into account, and there's a reason that the general public typically doesn't hear or see these things.

Uh out of all those cases, uh roughly 65% of them go straight to our SVU.

So that means they're either a sexual physical crime uh involving adult or children, but actually it's a little higher for children in this community.

Uh roughly out of all of our cases, our divisions handling 45% of them involve children.

And that's sexual, physical, and then exploitation through digital means.

Nationally, I think the reason these are things that you don't really see a whole lot.

Especially I have the numbers up there with adult crimes, 63 to 75% don't go reported.

And that's you know what statistics tell us.

I would say it's probably pretty accurate in my experience.

It's even worse with children, and that's 70 to 90 percent.

So I mean, worst case scenario, we're seeing 10% of these crimes in our community that get reported.

Best case is 30%.

And they're already pretty high for us.

Um, part of this is that they do go on in homes and private settings.

Uh typically it's people that are known to those the survivors and victims, and it leads another element of you know, hard it's hard to go forward with something, whether you're an adult or a child that they're known to you, and that you have to start thinking about their own lives, your lives, uh, their lives, what their family are gonna think, what their friends are gonna think, and it just leads to this compounding element of why people don't want to come forward.

Um with children, you know, you have grooming, the guilt, trauma.

Um that's even more so where it's usually someone that knows them or is close to the family, and they have to rationalize the impact that's gonna have in their lives and the people they know.

Um it's an unfortunate element of our society.

Um, but we take it very seriously here.

And it's scary to see and hear and look at this, um, but we take we do take it serious, and we investigate them fervently as best as we can.

Uh at the end of the day, our goal is to hold people accountable.

And it's also to get these people that survive the treatment and help that they need.

Um, this can come in various ways with mental health professionals, uh, medical treatment, advocacy, whatever we can connect them with to help start the healing process, that's that's our whole our ultimate goal.

And then really at the end, like I've kind of been talking about, um, you know, the end goal for us is to get the help that these people need in whatever manner that might be.

Um sometimes they don't want to continue forward with a criminal investigation because it is very hard.

It is very hard to run through the judicial process.

And so whether that's mental health or medical treatment, whatever that looks like, um, oftentimes we're the catalyst to get them the help that they need.

Uh community outreach and education is a big part of what we're doing.

I put on there, if anyone's interested, we're doing a sexual assault awareness night uh with this unit at the safety center, uh, April 15th, 6 to 8 p.m.

Um, because we do feel it's important to you know do the best that we can to educate the community on what's going on behind closed doors because until that light's brought forward, it'll continue to happen.

Um it'll be harder to you know report this stuff, and you know, we really want to do the best we can for this community.

So I think that's all I have.

I probably talked a little fast, but I just want to thank um Captain Hutchinson.

I want to thank his every member of the Bozeman Police at Monet, they do an amazing job keeping this community safe, most of which we will never hear about or know about.

But they do it all day, every day.

Um they're an incredible group of men and women professionals, and I couldn't be more proud of our police department.

So thank you, Captain.

Thank you very much.

Have yeah, I definitely want to thank Captain Hutchings for the on behalf of the commission.

That is a sobering sobering presentation.

And it speaks also to the need for our police to have the you know the the trust of our community to work with the community groups, have folks come forward.

So lots to chew on there.

Thank you.

Um that brings us up to the main event item I uh action item I one.

Consideration of appeal number 25769 regarding the conditional approval of Sundance Springs Commercial Lot 2, site planning application number 25238.

Before we can begin, I would just wanted to run over just to get all of us on the same page with how this hearing will be working because this is an important one.

Um the uh the staff presentation will have presentations from staff from the appellants and from the developers uh or the landowners.

Um those presentations will run 15 minutes.

We'll have the same uh green light that will start um and then I presume maybe after a minute that's the after with one minute left, the yellow light will go, and then at the red light, we do ask each each group to wrap up their comments.

Commission will have time in between each presentation to ask staff.

And I I should pause here and know that this is this is an important decision that we need to make.

Um I want to make sure, as you as your presiding officer, that that all everybody on all the commission have make sure they have all their questions answered and feel that they have enough information to be able to ultimately make a decision.

So do not you know, just make sure that your you uh we'll go around, um, but we'll make sure that everyone has time for questions.

There's no limit on our questions.

Um we will after the staff presentations, after sorry, after the three presentations and then the three questions and answer sessions.

We'll open this for public comment with a limit of each person gets three minutes.

We'll again go in the room first, then online.

Then uh after that, we will have real offer uh time for a rebuttal for staff, for the appellants, and for the developers.

I would ask that we leave that limit that to about five minutes, but but again, this is an important, and if there's if if uh you feel you need more time as the appellant or staff or the developer, we can give that to you.

And then there will be questions in between for each during the rebuttal of the staff, the appellant and and the and the um the developer.

Once we have all our questions answered, all the rebuttals done, all the public comment taken.

I will close the hearing, the public hearing and the record.

And at that point, then I'll ask for a motion, a discussion, and a vote by the commission.

It is my hope that we can get to a resolution tonight.

However, I want to make sure that we make a good and quality decision.

Um, and and the quality of our decision making decreases dramatically after 10 o'clock.

And so it is is my intention to not extend this meeting past 10 o'clock.

I hope that we can get the public the close of the public hearing in the record, and then we can we'll make a determination, we'll see what time it is.

Um we will be taking some breaks in here for bathroom breaks.

Um but once once we get to the the closing of public hearing record, we'll see what time it is and see if we want to continue forward if we can get to a close resolution.

But I I hope that we we are not moving, you know, past nothing past 10 o'clock.

Um traditionally, the mayor gets the final word and the final vote by dent of the he's the executive uh the the um is running the meeting.

We have an unusual case where the mayor is on video, and our bylaws or our rules, our resolution say that the presiding officer needs to be physically present.

But I would like to extend the mayor the the the final word and the final vote.

And so um we'll just kind of go clockwise like we normally do, and then and then finish with the mayor for the both the discussion and the votes.

And I believe so.

Are there any questions on uh from commission uh as we begin with this?

Okay.

Any perfect.

Mr.

Wynne, your team has the floor.

I'd like to welcome our director of community development, Aaron George.

Thank you, City Manager Wynn.

Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of the commission.

Aaron George, community development director, here tonight, joined uh by Zachary Moon, planner, and Brian Kruger, development review manager from my staff.

So I was like to start by entering the staff report into the record.

Our presentation tonight will give background information about the project, summarize the city's response to the appeal, and answer any questions.

So here's a timeline we'll get started with for applications for this property.

In 1995, the preliminary PUD, which stands for planned unit development, was submitted and approved by City Commission for 141 residential lots and two neighborhood services commercial lots.

In 1998, the final PUD, final plat and phase one site plan were approved, and the C CRs were finalized, which includes building design guidelines for development.

And you'll hear that phrase, it's uh referred to in a couple different ways throughout various materials.

So building guidelines, design guidelines are synonymous in this case.

Subsequent phases were to be developed according to separate site plan applications and residential portions of the PUD built out first.

In 2022, the site plan for phase one B, commercial lot two, was submitted.

This was the first site plan proposing to build out one of the two commercial lots.

Following staff review, director at the time approved the site plan in June of 2023, which was appealed to city commission.

In February of 2024, Commission overturned the director's decision on the site plan providing guidance for future development with findings of fact.

In May of 2025, a new site plan for commercial lot two was submitted.

Following staff review and multiple rounds of revisions to address review comments.

An appeal was then filed for this decision also, and that brings us to tonight's appeal hearing.

So an aerial of the site to orient you to the location of the project.

It's at the south edge of the city.

This is the Sundance Springs development.

As you can see, all but a couple of the residential lots are built out.

What's left is the two commercial lots at its western edge.

Commercial lot two, the subject of this site plan is highlighted on the screen and is located at the corner of Little Horse Drive and South Third Avenue.

Zoning for the site, the Sundance Springs area is zone RS, residential suburban, and is surrounded by unannexed county land.

The Sundance Springs PUD applied B1, neighborhood business zoning to the two Western lots plan for neighborhood services commercial use, and it's worth noting the name of that district changed in the past at the time of the POD, it was called neighborhood services.

The underlying growth policy designation for this lot is community commercial mixed use.

The site plan proposes two commercial buildings, both two stories, and each just under 5,000 square feet in floor area.

Preliminary uses proposed for this site plan include restaurant, office, gym, and retail spaces.

Exact land uses or tenants are not yet known, which is common for commercial shell buildings.

Additional review will occur at building permit stage.

City Commission considered the previous appeal by the same appellants who made many of the same arguments.

Those findings are shown here on the screen.

It's important to note that staff relied upon these findings in evaluating the current site plan application.

The key points in the findings are the city had sufficient documents to evaluate the site plan.

The director was correct in applying the current code and not the historical code.

The design guidelines from the PUD covenants should have been considered and applied to the site plan application.

The site plan did not meet criteria for a departure from block frontage standards for the building to front on the proposed trail.

So now we're gonna dive into the issues on appeal.

So I'm gonna talk about the first two, and then I'm gonna turn it to Zachary Moon and my staff to talk about the second half.

So we're gonna start with the master plan document and the CCR design guidelines.

So the PUD master plan is shown on your screen.

The appellant alleges this document from the PUD, which was labeled master plan, controls development on the site, and limits this parcel to one building.

It's important to note that while the city has an application type called a master site plan.

This document is not that and was not submitted as such an application.

Often as part of PUDs or other development applications, applicants include a conceptual drawing to depict potential build out of the site with potential uses in buildings shown as one sheet of their plan set.

This 1997 document shown on the screen is exactly that.

Conceptual depiction of potential build-out.

Following PUD approval, a site plan is then required to provide the level of detail required to build.

Commission considered this argument in the prior appeal and did not include any reference to this master plan document in their findings of fact.

This is a more zoomed-in portion from the master plan document showing the lot in question and identifying a potential use as a village store with gas station.

It's kind of hard to read, but they're just left of the word village store.

You will see pump area and patio.

As you can see, this drawing does not have dimensions or technical labels for parking or landscaping, which further illustrates its conceptual nature.

It's worth noting that what is depicted here could not have been built because it did not comply with the code at the time of the set or the subdivision.

For example, a gas station called at the time automobile service station would have required a separate conditional use permit for the code at the time.

Also, this drawing depicts an access through the open space onto South Third, which is prohibited.

The findings of fact from commission's PUD approval, specifically condition 29, state that uses permitted on these lots include professional offices and other permitted uses listed in the B1 neighborhood service district.

Full site plan review and or subdivision review will be required for all development.

The CCR design guidelines have a similar statement that says permitted uses shall be those allowed in the Bozeman Zone Code for the neighborhood services district.

So now moving on to the issue of which code applies.

The appellant argues the historic code from the 90s applies to this development.

Municipal code, the covenants themselves and commission's findings of fact could not be more clear.

The applicable code is the one in effect at the time the application was deemed adequate for review.

In this case, that is a 2025 code.

Municipal code requires all site plan applications to comply with the regulations in effect at the time the application is deemed adequate, and that's located in 3820080B.

Not just this project, but all site plans.

This is our normal process.

The covenants for Sundance Springs expressly direct owners to check, and this is what's on screen is a an excerpt from that.

Staff correctly evaluated the application against the 2025 code standards.

So with that, I'll turn it over to planner Zachary Moon, who reviewed the project to walk through a few specific code issues.

Thank you.

Good evening, City Commission.

I'm Zachary Moon, assist associate planner with community development department.

I'm the planner who reviewed this application and here to discuss the more site-specific issues on appeals tonight.

I'll begin with parking.

The appellant uh brought up language in the design guidelines, which states that each lot in the Sundance Springs subdivision shall have a buildable area determined by a building or structure setbacks as allowed in the Bozeman zone code for neighborhood service district.

Um you can see on the site plan uh that there's a about a four-foot setback from the property line.

Um specifically Bozeman Municipal Code Section 3854010A6 uh explicitly allows for parking within the required uh rear setbacks.

And so as such, we reviewed it with allowing that uh that four foot from property line, uh essentially reducing that rear setback for parking to zero feet.

Um moving on to block frontage standards.

Um the appellant alleges that the east building, there are two buildings on this site plan, uh, but the east building does not meet block frontage standards, and uh the east building is not required to meet block frontage standards.

There are some sites that have multiple block frontages, as you can see on the subdivision plat, a zoomed-in portion of the subdivision plat.

Uh the only frontage for this property is that blacked-out section, which is the right of way for Little Horse Drive, um, which is the only frontage for this lot.

Uh, otherwise, it is wholly surrounded by open space on all other property lines.

Uh so there is no block frontage for for the second building to meet.

Uh, with that said, there is a building that has to meet block frontage standards, and that is the western building.

Um, in this depiction, you can see it more or less on uh in the center of that image.

Um there are a number of elements that that need to be met for block frontage standards.

Uh, those are building placement, building entrances, facade transparency, weather protection, parking location, and sidewalk width.

On this, you can see that there's a sidewalk accessing the prop uh the western building, um, and that the parking lot is situated to the side of that building, um, which complies with the parking location uh and building placement requirements.

Um, the elevations here show the south elevation of that building, which is along the frontage uh along Little Horse Drive, the south property line.

Um, and further requirements are facade transparency.

You can see that that there's a large amount of glass on that that building, as well as a building entrance, which is uh which meets the building entrances requirements.

There's also weather protection, that's the uh sort of awning over that.

Um the appellant alleges that the primary facade is actually the western portion of that building.

I'll skip back, uh, which faces the parking lot.

Um, and there's no no requirement that the uh additional facades can't be designed to a higher higher design requirement.

And most likely why this appears as uh another primary facade is because we reviewed this application for compliance with a design guidelines, and the design guidelines have very stringent requirements that are well above and beyond what we would typically review in zoning.

Um you maybe may not actually be able to see it, it's quite small, but um there are very nuanced requirements such as the distance of the the Eve from the from the the building wall called the soft it.

And so there are very nuanced design standards that typically would not be reviewed for in a planning application, but were which were applied because of the commission findings of fact requiring uh city staff to review against the design guidelines.

Um moving on to residential adjacency.

This property is wholly surrounded by open space, uh, which is how we originally review this by staff.

Um the appellant brought up the matter that this is actually uh an RS zoned property adjacent to RS.

And so in our review of the appellant's discussion, uh we actually agree that this should have been reviewed for residential adjacency, and we re-evaluated the site plan accordingly.

Um with that, we reviewed the required parking lot landscape screening as required by the the code section you can see there on the screen.

It requires four feet of landscaping, a minimum of four feet in height and a four four feet in width.

Uh the plan sort of zooms in on the adjacent property line where that residential adjacency would apply and shows the planting schedule, which shows that essentially all of the shrubs planted along that property line meet that four-foot height requirement and four-foot spread requirement to to meet those minimum standards.

Um furthermore, uh, when we reevaluated the plan, uh we recognize that the photometric plan actually did not comply with the minimum standards for residentially adjacent lots.

Uh the minimum requirement or maximum required allowed illumination on a property line for raised residentially adjacent property is 0.3 foot candles.

Um, and for a commercially adjacent property is one foot candle.

Um you can see on that northern property line there, the highest uh foot candle illumination rating is 0.86.

Um, as such, staff recommends that commission makes findings that site plan application 25238 does not meet code standards um relating to BMC Section 3857040 G5.

Um and we have provided a motion for your consideration to amend the director's decision and insert a condition of approval that the developer must meet all lighting standards prior to final site plan approval.

Um we have provided a subsequent motion to adopt the amended director's decision.

Um further issues that the appellant brought up were parking lot landscape screening.

Um we uh I just went over that um uh restaurant floor area.

The the director already covered that insofar as this is all shell space and will be further reviewed.

Um additionally, the director's decision in section four.

So the staff report for the original application provides a robust discussion on that matter.

Um additionally, the the applicant discussed perimeter trees.

Um there's a standard which requires that the boulevard adjacent to the frontage uh have a tree every 50 feet.

This standard was reviewed and met.

Um, and lastly, snow storage areas uh were reviewed and approved by uh the city engineering department in conjunction with the water conservation department, who reviewed for compliance with all of the uh the plantings within that snow storage areas.

Um lastly, there were 55 public comment letters received uh within the the allotted time.

Four were in support of the director's decision, and 51 were in support of overturning the director's decision.

Um and with that I will turn it back over to my director.

Thank you, Zachary.

So closing out here in conclusion.

Commission already determined that the master plan document does not control future development of this site and leaving it out of their findings of fact.

The PUD commission findings, the CCR design guidelines, and the 2025 code provide clear direction for what is allowed on the site.

The site only has one black frontage on Little Horse Drive and complies with all code requirements for that frontage.

Staff did review for compliance with the CCR design guidelines and found the site plan compliant.

On the specific issue the appellant raised about parking and the setback code clearly states that parking is allowed in the rear setback.

Commission already determined in findings the fact that staff was correct to apply current code to the proposed site plan, not the historic code.

And as outlined in the director's decision, which is a summary of all of staff's review and findings, the proposal complies with all relevant aspects of the 2025 code, except lighting for residentially adjacent use, which Zachary explained, and we have a proposed uh uh amendment to address that.

So, with that uh on the screen is the staff recommended motion for the commission, and my staff and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Commissioner Magic, you're starting us off.

Thanks, Deputy Mayor.

Um, thanks so much to staff for that presentation.

Can you please go back to the previous slide?

A couple of my questions.

Um the appellant is challenging that first bullet.

And I'd say the fourth bullet.

Uh the fact that the master plan uh is binding.

So back to that original sketch that was part of your presentation, that that's a binding situation.

So it's regulatory.

And the same is being said for the zoning code, the 1992 code, that that's the binding document that we should be looking at.

And I know you kind of went through it quickly, but can you please explain why that might be correct or incorrect?

Sure.

So the master plan document, and I can pull that up again if it's helpful.

Um this is a conceptual drawing, and it's it's not unique to this project.

It's very common for applicants to submit renderings that um show the proposed uh eventual outcome of a project, and especially with something like a PUD that's this large um they're they're drawing a design to sort of market their their development.

Sometimes it's used to market uh to future tenants.

Uh I think it's also used to sort of sell their development to the decision makers.

So as explained earlier, this is not binding on development because it is just one sheet in a um in a proposal in a plan set.

And what is controlling is the written decision, the findings of fact for the PUD, and the CCRs, which have more detailed design guidelines, which were uh approved as part of the final plat and final PUD in 1998.

Thanks.

And your other point about the code, did you want me to touch on that again?

Sure.

Thanks.

Sure.

So let me get back to my notes on that.

So the code.

Um, the municipal code and the covenants, as well as commission's findings of fact from the last appeal, are very clear that the applicable code is the one in effect at the time the application was deemed adequate for review.

And that's actually referenced in the current code as well in 38 2008.

It's our normal process that uh vesting to application standards to the code that applies occurs at the time the application is deemed adequate.

Okay.

So back to the master plan, you said that this is kind of a typical process.

So master plans throughout the city of Bozeman, throughout kind of the standards in the planning world, use master plans.

And they are similarly non-binding, is what you're saying.

Yes, except they're not always called a master plan.

I think that was a choice of words at the time on that particular sheet.

Um, and the reason I I mentioned earlier that um it could be confusing because the city of Bozeman has a separate kind of application called a master site plan.

That's not what this is.

They did not submit a master site plan application, they submitted a PUD.

So this was simply a um rendering one sheet in a plan set for their PUD, and that is common elsewhere, yes.

And the idea that the 1992 zoning code would be binding.

Um to me seems a little unusual, just in the way that we review applications, it seems like we're always addressing the current code.

Can you just kind of go into that a little more in more detail?

Do we ever kind of go back in time and say, you know, 1950 is the code we're gonna use at present time?

No, we do not.

The applicant and references, and I'll ask this question of them as well, the Bozeman code throughout their appeal.

And are those references to the current Bozeman code or the 1992 code?

I'd have to um have the appellant explain that.

Uh it seems like they're bouncing around a little bit to different versions of the code.

Okay.

That's all I have for now.

Thanks, Deputy Micker.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sweeney.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Um and thank you for going to so much trouble to address the appellants' issues.

I just have two questions.

Um the first question has to do with a document that I was not able to find.

And I apologize if that's my error.

Um, but it has been referenced in public comment.

Um in the appellants basis of appeal, also in the staff report by yourself just now, and probably best described by the city attorney in a letter to the appellants attorney.

Uh this is the recorded covenants and recently discovered findings of fact hue closely to the approved preliminary PUD findings, which help verify that little if anything changed between the approval of the preliminary PUD and the final PUD.

This document is included in file P0042, Sundance Springs, Southeast, Major Subdivision Final Plat.

It is the City Commission findings of fact from that 1998 ruling.

Was anybody else able to find that document?

I can um have someone from my staff touch on that.

Zachary, thank you.

Um yes, we do have that document.

Um it's essentially, I forget exactly how many conditions of approval and finding a fact there are, but it does exist and and we have it, and I believe the the appellant actually references a number of those conditions of approval as well.

Yeah, so um, we know there's at least 29 conditions of approval because number 29 was referenced.

So I I don't know how to proceed, but I feel like I want that document.

I think that document is linked in the bottom of the staff report.

Um it's the C it's called the CCR conditions of reproof of approval.

That's my understanding.

So I don't mean to jump in.

Thank you.

Um Thank you.

So I just want to clarify, I think you're talking about the findings of fact from City Commission for the PUD approval.

Yes, so I I do have a copy of that.

We can make copies for the commission if you would like.

Thank you.

Is that allowed?

Yeah, this property goes back a couple of decades, quite the history.

So it's just sorry, it's the file.

I have a printout, and I can give this to the Commissioner Sweetie, and then maybe during um public comment or something when we take a break and take the mark.

Thank you.

It's just the findings of fact from our 2024 hearing.

1998.

Oh, 1998.

Sorry, I don't have a printout of that.

Yeah, we can get a copy.

We've got it right here.

Thank you very much.

Um, and then my second question has to do with um the assertion by staff that the site plan complies with the CCR design guidelines with respect to the parking.

Um the covenants, the CCR design guidelines, section 8.3.

Buildable area reads each lot in Sundance Springs shall have a buildable area determined by building or structure setbacks as allowed in Bozeman Code, zone code for neighborhood service district.

All construction other than landscaping improvements shall be limited to this buildable area.

Since a parking lot is not a landscape improvement that I'm aware of, um it should not be allowed in the setback.

Also, Bozeman Municipal Code 38.100.050.

Or wherever there is an internal conflict in this chapter, the most restrictive requirements or those imposing a higher standard will govern.

My question is how did you reconcile approving the parking lot encroachment with this municipal code and the CCR design guidelines being a lawfully adopted rules and regulation?

Um yeah, so I'll touch on the the um second part of that, and then I'd like my staff to address the parking question.

Um so that code section that you just read um relates to adopted regulations.

Um covenants are not regulations.

The covenants have been applied to this application because city commission put in their findings of the last appeal that um those should have been considered.

Uh so we have.

Um, but also that code section um just it's worth noting, I I know you didn't say this, but um it does not relate to past code.

The applicant or the appellant did use that uh argument at one point.

Um that code section applies to current code.

So it's if you have different chapters of code that conflict with one another, the more restrictive one applies.

So with that, I'll turn it to my staff to talk about parking.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question.

Um yeah, so at least in review of the CCNR guidelines, um, I believe that the apportunant section is the shall have a buildable area determined by building or structure setbacks as allowed in Bozeman zone code for neighborhood service district.

Um the Bozeman neighborhood service district, as shown in Article 5 explicitly allows for parking.

Um, and so the design guidelines tell us to look in Bozeman municipal code.

Bozeman municipal code explicitly allows for parking to go into the setback.

And so if it were a building being proposed within this setback, we would say absolutely not.

Bozeman municipal code doesn't allow that.

Um, but Bozeman municipal code explicitly allows this, and the design guidelines direct us to use Bozeman municipal code.

Um, and that's the current standard.

So that's why we used um that in our review.

So explain to me how the requirement, all construction other than landscaping improvements shall be limited to this buildable area.

That's not applicable because covenants are not regulatory.

Um I would say that it is applicable in this situation.

Again, uh, using the the example of if they were to propose a building within that setback, um, the Bozeman municipal code has a building setback requiring a minimum of 10 feet from the rear.

Um, and so we would apply that uh because that's Bozeman municipal code standard as directed by the design guidelines.

However, um, since Bozeman Municipal Code explicitly allows for parking within that setback, then that setback effectively becomes zero feet for for parking and parking only.

Um again, that wouldn't apply to uh a functional structure being applied within that setback.

Thank you.

Can I ask Director George for clarification about that section of code again?

Wherever the requirements of this chapter are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully adopted rules and regulations.

How are the covenants not adopted rules and regulations again?

I'm sorry.

I'm going to ask that the city attorney might be willing to chime in on this one.

So the response that I'm gonna give you, you might not like right now.

So those kinds of decisions are for the commission to be able to make.

The staff is putting their response onto the record.

And then the commission is the one that in this context needs to make the decision about how they're going to apply.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That's all the questions I have.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I would let me start, I guess, with the this um this question about this this notion that only one building is supposed to go in that spot.

Is that within the the all the PUD documents?

It's just on that what what has was called the master plan map in um from 19 was it 95, 92.

Is that the only spot where that property is referenced as having being designated for just one building?

That's my understanding.

Uh and that is a 1997 document.

Thank you.

And um I would just add to that that um the CCR design guidelines as well as the PUD findings of fact um do not reference or limit to one building.

Um example, since we were just looking at it a moment ago in the uh CCR design guidelines, the maximum building size is 5,000 square feet.

That's the the extent of the statement that we have about that.

Right.

And we okay.

And the uh and both these buildings are 5,000 square feet.

It's not like the floor plan is just five.

Correct.

Each building is slightly under 5,000 square feet.

Okay.

Um and then so I believe Commissioner Magic asked maybe forgive me if I'm asking this same question in a similar way, but or a different way.

But this notion that in 1992, when this PUD, this phase PUD was approved, right?

Um this the code at the time said that basically the the that the master plan and the development guidelines, you know, as the appellant alleges that the master plan and the development guidelines are um you know, if those are if they're provided in sufficient detail, further development of that p phase PUD will um be approved if developed in accordance with the approved master plan and development guidelines.

And so um and and it seems like it in order to be approved, that PUD needed to have both the master plan and development guidelines.

And so I'm just wondering how you know what role would we say that this master plan is optional.

I'm struggling with it it was it seemed very much required when we have created this when the city created the PUD.

How do we how do we make it optional or is this not that master plan that is spoken about in the in the older code?

So two points of clarity then um ask Sachary to chime in.

So uh I just want to clarify what you're reading from when you just have to stage four of the of the appeal of the appeal.

The appellants materials.

The appellants uh thank you for that.

Um yes, I'll have Zachary chime in on the the second part of the question.

Thank you.

So the document which is which is regulatory of the Sundance Springs PUD is this document shown.

The final site plan.

Um the final site plan shows lots, um, essentially empty lots.

And uh it's discussed robustly within the staff report that you received, um, but essentially it boils down to the PUD was for empty, what was approval for empty lots.

It was not approval for any sort of site development.

And as Director George has mentioned, the the depiction on what is called the master plan is um so lacking in detail that it couldn't provide any adequate entitlement.

Um it essentially shows a building sited somewhere on a lot without any dimensions, you know, for for a typical site plan as as you've seen in in the existing director's decision documents.

Um there's 50 plan sheets um including elevations, how they're gonna get water sewer to those buildings, uh parking calculations.

You know, there's there's really, really really detailed requirements to provide entitlement, and that master plan sheet just does not provide the level of detail needed to actually provide provide entitlement for for a struct a given structure.

And one more thing to add to that.

Um I touched earlier on the uh the order of applications.

So uh the PUD was the first step, and there were a bunch of steps after that.

Final following the preliminary PUD was a final PUD, there was a plat involved, final plat, the CCRs.

Um and then a site plan is required for developing any individual commercial lot.

So that's what is before you today, and that's what was previously submitted, previously submitted uh in 2022, or two different um attempts at a site plan to develop the lot.

So site plan provides much more level of detail than uh the rendering from 1997.

But so then in terms of like if we were to read those, you know, to look at that 1992 kind of code that that the Apple and site here, that this would be this would be considered the master plan and then the development guidelines we've already seen.

And that we would use these two items to kind of uh as we for further phase development.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

And so all right, so this is kind of the master plan, capital M, capital B that we would consider.

Do you guys agree?

Yeah.

Okay.

That's helpful.

Um I don't know how what the questions here, but but I'm I'm uh struck with this tension that it seems like we have uh sorry, how many lots in there?

192 different lots?

141 residential lots.

The bulk of those neighbors appear surprised that we are approving two buildings for a lot where they somehow expected one.

And I'm struggling with how do we get that kind of that that considerable mismatch in uh expectations.

If you know this master plan has nothing there, um I'm just uh I don't know if that's a question you can answer, but I'm just wondering like kind of how where did this expectation that uh um that only one building would be there?

Is it that one kind of promotional, colorful, pretty map that's called the master plan?

Yeah, that's my understanding, and and I'll I'll take a Sabbath answering um in development and my 20-year career thus far, um, it is quite common for um for residents to uh learn about a project later in the process uh when the actual development is proposed, and that's the time that they tend to plug in.

And then it's unfortunate when a lot of decisions were made before that, and that's really common in the planning process.

So regulations get adopted.

In this case, a PUD got reviewed, uh, had public hearings, was approved by city commission, um, uh a final uh PUD as well, a subdivision.

So there were a lot of decisions in the 90s that set forth uh the broad direction and the lots and uh the general allowed land uses.

But I think it's understandable that uh people who are you know trying to learn what's happening nearby them might look at whatever visual is out there and and expect that that's exactly what will be built.

But um again, it's really common.

Recently there was uh an article in the news, I think it was um last fall about a development showing all kinds of great renderings over by uh Walmart and the fairgrounds, if you guys remember that one.

Um that had not even come in for permit yet.

No applications have come uh uh in in at that time.

But the developer had drawn up some renderings to sort of market their proposal, and people saw that and thought that's what was getting built.

So just a analogy.

But that's so staff's thank you for that.

So staff's contention is that is that basically the PUD has been approved.

It's we have conditions on it, but it is silent on the um the like the the kind of the specific number of buildings that go in lot two.

Correct.

It the PUD is identified uh a allowable category of land uses, and it identifies which lot that will those type of uses will locate on.

And it did not uh state in uh very hard condition or anything like that, that it shall only be one building on that lot.

Okay, thank you.

Let me pivot to block frontage briefly and then I'll pass the baton.

Could you go back to the one with the slide that shows the orientation of the buildings?

I'm sorry somewhere.

Sorry, the yeah, the site, I guess it's the site plan.

Is that all right?

There we go.

The whole layout of the site, is that the one you're wanting to see?

Uh yeah, that one, I think.

There we go.

Okay.

So does do we require is our requirement for for block furniture that we have A entrance, or we have the entrance, like the main entrance.

Like the main entrance.

Doesn't the main entrance need to be in front be facing kind of the the street, or is it any old entrance?

I'd like to defer that question to staff.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um it's a great question.

Um and it's one that we get from developers all the time as well.

Um it is just an entrance.

We don't we don't have a specific definition or any clarification in the code that says that this entrance has to provide access to all of the tenants.

Um in residential situations, we do need an individual entrance to each residential unit.

Um whenever you have like a townhouse development, but in in multi-tenant commercial contexts, um it very, very regularly occurs where there is a single uh single tenant that will have that entrance.

And you can have uh the uh secondary you know, general entrance.

Um and I actually have a couple um examples of of how that happens throughout the throughout the city through other through other reviews, if the mouse will work with me.

Um so uh as you see on the top, this is a development on the northwest side of town.

It's called Northwest Crossing.

Um this is a perfectly compliant building.

Um you can see that it has the pedestrian walkway, the the entrance um right there with the rails uh kind of in the center of the image.

Um and you make that left turn and you enter a single tenant building for for the black orchid.

Um the I believe it's a yoga studio.

Um hypothetically they they could have designed uh an entrance to all of the units on the right there, but it's it's not a requirement of code.

Um so it it very regularly occurs that uh the general entrance may be somewhere else, but the the code requirement only says that you have to provide an entrance.

It doesn't provide clarity on uh uh exactly what that means.

So it could be like a it could be even a staff entrance.

It just doesn't have like kind of like the co-op, I believe, right?

I believe that we would uh we would probably frown on a staff entrance, um, but but again, it comes down to the architectural design typically, and so the the facade transparency plays an element, plays a role in that.

Fair enough.

Let me pass the baton.

Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um my question is about kind of zoning and PUDs.

Just to kind of frame this up here, um, we've established that the old zoning that was present when the PUD was initially approved has since been replaced by a more current version of the zoning code.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Okay.

So when you were faced with uh kind of analyzing what's allowed in the B1 zoning district, you looked at what's allowed in the current B1, because that's the only version of the code that that we had.

But I'm just curious for kind of the context here.

Um is the current B1 less restrictive than the B1 of the time when this PUD was originally approved?

So again, um a reminder that um the current code, when we look at the current code, it's it's based on not just at the moment we look at it, it's based on the um time that the application we're reviewing was deemed adequate.

So uh for this site plan, which was deemed adequate uh while the 2025 code was in place.

Uh we looked there for the allowed uses in B1.

For the prior version of the site plan that was submitted in 2022, they looked at the 2022 version of the code.

Um the question of whether it's more restrictive now.

Is that what you said is more restrictive than before?

It is it less restrictive.

Do you remember?

Um it's it's hard to quantify restrictivity.

Um, but I I would say that generally uh older zoning codes are generally more restrictive because they prescribe five or six uses per lot, whereas modern zoning um we understand that there needs to be more flexibility.

So I I would probably qualify my answer to say that the current code is more flexible.

I don't know if I could give a metric on whether it's more or less restrictive.

Yeah, maybe I could be a little bit more precise here.

I'm just recalling our state legislature um adjusting our required setbacks, kind of statewide for for municipal code and thinking perhaps the setbacks that are required today are different than the ones that maybe were in 1997.

Certainly on a on a measure of setbacks, I believe that the setbacks in in place were somewhere around 25 to 20 to 25 feet in general.

I believe actually the master one of these plan sheets uh in really small letters, um, it's the only dimension that's actually shown on here.

You can see that the front setback is about 25 feet.

Um I believe that the rear setback is also about 20 to 25 feet, so so setbacks have been dramatically uh reduced.

Okay, thank you.

So now I I want to ask a little bit about um the PUD and the purpose of that.

My my understanding is that um while we've kind of changed our our format of this um this tool to a PDZ currently, the the purpose is the same, that you have a existing zone that doesn't quite meet the needs of the neighborhood or the community.

And so the developer undertakes a process to get a more specialized configuration of allowances.

Um and they have to go through this rigorous process of of the PUD or currently called the PDZ to get certain um variances that maybe wouldn't be allowed typically within that zone.

So uh first of all, is that is that correct?

The purpose of a PUD.

Yes, it's mostly correct.

I think there's some slight differences between PUD and PDZ.

Um PUD, the intent of a PUD is to allow some exceptions to code in exchange for community benefit.

In the case of this PUD, that that benefit was open space, and that was common in the 90s uh as a method of um of development was to cluster the residential uses and then have large open space in between through a PUD process.

Um the current PDZ process also does include a community benefit, but it's much more robust in the options.

It provides a bunch of different categories.

And um the way that that process plays out, it ends up essentially creating a custom zoning district for the proposed development.

So that's a slight difference there.

So the PUD did not create a custom zoning district.

Um it I would say that it created a set of uh findings that apply to the project.

It did uh apply slightly different regulations depending on what was requested.

And in this case, uh, because there were two commercial lots identified, it applied B1 zoning requirements to those two front commercial lots.

Okay, thank you.

Um so all of that is kind of set up for this question, which is um it seems that the appellants, one of their their issues is with the um distance of setback for the parking lot and some of that that configuration there.

And looking at the previous code, um the B1 code at the time that this PUD was created, it's possible that that setback would have been much larger than it is today.

But today, we now have a B1 code that requires much less, a smaller, smaller setback.

Um, but the the PUD when it was created was maybe assuming there'd be a larger one.

Um and so that's what I'm trying to square is which one kind of takes precedent.

If I was looking at a PDZ or P P Z, wow, PDZ today, I would say that the base zoning code is uh a general context, and then the PDZ is the plus, what you get on top of that.

Um so if the the base zone changes to be a little bit more lenient, you would still get all of the leniency of the existing zone and anything else that the PDZ allowed you to do in addition to the base zoning code.

Um but it seems like the appellants are arguing the opposite, that the PDZ is actually constraining what is allowed in the base zone, because it was originally all those conditions, at least 29 of them, um, were constraining what was was allowed.

And now even though the base zone has changed, um we should be going with the PDZ terms rather than than the zoning as what what is allowed.

Does that make sense?

It does, and I'll let the appellant speak for himself, but I think um the way that you explained the application of the underlying zoning with either the PUD or today, the PDZ is similar to an overlay.

I think that's a good way to explain it.

Okay, so even though the base zone has changed and allowed more leniency, if there was anything from the original PUD that our base B1 zone wouldn't allow today, it's also allowed on this property because of that PUD.

That is my interpretation.

Yes.

Okay.

But the opposite, anything that the PUD said that's a little bit more constrictive than what our current code says is allowed does not constrain this because the current zone provides that additional leniency.

Correct.

I do think it's possible to have a situation where a PUD can be simultaneously more restrictive and less restrictive, which is kind of what you just described.

I do think that's possible, yes.

Okay, thank you.

That's my only line of questioning.

I will pass it on.

Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you to my colleagues.

Um many of my questions have been answered already, but I'll I'll ask one that's really I'm trying to square some of this language.

Um there's language thrown around within the the appellants uh uh you know their their writings as well as um staff report responding of what of a legacy PUD and what exactly is the difference between a uh you know what is a legacy PUD?

Are we saying that's everything pre-PDZ is now a legacy PUD?

And what is the authority that a PUD generally holds still today?

I'd like to defer that question to development review manager Brian Krueger.

Evening uh commissioners Brian Kruger.

Uh so yes, when the when the new uh PDZ section was adopted by your commission, uh it's been some while ago now, uh we had to uh develop a way in the ordinance to still respect the many PUDs that we have uh in the community because they don't uh go away.

They are recorded on the property, they stay on the property until they are either altered, modified, or removed.

And it's very rare for them to be removed.

Um the way we did that was through the legacy PUD language that is in that ordinance.

So we wrote specific instructions on how those were to be modified over time because they uh can be and are frequently, like any long-range uh sort of planning uh application, um they're frequently modified as conditions change over time.

So, yes, we uh we have them uh as legacy PUDs um and we administer them quite frequently.

Um design guidelines, final plan maps, um, and lots of uh conceptual uh renderings in all of all of our PUDs.

Okay, then then kind of following with that is and all uh this might be uh for the uh the property owner to potentially opine on as well.

Um there's a part of the staff report that that sort of rebuts part of the appellant argument that an amendment to the PUD is required.

And staff alleges know that is not necessary.

Could you just elaborate on why uh an amendment to the PUD is not required?

An amendment to the PUD is not required because uh we have a vacant lot in a subdivision that sh that's platted, uh has design guidelines applied to it, has zoning applied to it, and just like any other property owner, uh if they want to develop that parcel, they submit a development application, in this case a site plan, and staff reviews the zoning, reviews the PUD, and as long as it's consistent with the PUD and the zoning, there is no reason to modify the master plan.

Um there is not a uh there was nothing that we identified had to be modified in the master plan.

Um it's as simple as that.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'm not sure who I'm I'm moving to similar to questions that the deputy mayor was asking about um block frontages.

So I'm not sure who this might be for.

But just to clarify uh I I think there's times where uh we have applications that come in or we have conversations about block frontages where it sometimes sounds as if it is something that is applied to the building, meaning every single building on a parcel that has a street that all of them need to point towards the street in in some fashion.

But it's just to make sure that we're understanding this properly, um, there are it are requirements for some part of the of a building to have frontage toward a street.

And once that is satisfied, the front standards are met.

Is that is that a correct understanding?

I guess I'm trying to tease out why there's buildings are able to point in different directions on on this application.

Yeah, absolutely.

So in situations where there are multiple fronts, think of uh uh a lot that has two streets um on each corner.

Um in those situations, uh there would be multiple block frontages that that would need to be met on that lot.

Um in this case, the only frontage for this lot is on Little Horse Drive.

The the remainder of the property is is wholly surrounded by that open space, and so there are no multiple frontages.

So as you stated, um once the the block frontage is met for that primary frontage, there there are no other uh frontages to to be met.

Okay.

Great, thank you.

I have no further questions for staff.

Commissioner Madison, do you have further questions?

I do too.

Um can you scroll back to that final site plan, please?

The preliminary or the final plot.

Great.

So looking at those two commercial lots in the left corner, so the west corner, southwest corner.

Um you talked about this as being the final site plan.

It's regulatory, it spells out where the lots are.

Let's say a buyer wanted to come in and buy one of those two commercial lots.

How would you instruct them in terms of what is allowed on these properties?

What other things come into play on these properties?

And I'm repeating some of the answers that we've already kind of come up with tonight, but it just helps to visualize it.

Yeah, absolutely.

I would instruct them to review uh the PUD design guidelines as the commission determined that those uh those must be met.

I would instruct them to review the B-1 zoning district as that is the zoning that would be applied.

Um I would instruct them likely to discuss with with many other of the what we call the development review committee members, uh discussions with engineering and uh other other sort of critical path issues, um, other reviewers that that may have a vested interest in uh where a water line goes and and other sort of regulations that the city enforces throughout throughout development.

And when do the covenants come into play?

How how would you instruct a future buyer to uh talk about covenants or look into covenant?

So uh the covenants are recorded on the property and the city does not uh uh review or apply covenants typically.

Um we're in a little bit of a unique situation with this one because there were design guidelines that were within the C CRs that commission determined applied in this case.

Um so we would um you know make them aware that those exist and have to be met.

Um but the covenants they should already know about through a title report because they're recorded against the property.

Great.

Thanks.

So the appellant, one of their charges is that you're to sit in uh is was pretextual that you had pretty much made up your minds before you did the review and then used the review to get to your town that was already made.

Can you kind of talk about how you guys review projects and how that might not be the case?

Sure.

I'm gonna ask uh Brian to come back up, he's our development review manager and can describe that process in more detail.

Yeah, thank you.

So um the code specifies application materials and a process for every type of permit that um that the city reviews.

Um oftentimes these projects start before an applicant ever applies uh with a formal application or pays a fee.

Well, we do pre-application meetings with applicants very frequently.

We have planners on duty.

Uh at all business hours that the city is open, uh the people can come in.

Um so in this case, uh this application, we spoke with uh we spoke with the owners of this property following the overturn and started working with them uh and the findings of fact and all of the relevant zoning requirements uh in preparation of them submitting a new application.

Um that's typical for most projects.

Um the next step would be a conceptual application, which is a mandatory requirement uh for a site development like this, they submit an application to the city.

It's reviewed by our technical uh reviewers in all the divisions of the city that have a relevant role in uh development review.

They uh departments like fire, uh water and sewer transportation, engineering planning, sanitation.

Um we provide the applicant applicant comments uh on that, and they are sent back to the applicant.

Then they apply formally.

So the actual site plan application comes in and we um start the review with the same technical reviewers.

We make sure we have a complete application.

It's reviewed by those reviewers which are uh part of a committee called the development review committee.

Uh that committee meets every Wednesday at 10 a.m.

We just meet for two hours at a time and we look at all the aspects of development, resolve issues, um, identify code provisions, um, design things that need to be corrected.

Usually corrections are sent out.

Uh it's rare that we get an application that comes through that's perfect and meets code standards uh the first time around.

So there'd be a revision loop, uh the applicant revises it, comes back in, applied the same code.

We get to a point where we find the application in compliance with the regulations, application is complete and we deem it adequate uh for further review, which means we proceed to a public notice.

Public notices issued minimum of 15 days, sites posted in the case of this application that joiners were mailed.

Uh the city receives public comments uh for that time period, and uh those are received and uh reviewed to see if any additional information or anything uh else in the review um was identified as incomplete.

Um if we determine that we have everything we need to continue the review, the planner then develops a staff report with technical input from those technical reviewers, uh, and we prepare for a decision on the application.

We respond to public comment in the staff report, uh and a decision is issued uh at that point in time.

It's usually conditional, meaning that there are conditions and potential code provisions that have to be satisfied before a final approval is issued.

Uh and in that case, that that occurred with this application.

Um, and then the the applicant and property owner work to complete those, usually things like filing easements, paying cash and little water rights, paying cash on the parkland.

It's typical with residential projects.

Once those are all satisfied, we issue a final plan approval.

Um it usually uh right about public notice.

Uh an applicant can submit a building permit at their own risk, of course, uh prior to the final planning decision, but that allows our building division to prepare um the permit for issuance uh to construct.

And you'll see on the screen, thank you, Brian.

Uh I just have a screenshot here.

This is just a snippet, only a portion because it was too long to include on one slide.

This is um in the early parts of the site plan review.

And just to illustrate, you see just how many different departments, forestry, even Northwestern Energy, who's external um parks planning solid waste for water transportation.

So just to show, and when you'll see um kind of in the middle there, review complete means they had no further comments, but revise and resubmit means that reviewer had comments, and then the applicant would um upon completion of that review cycle have to come back in with uh responses to those comments and in some cases changes to the plans.

So it's not just one of you working under the cover of darkness by yourself coming up with some yes or no decision.

You've got a big team working on it that includes uh city attorney's office and all of the different departments we're seeing here.

That's correct.

The attorney's office is not really involved at this phase of review, but yeah, um, a bunch of different departments as you described.

Great.

Thanks.

That's all.

Commissioner Sweet.

No further questions.

Thanks.

Um, let me just touch a few brief ones.

Um regarding the concern about the code.

That question was also kind of answered by the 2024 commission, where they concluded that in that case, that was the 2022 code, I think, that applied for that building when we see the adequacy.

Right.

So that's this the appellant is kind of making the same claim that was already addressed by the previous commission.

Correct.

Okay.

And then there are several allegations that, you know, in the public comment, um, and I believe the umblemics that you know like a patio is not allowed or or uh you know an outdoor business is not allowed based on I think they cite the master master plan, but there's nothing in the in the kind of conditions of approval that that 1998 document that would prohibit a a commercial patio or no.

Okay.

And then uh the bigger question I guess I have then is that um the section seven of their of their um appeal the uh they talk about the character of the development um and the character of the PUD.

And there wasn't there was a lot of talk in 2024, uh at least amongst you know several commissioners about the spirit of the PUD, which is maybe uh frustratingly wishy washy for a uh a development, you know.

But but um how do you know and there was a notion that that that at the time those you know I understand that that we're looking at two different applications here, but but this application, the building layout, the the design is is very similar to the to the 2020, you know, four appeal.

How you know, and and and that commission struggled with that that that site plan you know um went against the spirit of the PUD.

There were several references in that.

I'm wondering how we if we are to kind of make we have again kind of very similar to the site plan, very similar layout.

Um and we're again getting a chart a complaint, uh allegation that this is this is this layout is is violating the spirit of the PUD.

Where do we um where does that fit in in the decision making terms?

Yeah, so let's go back and and talk about what what a PUD is and how it's administered over time.

So a PUD is a a final plan, uh the 2D drawing that you see here, that's pretty typical.

We need that so that when a subdivision is done, we can say that the subdivision conforms with the plan that it's in conformance with zoning.

But then the other piece is the whatever guidelines that the developer at the time the PUD was created specified.

Those live on.

And it it is very common for development regulations in areas that the developer did not have an interest in at that time to reference the Bozeman zoning code.

If the developer had a very specific interest in having a specific thing happen in a specific place, they could have written that very explicitly into the design guidelines.

So I would argue that the implementation of the design guidelines that we have and uh uh just the lots existing themselves with the open space around them is unique.

Uh and with staff reviewing these this project against the design guidelines, uh created buildings that were smaller, created buildings that now have pitched roofs, created buildings that are more agricultural in character, if I was gonna define them.

Uh it pushed the parking further back from the street.

Um it made uh the overall footprint of the project smaller.

So while in the in the bird's eye view of this plan, it looks similar.

The parking uh locations changed.

There was more parking placed up along the South Third open space.

Uh that was not there previously.

Um there were significant changes made to the project that will not visual from a bird's eye view, definitely would be uh apparent once the once the project was constructed.

So the previous project uh had parking in front of the building.

Uh that was proposed as departure through the block frontage.

There was flat roof buildings with brick and a lot of more urban Bozeman design.

Um a lot more glass.

Um so the application of the design guidelines did did change the project uh character uh I would say fairly significantly.

And just be clear, those the previous one application, those were two 10,000 square foot buildings.

Was that if I remember do I remember correctly?

Uh approximately.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

And so just to just to sum up an answer, the spirit of the PUD then is that output when you apply the guidelines, whatever they may be, uh to the building and the residential portion of this POD, um, there are residential guidelines that were applied to each of one of those homes that were constructed out there.

And so that was intentional.

This application applied the design guidelines for the commercial area to these buildings.

And then I would argue that the character of the PUD is really the open space, the curvilinear nature of the streets, the fact that the streets aren't don't have curb and gutter and aren't city standard, they're a little bit more rural.

Um those are all things that are not typical in a subdivision that we would do today, and it was intentional.

Um the pathway system is revered out there.

Um and so uh I I do think um part of the spirit of the PD is was also the implementation of a neighborhood business area.

That was very intentional in the design uh and was very consistent and is still consistent with the City of Bozeman's growth policy and many of our planning uh aspirations as it comes to bringing commerce closer to residential areas in nodes.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

I think that's my last question.

Commissioner Bowdy.

No questions.

Mr.

Mayor.

Just one quick one um to make sure, and I appreciate the comparison of the previous application, though, knowing that this is a it stands on its own merits now.

Um what is the envelope in square footage of the two buildings proposed?

You're asking the square footage of the two buildings.

Yeah.

They're just under 5,000 square feet.

I had the numbers written down.

It was like each is 4,000 something.

Do you have that number?

Give me two seconds at the previous record director's decision.

Which has its numbers.

I think I might have it more accessible in sec.

Apologies for not having it memorized.

Okay.

So building the west building is 4,971 square feet, and the east building is 4,960 square feet.

And that's floor area, not footprint.

Okay.

And then how how tall was the I couldn't quite see it in the graph.

I'm looking at a smaller screen than I usually am familiar with.

How tall are the buildings?

Yeah.

Uh 33 feet each.

And two stories.

Great.

Thanks.

That's all the questions I have.

Quick follow-up.

Yes.

Of course.

Um the answers to those questions that the building height is 33 feet in each building is under 5,000 square feet complies with the covenants that I'm looking at here at the maximum building height allowed in the covenants is 34 feet and the maximum building size is 5,000 square feet.

That is correct.

And that's different than the zoning.

But this is more restrictive.

We go with the covenants.

Yes, it is.

Great.

Thank you.

Any further questions along the commission?

All right.

Thank you for that.

I would like that I propose that we take a uh seven-minute break until eight o'clock.

Um so we're not interrupting this the um the uh appellants as they talk.

One thing I did forget to request um is that for public comment, we're asking that the appellant party, so um Mr.

Mr.

Swan Swanson, um uh Dr.

Pool and any attorneys, that that that is their um their comment that that we not have public comment from members of the Apple Party or members of the landowner party during our public comment period that that we we have given you each 15 minutes, and that is where where we expect that the the comment to to um to occur.

I would love to get this going if we can have everyone take their seats.

Just to clarify.

Just to clarify for public comment, the public is welcome to comment.

As many people will want to comment as are welcome.

It's just if you're a member of the appellance, or the uh pronouncing that right.

Appellants, or if you're just a member of the landowner's party, we're just asking like attorneys, you know, landowners.

We just asked that you you consolidate yours during this 15 minute presentation, which we're going to give the appellants.

Appellants?

Appellants, excuse me.

Thank you.

Do you have yours up there?

Oh.

And again, we'll give you 15 minutes once you start talking.

The uh yellow light will go on when you have about a minute left, I believe, and then the red light will ask you to wrap up.

Deputy Mayor, members of the commission, mayor, thanks again for having us.

My name is Rob Ferris Olson, and together with um Kim Wilson, we represent the appellants, Jeff Poole, Dr.

Jeff Poole, former Mayor Tim Swanson, and Nancy Swanson, and I just wanted to point out a couple things that I don't think there's any reason to approve or um not overturn this decision just like you did two years ago.

It's the same, essentially the same two buildings, functionally the same footprint, the same block varnish standard problems, the same landscaping problems where in order to fulfill the landscaping obligations, they're putting trees and shrubs on someone else's property, and you're gonna have the exact same parking issues that you mentioned at the last time because you have a restaurant in a residential area that doesn't allow parking on the streets.

And with that, I'll turn it off over to Dr.

Pooh who has much more information for all of you.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Commissioners.

Um I really appreciate it's clear to me that you've spent a lot of time looking at this application.

Um I appreciate uh I just appreciate your willingness to spend your time that way.

That uh that means a lot.

Um I'm actually not probably not going to take the full 15 minutes here.

I feel like the most important thing is to engage in dialogue with the five of you.

Um so I'm just gonna lay out a few things and um offer a few questions that I think might be especially pithy.

Um also uh maybe ask that that you re-ask some of the same questions that you asked um if if you're willing that you asked of the staff uh because I I um I do think there's some uh important differences that that didn't come up in those questions myself.

Um and the first thing I want to do.

How how yeah, can you still hear me if I'm over here?

Uh the first thing I'd like to do is make something very clear.

I agree a hundred percent that the current code is the current stand is the current standard of review.

I've never said otherwise, and this whole idea that there are dueling codes out there does not represent my position or my belief.

Okay, so I'd like to try to set that aside if we could.

Um I'm I'm very frustrated because I have tried for three years to express that.

And um we're still back in this place of there are these two dueling codes, and I think the 92 code should apply.

I don't.

Okay.

Um I don't and let me clarify that.

I don't think that the 92 code is the current is the standard of review.

Okay.

Whether some whether the requirements of that code are required by the current code, that's that's a different story.

And that's the mechanism.

The current code, I believe, requires uh through the PUD, requires um application of some of the the requirements of or all of the requirements of the 92 code.

Okay?

So it is nothing to do with what the standard of review is.

It has to do with if you open the rule book, which is the current code, and you read what's in the current code, you will see that the current code requires that in this particular lot the 1992 standards also apply.

Okay?

That's my position.

Um just uh the and so the current standard replies compliance with all terms elements and documents uh of an approved PUD, and we'll visit that.

Um it requires review of the application against the PUD's approved final plan.

Okay, that's a requirement of the current code.

And that final plan has two required elements.

Uh a final master plan and final development guidelines.

Okay.

Um the staff is under the current code, the staff is only allowed to issue permits for those improvements shown on a PUD's approved final plan.

That's very explicit.

Right.

And if there are conflicts, and this has come up already, but if there are conflicts between uh the current code and any other lawfully adopted requirement, the uh more stringent require is the more stringent applies.

This is the review process that's set out in the code, and this is the only thing we've ever asked for the entire time, is for this review process to be followed.

That's all we want.

In terms of the current review, when there were conflicts, um a more lenient standard was typically, not always, but typically applied.

And that's that's that's a problem.

And so I've already kind of telegraphed this, but you know, hey, uh up here I'm saying that the various applicable requirements of the current code, the PUD and the 92 zoning.

Well, it's like, well, wait a minute, if the strict if the standard of review, you just said the standard of review is the current code, and I've I've kind of telegraphed this.

How can the 92 zoning be applicable?

And that's a question that I that I hope we can have time to vet thoroughly.

I guess six of these, just six questions that I'd really like to vet through thoroughly tonight.

The second is if both are applicable, if in fact both are applicable, what should happen when there's a conflict.

And then finally, what of the of the development guidelines that uh that this body determined were uh needed to be applied and were part of the original PUD, right?

Uh which of those are not being applied or were not applied by this review, okay, according to that review process I laid out.

Second, um the review approves uses and improvements that are not indicated on the uh approved final plan.

The develop uh you know, there and and really an argument about um as I think the staff has adequately represented, we have a real disagreement here.

This is a place where we really do have a disagreement, that I believe that there's adequate evidence that the that the final plan is required, um, that it's not optional, that the uses shown there were ordered by the city commission and should be treated as an order of the city commission and therefore are binding.

Um and things like you know, you don't have to have dimensions on on this map in order to count the number of buildings that are on the map.

And that goes into uh into uh why and how those uses actually came to be.

Okay.

And we we can go through that process.

If if you want to, if you want to ask me one of these two questions, we can go through that process.

All right.

The third thing is the arrangements of buildings and parking has twice been deemed noncompliant.

Okay.

First in the 2002 concept review, uh staff said specifically uh the opposite of what staff is saying now, which is um that the second building needed to front the trail.

And that's very clear in the code and is obvious in the code, and this idea of having only one frontage, yes, there's only one street frontage, but we can look at the code.

Um we can look at the code and see that that interpretation of the code is actually in plain language of the code is incorrect.

And in fact, a front an internal frontage and a street frontage is sufficient to implement the part of the code that talks about um having a dual frontage.

Okay.

And so the fact is that these buildings front both the parking lot, which is an internal frontage, and that's defined in the code, and I can show you that, and also the street.

Okay, so there's a there's the dual frontage right there.

And again, it's right in the code, very explicit.

Um this would be my sixth question that I would say I would personally I would like to explore through dialogue with you.

And clearly, you're in charge of that session, you can ask any questions you want.

I will do my best to answer them, but I feel like uh if we want to meet that 10 o'clock deadline and get through this, these might be six reasonable questions so that you would completely understand my position, our position.

We also have a motion for you.

Um blah blah blah, about the same, and then I move to overturn.

Okay.

After basically after reviewing all the terms and all the things that we need to review, I move to overturn and deny the site plan.

So that would be the motion I would put in front of this uh commission.

So I'm gonna stop there.

Like I said, I I don't want to spend a lot of time talking at you.

I'd like to spend my time talking with you.

Um and you know, I realize I'm turning it over to you.

You are free to ask any questions that you want.

Um I'm offering these as if you want to understand my position, these are questions that are going to get get you there probably as quick as any other set of questions you might ask.

But if you have if I mean clearly you have all spent some time reading the basis of our appeal.

And again, I'm really grateful for that.

If there were things that that stuck out at you that you need clarified, by all means, please do not follow these questions.

About 20%, maybe 10%, I disagree with, but it's an important 10%.

And then really the issue is the parts of the code that the staff doesn't present and doesn't consider.

And those are the places where I really have the biggest problem is that as I brought up parts of the code, parts of the current code, which is the current standard, you know, I acknowledge that have been in given inadequate treatment by staff or by the review process.

I don't want to make this personal about staff, but by this review process.

So yeah, with that, um I'd be happy to take your questions.

Thank you, Dr.

Poole.

Um Commissioner Madrid, do you feel like starting us off again?

Sure.

Yeah, thanks.

Thanks so much.

Um I can tell that you uh have put a tremendous amount of work into this as well.

And I know based on um a couple years ago and now tonight, just uh how frustrating this must all be.

It's a lot to kind of sit through and uh kind of complicated um layers of planning principles involved.

Um so just to appreciate your patience and your willingness to kind of um lay things out as you see them.

Um I'm gonna stick with the the master plan.

And are you able to go back to your slide that shows um the diagram?

Yeah, that that's not from the master plan, but I can go back to that slide.

This one, whoops.

Let's see.

Very sensitive mouse here.

That one?

No.

Oh.

Oh, the master plan diagram.

Sure.

I can I can go to uh that's further on down, but I've got a picture of it in here.

Uh-da.

Sorry about that.

Um worries, this one, this one here.

Yeah, and you had blown uh the lot in question.

Uh uh were the village.

Yeah, that's that's a that's a different version.

I can get to that one.

No, you saw Mr.

Rogers.

He's that was my that was my ease in the hole here.

All right.

There we go.

So you're saying that this diagram from the master plan is binding.

Yeah.

And what is your understanding of master plans?

Well, uh my understanding of this master plan for this PUD is that um there were two required elements in the application for the PUD.

One where that was a list of development guidelines, and one was a master plan.

And that the purpose of the master plan and development guidelines were to provide sufficient detail to the commission so that they could make a finding that the PUD as proposed would meet all 52 required review criteria, and that the master plan is explicitly listed in the code as one of the things that provides the detail necessary to meet the review criteria.

So that's what I understand about master plans or about this master plan based on the code.

So when I look at this, there's uh I'm gonna agree with staff that there is not a tremendous amount of detail here.

And the detail comes with zoning, which is the case for all of the other lots in Sunday on Springs lots one through 141 or whatever it was.

Yeah, I think whoops.

Uh it's I guess I I thought I could take those away and you could see the rest of it, but they're they're permanent.

The the I thought I could make them disappear, but I can't.

But so yeah, the rest of the the rest of the you're talking about the rest of the residential lots.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

Are subject to the zoning code and all the details of the zoning code that overlay the residential section.

So do you agree that that is true?

Do I agree that the residential that the I guess I don't understand the question because the question is about commercial lots.

Yes.

And whether or not the development guidelines, whether or not the development guidelines specified which code uh was to be used when determining development in the PUD.

Yeah, I'm looking at the way this master plan has been used over the years.

So staff and residents have not necessarily referred back to the master plan, we're referring back to zoning on what is allowed in the residential development, and now we're doing that similarly in the commercial development, applying that zoning layer.

Right.

And I'm not I have to be honest, I'm not particularly familiar with the development guidelines for the residential part of the property.

It's important to remember there are two sets of development guidelines.

And I'm talking zoning, which are different than guidelines.

Well, I I think I guess where I think we're missing is that I I suspect, and maybe I'm wrong, where you're going with this is about the 92 zoning.

Is that no?

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I've conceded that the that the standard of review is the current code.

Is that I mean, and that's zoning, and that contains zoning, yes.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, uh, and so that that concept would also apply to the commercial lots in the lot in question today.

Well we're applying zoning standards, and then some of the covenants that have come in that dictate height and building the size.

I just I I think in concept I would agree with you, but in specificity, because of the development guidelines, I disagree with you.

So as a general concept about zoning and how it works, sure, but in this specific case, um I can show it to you if you'd like me to, but in this specific case, I disagree with you.

So the development guidelines you're saying spells out that you can only have one commercial structure.

I'm I'm saying that the development guidelines specify which zoning applies.

Which that that when the the development guidelines specify that the 92 zoning has to be considered in addition to the current zoning.

And that in my experience, I'm a planner 20 plus years, would be a very unusual way to reference the zoning.

And if I think it is.

I agree.

And if the way to make that very clear is to put those stipulations in the covenants.

And they are.

It is.

I'm happy.

Would you like me to show you?

I mean, I've seen them.

Yeah.

But I mean not specifying that only one building.

Oh can go on this site.

Well, um.

There's a long answer to that question about how one building is specified on the site and why it's binding.

And I'd be happy to go through that if you'd like me to go through that.

Like why where did I the question is a little larger to me.

If and and I apologize if I'm I'm not really really not trying to be evasive here.

Yeah.

I'm really trying to answer your question.

And the the challenge is the question gets at a larger issue, a larger question of where did these, where did this drawing come from and why is it the way it is?

And I can trace through the history of how this drawing, how this master plan came to be to show you that the drawings, what the sketch, the drawings, the representation of the uses result from an order of the commission, which resulted from a requirement of the code at the time that this PUD was put into place.

And I can I can lead you through the process that the past commission went through in order to make the that that condition of approval number 29 in order to in order to require, why did the commission require condition of approval 29?

I think that's a great question.

What was it that drove that?

And it's the code that drove it, right?

They didn't just come up arbitrarily with this idea that they wanted a market study because they wanted to make it hard for the developer.

The code required that.

And they could not have approved this PU, they could not have approved this PUD legally without the uses on this site.

And that's what makes them binding.

They were required for approval, they were ordered by the commission, and they were included on the final master plan after the preliminary master plan had no uses.

So in 1996, as acknowledged by the staff, the preliminary master plan had no uses on it.

And the commission came in and said, wait a minute, you need to propose some uses and you need to have a market study.

Now why did they do that?

They did that because one of the uh criteria that was used to assess whether or not they could approve this PUD was there a market, are there is there a market plan that would that assesses whether or not the uses in the commercial lot would generate 50% of their business or more from the surrounding community.

And that was a requirement.

And the staff in their 1995 or 19, yeah, 1995 staff report said when they came to that question, you know, they answered all the questions for the commission.

They did an analysis for each of the 52 standards.

And when they came to that question, they answered the question NA instead of instead of yes, said non-applicable, nothing is proposed at this point in time, and therefore it's impossible to have a market study unless uh unless uses are proposed.

And so clearly if is if one of the criteria is that you have to have a market study, and your staff is telling you you can't have a market study unless uh uses are proposed, then you have to either reject that PUD or you have to amend it with a condition of approval that says you need to propose some uses and they need to pass so that we can have this market study that's required for us to approve this PUD.

And that's what makes them binding.

You one of your charges, one of your appeal points is that the staff's review of this was pretextual.

And if you we've got three um two of very experienced planners who reviewed this and a team of three, what has led you to believe that?

You know, I I outlined that in my document.

I had a whole appendix on it.

Um if you didn't find that compelling, I'm okay with that.

Um my sense is actually that what Mr.

Kruger said actually supports my point.

Is the way the process is set.

Now let me start by saying, and and I want to turn to the staff and say, thank you for your hard work on this.

Dr.

Poulett, we've got the address.

I would like to thank the staff for their hard work on this.

Okay.

Um I also don't think that pretextual review needs to be uh conscious.

It just needs to be pretextual.

So if what you have is a process where the neighbors can't even look at a plan until hundreds and hundreds of hours have been invested in that plan.

Um I think it's pretty hard for staff to then stand aside and say, oh gosh, we blew it.

Um again, it doesn't mean that anyone is sitting in a dark room conspiring.

I don't think that's happening.

I think the process is set up so that it's pretty darn hard to let go of something that you've already invested in.

And that there's also then that you've already said to that you've already said to a developer, yeah, that you've worked very hard with a developer.

And I think the process itself is set up to yield um, albeit unwittingly yield uh put staff in a situation where they have to defend what they've already invested in.

And I think that can lead to prettual review.

And what do I think the evidence is?

I've outlined all the evidence.

I don't I don't particularly want to go through it.

Um and if you didn't find it compelling, that's fine with me.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Thank you.

Um you have the document that is the 1998 conditions of approval for the 1990 98 or 96.

I don't think there were conditions of approval in 98, which was the final plan.

The conditions of approval were from 96 for the preliminary plan.

Uh it's actually do I have it to show you?

No, I do have condition of approval number 29 if uh for that one.

And I also attached the conditions, I attached that document to my public comment, and I know that I mean that document is that documentary.

And unfortunately, I didn't attach it to the uh to the basis basis of appeal or the basis for appeal.

Um but uh is there do you have a question about it?

I know it pretty well.

I just you know, so if that's not where you got condition number 29, where did you get condition number 20?

Well, I know that's that's where I that's where I got it, and I have, I believe, let me see, where would it be?

I have condition.

Oh, there's there's Mr.

Rogers again.

Um I have condition of approval.

Oh, wait a minute.

Is that what you'd like to read is number 29?

I would like to read all of them.

Well, okay.

Um I feel that if they are binding on this, then we must read all of them.

Sure.

And how can we tell if they're binding if we don't have them?

Uh I got a lot of slides.

Uh I guess um I thought I had can I I'm sure I have it in here somewhere.

There's 71 slides, and I'm having trouble pulling it up, but um we may get there.

Uh but uh like I said, I'd be happy to answer uh answer uh a question if you if you have one.

So yeah, um walk me through something we saw over and over in public comment was this seemingly ubiquitous understanding that there would only be one building.

Where walk me through where that comes from, please.

Okay, that I can do it.

Now, actually I'm gonna start with just a couple observations about the code, because I think they're important context.

That's all right.

Section 3844030A.

This comes from the section of code that tells staff when they need to seek or a developer when they need to seek an amendment.

And the first part is really interesting to me.

Now, this is the current code, right?

This is this is the standard of review.

And the first part is really interesting.

Building permits and other development approvals shall be issued on the basis of the PUD's approved final plan.

When there's a PUD in place, the basis for uh issuing permits according to the current code is the approved final plan.

That's the basis, right?

Not the current code.

The current code says that the basis is the PUD.

That's kind of interesting.

That I mean, that's a really interesting conundrum because I agree with Commissioner Magic about zoning and all that stuff.

But here's this interesting conundrum that says in plain text, building permits and other development approvals shall be issued on the basis of the PUD's approved final plan.

Now that's pretty clear and explicit language.

And it's a little confusing.

But it at minimum it says that approved final plan is super important when you are assessing uh a plan.

Okay.

And then the second part of this section is no city administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan.

So if it's not on the approved final plan, you can't issue a permit for it.

So if that's a blank lot, you can't issue a permit for that.

I mean it's weird.

But that's what it says.

I like I didn't write the code, I'm reading the code, right?

So these are these like, but what this code tells me is you darn better well pay attention to that approved final plan.

That's what I get out of this, right?

That approved final plan is what allowed the PUD to get approved in the first place.

And if you're not abiding by those terms, then uh you don't know whether what what is being developed would have been approved, right?

There's a clear link between the conditions that were used to uh to approve a PUD and what has to happen on the ground.

Okay.

I want to show you just one other piece of code here 3844050.

This is about uh uh about about PUDs and about um enforcement.

Failure to comply with any now, and this list is amazing to me.

Failure to comply with any of the terms, conditions of approval.

This is a good one, limitations contained on the site plan, limitations contained on the site plan.

And I'll show you the code that says that the master plan must be a detailed site plan.

So the the master plan is in fact the site plan for the fee PUD, and I'll show you that code in just a second.

The landscape plan, the building elevations, other approved documents.

So that's every other document that was approved, which includes the master plan and the development guidelines.

And or other elements.

I mean, this is this is broad.

There's no carve out for oh, all the documents except what's on this document.

Right.

And this is the current code.

This is the standard of review.

This is the code that the staff has argued must be applied.

Okay.

So the terms, conditions of approval, limitations contained in the site plans, landscape, elevate building elevations, other approved documents, or other elements pertaining to a planned unit development, which has received final approval from the city.

Well, that's the Sundance Springs PUD.

And what this is saying is every single document that was approved must be followed.

Now the master plan was approved.

And the proof that it was approved was that it had to be included with the PUD application, and that the city even that the commission even amended it.

It amended the master plan by requiring the addition of uses.

So it was clearly, clearly uh vetted, amended, approved by the city commission.

Okay.

So now let's to get to that's the context.

Let's get to your question more directly.

Oh, actually, there's one more context.

This is the order that created the PUD.

Okay.

This is the order of the Commission.

And it's kind of long and wordy, but the but if you look in the top, I mean, the red stuff is just exactly what's in the top.

And I've I pieced it together to try to simplify it.

But if we look at the top, it says the Bozeman City Commission found that the proposed zoning plan unit development for application Z95125 could comply with all requirements if certain conditions were imposed on a pro on the project.

The evidence that justifies the conditions is that the subdivision must comply with the above referenced document.

What is in that above reference document?

That was the application.

The application must contain only two elements for a phase PUD.

The development guidelines and the master plan.

So here the commission says very specifically, the subdivision must comply with the master plan and the development guidelines.

That's this body making that statement.

Okay?

So again, that's for context.

Was that the finding of facts from 2024?

That was the that was the order to which the findings of facts are attached.

I'm sorry, I've got that.

Let me back up and say that.

That's the find that's the order that follows the findings of fact, and attached to this order are the conditions of approval that you would really like to see.

Yes, I would like to really see this whole thing.

Yeah.

And I don't know if I mean I'm I'm sure that document, I've got it on my computer.

I uh and I'm sure staff has it, so I'm sure they can get it to you for sure.

And it's also attached.

I I I believe it's attached to my public comment prior to the appeal, my public comment during the public comment period prior to the appeal.

For the application.

For the application.

That's correct.

Now.

Thank you.

Um, you wanted me to walk you through what what the heck happened.

Okay.

This is where Mr.

Rogers comes in.

I've yet to get to Mr.

Rogers finally, which is cool.

So here is the memo that you recently received in preparation for this meeting that was provided to you as the commission memo.

And highlighted is, and you can see A, this is all about the master plan, and highlighted that it says the director uh, well, if you back up above the highlight, it says that the director proved that a master plan need only provide a conceptual sketch.

Um we'll we'll talk about that in a minute.

Um but the director also explained that the Sundance Springs preliminary PUD and Platte expressly recognize the conceptual nature of the PUD and the need for subsequent site-specific design because it included the following note.

Note.

Because the application is a PUD subdivision that it that creates only lots, no specific structures were proposed at this time.

Future considerations will be controlled by the Bozeman area zone.

And this is what I think, Commissioner Magic, this is what you would probably expect.

And the map that the staff put up was in fact the site plan for the preliminary PUD.

Okay?

It did not.

In 1995, when it was submitted, this is accurate.

It did not, it included only lots.

Okay?

So I agree with that in 1995.

But remember, it's the primary, it's the it's the it's the final plan that the current code references, not the preliminary plan, it's the approved final plan.

And there was a condition of approval on the preliminary plan that meant that the final plan had to have uses, proposed uses.

And now I'm going to walk you through, I'm finally going to answer your question.

That's enough context.

I'm finally going to answer your question.

So in order to answer your question, we're going to have to go to the land of make-believe.

And I would like the five of you to pretend that you are city commissioners.

Good.

Yeah, I got a little laugh out of that.

Um, trying to lighten the mood a little bit.

What I really like you to do is pretend you're city commissioners in 1995 and 1996.

Okay.

So we're gonna go, you know, we're gonna go back in time and we're gonna sit not in this room, but in the basement of the old building and all that stuff, right?

And I'm gonna give you a charge.

All right, actually, the code is going to give you a charge.

And that charge is to review this PUD and hear the review criteria.

Okay, these are the criteria.

This is the finding you need to make in the criteria that you need to abide by.

Second paragraph.

In those cases where master plans and development guidelines are proposed proposed to govern the development of future phases of the PUD, okay.

That's the Sundance Springs PUD.

The City Commission must determine, right?

That the proposed, and this is so important, that the proposed master plan and development guidelines, right, are provided in sufficient detail.

So there you go.

The detail on the master plan and the detail on the development guidelines are what are going to tell you whether or not you can make a particular decision.

All right.

Do they provide sufficient detail to support a finding that the phased PUD will comply with all requirements?

Okay, if, and this is another very important part of this sentence, if developed in accordance with the approved master plan and development guidelines.

So first you must presume that the development will be developed in accordance with the master plan and the development guidelines.

You must make that assumption.

And if that assumption holds, can you say that the master plan and development guidelines provide sufficient detail to support your finding?

Okay, so that's your charge by the code.

All right.

And I I broke that down.

I've already broken it down verbally.

We won't read that.

That's what I did.

Now here are the six pages of criteria.

Remember that they so the question that should arise in your mind is, whoops, not Fred again.

If the question that should arise in your mind is, well, sufficient details to support a finding that the phase PUD will comply with all requirements.

Well, what are the requirements?

Well, the requirements were spelled out on six pages, and there are 42 requirements that need to be met.

And so now I'd like you to imagine that you're about to go into the hearing to web out whether or not you're going to approve the PUD or not, and you have a staff report in front of you, right?

And the staff has gone through each of these, each of these requirements that you can't read.

And they've answered the questions for you.

And so it's late the night before and you're you're going through this, right?

And so, okay, here's number one.

We got we have 52 of these.

Here's number one.

Is the development compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment?

The response is yes.

And here's, you know, I'm skipping.

Here's number four.

Is the development in accordance with adopted elements of the Bozeman master plan?

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Does it provide adequate access for emergency services?

Yes, it does.

Okay.

Will L the sewage and industrial waste be treated?

Oh, yeah, that's that's good.

And then you get to this one.

Then you get to this one.

If a neighborhood service activity is proposed within the project, is a market analysis provided demonstrating that less than 50% of the market required.

This should sound familiar, right?

So the code required a market analysis.

You cannot approve, as commissioners, you cannot approve this PUD without a market analysis.

You can't do it.

And what does your staff say?

No buildings or specific uses are proposed at this time without a specific use proposal.

It's impossible to conduct a market analysis.

That's what your staff informs you.

So what are you going to do?

You're stuck at this place.

There are three different phases.

There's concept review, there's preliminary review, and there's final review.

You're in preliminary review.

You're in that middle slop, and you have a decision to make.

Am I going to tank this whole thing because there's not a market analysis?

Or am I going to make an am I going to add a condition of approval so that this thing can go forward?

That's your decision at this point, right?

And so here it is.

I did finally find it.

So here it is.

Here's condition of approval number 29.

A documented market study shall be provided prior to submittal the final site plan for the zoning PUD that shows proposed uses.

There they are.

So it shows proposed uses.

And then it goes on to say what happens if that market analysis comes back negative.

Okay.

But there you go.

There you go.

You were required as a commissioner to say you got to have uses in order to have a market study.

And so you made this condition of approval so that you could approve this PUD.

Right?

And so they were required for approval by this commission, well, this commission, by this body in 1996, so that this PUD could be approved.

And that to me meets the definition of something that's binding.

If it's required for approval, it's surely required, if it's required for approval of the PUD, it's surely required to be paid attention to when you're subsequently approving the development.

Remembering that the code requires that you presume that development will follow the PUD and that both the master plan and the development guidelines are what you as a commission are reviewing to make sure that that PUD meets all 52 criteria.

I'll stop there.

And have you this is the document, the finding of facts from the 100%?

That is finding a fact number 29 from 1996.

Okay, but this entire document, not just number 29, you attached in a public comment.

I believe I did.

Thank you very much.

I'm finished with my questions.

Why don't we just stay on number 29 here?

Um You earlier showed uh the you know the the uh master plan.

You said that that's the kind of binding um document that that says that there's it's just one building there, it's gonna be a village store.

But condition 29 says that uses permitted on these lots include professional offices and other permitted uses listed in the B1 neighborhood service district.

So how does that but yet throughout your application, your appeal, you're you're stating that that that what's proposed that the buildings here being proposed are not a village store and therefore violate the master plan.

Right.

How does that work?

How's that work?

Okay.

Um Dr.

Poole, your couple, but I I would love to get through public comment tonight so we can close that hearing and I will try to pick it up.

And that the the and forgive me the challenge is that the details are what leads you to the decision.

So um what I can say is I'll make this as brief as I can.

Um yes, absolutely.

All of those uses are allowed on the two commercial lots.

There are two commercial lots, right?

Now no one held a gun to the developer's head and said, you have to approve, you have to specify this as a village store.

He did specify, he said all the commission said was you need to specify uses.

Right.

The developer chose to specify this as a village store, and that went into the market analysis.

The reason it's important for it to be a village store in order to approve the PUD is that if you read the market analysis, that a village store would reduce the amount of traffic going back and forth and back and forth to town.

And that was part of the requirements of the PUD is that the transportation system not be overwhelmed.

That was one of the other criteria.

So the fact that this is a village store ties to that market analysis and ties to the approval of the PUD directly.

The other uses, they're allowed on the other lot.

This one was designated as a village store so that the PUD could be approved and the market analysis would show a 50% use.

So your contention then is that because the market analysis narrowed it down to a village store and focused on that, that essentially overrides condition 29 that where it says any um it's any any permitted use under B1.

Well, so you you have to you have to put it in, you have to put it in time context.

First the condition, first the condition of approval was made.

And the only thing that it required was that the developer uh provide uh proposed uses.

It was left to the developer what uses he or she would propose, right?

So this is the use that was proposed.

I mean, any were allowed, and the developer could have proposed any that were allowed.

But what the developer chose to do was propose this, and the market analysis was based on this, right?

And so the market analysis had to have a certain outcome in order for this PUD to be uh to be approved.

So if you change that, then you're changing the character of the PUD.

And if you change the character of the PUD, you need to come back before this and get an appeal.

Or an appeal.

I am I'm getting an appeal and get an amendment.

And that's right in the code, I can show you that too.

Sure.

No, I see that.

Um but that goes, I guess, maybe to the character your your point, section seven, you know, the character, the changing of the character of the PUD.

And that you're maintaining that putting two buildings there, even though they've been adjusted to to have the eaves and meet with the design guidelines, there they still violate the character of the of the POD.

PUDINGs there are.

I mean, because there's double the square footage, and that's another reason you need an amendment, right?

There's no square footage on this, but there's one building, and the buildings are limited to 5,000 square feet.

So we know that the the character of the PUD as it was approved, approved, you know, only 5,000 square feet.

Now you're putting 10,000 square feet on there.

The busyness, what the types of businesses, you know, I know it's a shell building, but it's custom designed for a restaurant, uh a supper club type restaurant with a seating for 101 if you count the seats, and an outdoor dining patio where you're going to be able to serve alcohol.

That's not going to change the character of that.

I mean, I think that's a huge change in the character of what was proposed here versus what's being proposed now.

And so then to go back to this notion that you know within the PUD documents kind of collectively, you're maintaining that it's it's a it's a number of different steps and documents that all kind of point to this village store as the kind of envisioned use under the under the you know for that that basically will govern any sort of future development on that site.

What I'm saying is that the current code requires that you use the approved final plan.

The approved final plan was required to have a master plan within it, which is which, according to the city is this.

This the city has designated this as the official master plan.

We didn't.

Here's I mean, so the the city has in in order to be able to proceed with this review in the first place, we raised the issue of look, you need the approved final plan, and they didn't have it.

You remember all the lost documents.

And so they said, oh, we have enough documents, and they identified this as the approved final master plan and the covenants as the uh development guidelines, right?

They identify they identified it.

The staff identified them.

And then they went on to explain why they don't matter.

Why there's their private agreements, so there's no there's nothing to see in the development guidelines, they're private agreements, and there's nothing to see on the master plan because it's a concept sketch.

Well, if that's the case, what you would have is a PUD with no requirements.

Uh like how can you approve a PUD?

How can you how can you pass 52 criteria with no requirements in your PUD?

It makes no sense.

But what do you make of the like the city because the city staff did show that other final well I'm forgetting the title, the final uh plan that had, you know, it was similar to this, but it did not have any building shown.

Again, you have to go back to the timeline.

That was the final plan.

My understanding is that was the final plan for the preliminary and this and this and the and this the whole process I walked you through happened, and the commission said you have to add uses, and these are the use.

If if this is in fact the final master plan, and the date on it is 1997.

It this didn't even exist when that review was going on.

When that preliminary review by the city commission was going on, this document didn't exist.

This is the response.

This is saying, okay, I need to take the the PUD that got approved, I need to take the conditions of approval, I need to integrate them into a final application, and I need to get that application approved by the development review board, and that becomes the basis for reviewing all development under the PUD.

So the City Commission could not have referred to this document because it didn't exist.

This existed because it represents the merging of the conditions of approval with the approved preliminary plan, and that makes the final plan.

Thank you.

Okay.

One last question.

And maybe this will be just as hard to answer as it was for the staff.

But why we have this, you know, the neighbors have one concept of uh you and the neighbors have one concept of of kind of what is going to go there.

City staff clearly has a di and and the and the buyer, you know, the landowner has a totally different concept of what can what is a what is appropriate to that, what complies with the spirit of the PUD.

And I'm just how how did we get to such a um two different um viewpoints?

Opposing viewpoints.

I think to Commissioner Magic's point, I think that generally speaking, um, you don't have PUDs that specify what this PUD does specify.

But that doesn't mean that you get to ignore what this P what this PUD did specify, right?

I mean, I just walked you through the process using the code under which this PUD was approved.

This isn't sort of like this isn't sort of like neighbors getting confused about a diagram that was a marketing thing.

And I just showed that to you.

This document manifests from a five-year process to get this silly thing approved, right?

And there were many negotiations and many public comments and many frustrated people who said, you're putting commercial stuff in the middle of this.

What?

What's going to be there?

What's going to go there?

And in fact, the code said that the commission had to ask the developer what's going to go there, specifically because remember, this is a residential PUD.

This is not, this is not a mixed-use PUD.

It's not a, it's not a it's not a commercial PUD.

It's a residential PUD.

And as was acknowledged, standards do change.

Standards were tighter back then, but those are still the conditions of the PUD unless it's amended, and that's according to the current code.

Thank you.

Pass on to Commissioner Bodie.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Um my only question you've you've already taken a crack at asking or uh responding to, which was why the um PUD requires that both the 1997 code and the current code apply.

Can you go back to the slide showing um the code 3844050?

It's the one that says failure to apply with any of the terms and conditions of approval limitations.

Um yes, this one.

Okay, so I heard you say the word must, and I was looking in this section of um code that you have up here.

I don't see that word.

The the word that I see is may, subject the applicant or current landowner to the enforcement of remedies contained and then it references another code section, um, which I haven't actually gone and looked at.

Um can you just let me know what your interpretation of that word may is versus must?

My interpretation of that word is that um the uh the city can make a decision where they don't in where they don't enforce something or provide a variance or do something else.

Like you could take it from what you could take it in front of this body and not have the enforcement against you.

Um because that's the way zoning works.

Sometimes you get a variance, sometimes you get an allowance or an exemption or that type of thing.

So what they're saying is all of these things are required, and you have to understand as a developer that you are opening yourself to the liability of having the enforcement remedies.

And of course, if you want to, you know, if there's an appeal process, if there's something else, then that can come into play as well.

But there's there's no way you can be subject to enforcement remedies if you're not doing something wrong.

If you're not doing something against the code.

If you're following the code, there's no way to be subject to enforcement remedies.

And I think that's my point on this slide.

Okay, thank you.

That's my only question.

Mr.

Mayor, any questions?

Well, I think I I think many of mine have been asked, um, but I want to uh one I want to follow up on a clarification I think was Commissioner Sweeney's original question that I don't to me didn't feel answered, which was where in writing does it say only one building can be on this property.

Um it says that right here.

No city administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan.

Two buildings are not indicated on the approved final plan.

Boom.

Okay.

And so still taking to mean that the visual um the image on that master plan is the you know is the is the most applicable meets that requirement of saying this is the approved filing plan, nothing can go there except that which is depicted here.

Without an amendment.

Without I I'm I I I'm I I don't know where to look to see you, to look at you.

So I'm looking up at the screen here.

But I'm all around you.

Yes, exactly.

Right.

Right, right.

Omniscient.

Um that is viewed, it is I'm just reading the code.

This is the code.

You read the code.

No city administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan.

The approved final plan contains a master plan and development guidelines.

Like I don't know what to tell you.

I'm reading the current code.

I uh I mean I don't have a better answer than that.

The piece that I guess I'm trying to if it sounds like I'm trying I'm interrupting you if it's a bit of a of a delay, so I think it might go both ways here.

Um the the other the other line of questioning that I think Commissioner Sweeney had sort of started down that I think also relates to some of what um Commissioner Bodie was just asking about was uh evidence for the translation that a master plan uh the pieces required for the PUD translate explicitly to being a site plan.

And I'm I guess that's still something that I'm trying to grapple with.

All right.

Um as to meaning something that specifically means here's what you're entitled to build and what you are not entitled to build.

Okay.

So let's look at this.

And I've got like I'll try to get through this as quick as I can.

Again, this is your commission memo that you received.

Um and what they're saying here is that we've already been through this.

There's nothing to there's there's, you know, there's not anything really to deal with here because we were through this last time.

And what it says is that the director cited sections of the 92 code to prove that a master plan was only a conceptual sketch.

And then it lists the two sections of the code.

So let's actually look at what those sections of code say, shall we?

Um here's the first one.

Submittal for concept plans.

And remember, there are three sections.

There are three steps to getting a PUD approved.

There's the concept plan, there's the preliminary plan, and there's the final plan.

So this is about the concept plan.

And the concept plan is an informal consultation with staff.

And for the concept plan, you needed to submit a concept sketch.

Okay.

Uh sorry, and there's the three steps.

And so you we're over here on the left with the concept sketch.

Okay.

Now let's pop back up one paragraph and and note the at on the third line of the highlighted thing, there's this ellipsis, the dot dot dot, and it says basically the PUDs had to had to improve, had to provide proposed conditions to pertaining to such elements as building location, open spaces, et cetera, et cetera.

Okay.

So let's go look at that.

There's the code, there's the ellipsis, right?

Provide conditions.

And remember, this is all in support of the argument.

This is the only code that's cited in support of the argument that this is a concept sketch.

But what's in the ellipsis?

What was left out?

Well, let's look.

The master plans for phase PUD shall consist of a detailed site plan.

That's not a conceptual sketch.

That's a detailed site plan.

So you were asking, is the master plan a site plan?

Uh yes.

It's a detailed site plan.

In the code, by the code.

It must be a detailed site plan.

Okay.

Um I don't think I have any more questions for the appellants team.

Any further questions?

Sure.

Commissioner Magic.

Please If you could please go to uh the findings of fact order where you had red lined out.

Uh the findings of fact.

The 29, number 29, that one?

The or the question.

No, it's white.

Um, findings.

And it's the order of the question.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

Yes, I can get there.

Uh absolutely.

There.

There it is.

Yeah.

Um you stated that this order says that the city commission found that the PUD has to comply with the master plan.

I don't see that here.

Okay.

Um it talks about the 1990 Bozeman area master plan update.

So completely different.

So I I don't know if you can see my point or not, but I'm talking right here.

The evidence that justifies the conditions that the is that the subdivision must comply with the above reference document.

The above reference document is Z95125, which contains the master plan and development guidelines.

And if you remember the land of make-believe exercise that we went through, your job as the commission was to determine whether the master plan and development guidelines contain sufficient detail to be able to approve this master plan or this PUD.

And so you had to go and look at Z95125 and look at the master plan in that document and look at the development guidelines in that document and determine that there was sufficient detail in the two documents combined to uh to uh comply with 52 different uh criteria for PUD approval.

And so what it's saying it has to comply with I mean that's what the code required you to do is is to presume compliance with the master plan and development guidelines, and that's what I I showed you, and I can show you again if you need it.

But and and this is where it's manifesting that right within the order.

It's saying the evidence that justifies the condition is that the subdivision must comply with the above reference documents, one of which is Z95125 that contains the master plan and development guidelines.

So that's that's my interpretation of that verbiage.

Okay, yeah, I'm reading uh differently.

Okay.

That is gonna comply with the subdivision regulations, the zoning ordinance, the Bozeman area master plan to update the Montana Subdivision and Platinum Act.

Well, the Yeah, and that's not one of the above reference documents.

The above reference documents are Z95125 and P9539.

Those are the above reference documents.

So it's it's I know we're time sensitive.

I'm willing to just say we have a difference of opinion on what this means that that that works for me.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any other any other questions?

And here the dice.

Mr.

Mayor, any questions?

I don't have any questions either.

Um thank you.

I I very much appreciate your attention and again the level preparation.

I'm honestly impressed.

So thank you.

So I would suggest we roll right into the landowner presentation.

It's 15 minutes, and then we'll take questions after that.

Good evening, Commission.

My name's Michael Schreiner.

I'm the landowner and a resident of Gallatin Valley since the late 1980s.

Um I thank you guys and your team for the project you have reviewed and approved under applicable city standards, including the prior appeal findings in the site.

And the site has been zoned.

I'm sorry, and the site has been zoned commercial since the mid-1990s.

Our ask tonight is that the approval be upheld.

I now turn right over to my team, starting with my engineer, Marlena Sadai.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Uh good evening, everyone.

My name is Marlena Saday, and I'm the civil engineer for the Sundance Springs Commercial Lot 2 design team.

I'd like to thank the city staff for their excellent explanation regarding the review of site plan application 25238 and the relevant sections of the applicable BMC code requirements.

Uh this project, as staff mentioned, is located near the intersection of Golden Stein Lane and South Third Avenue at the southern boundary of city limits.

The lot is currently vacant.

The site plan this site plan approval is the first step in the development of a commercial node in this area to serve the existing residential uses.

A little bit of history.

Again, staff has gone through all this, so I'll go as quickly as possible.

Commercial lot two was created as part of the Sundance Springs PUD and major subdivision plating process back in 1998.

The Sundance Springs PUD included two commercial lots contemplated as a commercial node to serve the surrounding residents.

In 2016, a previous property owner presented a proposal to the city commission for reverting both of the commercial lots in the Sundance Springs PUD to residential use.

The proposed action would have required approval of a growth policy amendment by the city commission.

The commission at the time denied the requested growth policy amendment to revert these commercial lots to residential use.

In 2023, a previous site plan application submitted by our design team received administrative approval.

In 24, this previous site plan approval was appealed, and the city commission overturned the director's approval.

The findings from the 2024 appeal process provided that number one, there are sufficient Sundance Springs PUD documents available for the city to evaluate site plan applications against.

Number two, site plan applications must be reviewed against the current code standards.

Number three, that the covenants should be treated as design standards, and number four, that a departure request related to a trail on HOA common area shall not be approved.

Following the previous appeal process, our design team redesigned the project to meet the requirements set forth by the city commission in these findings.

In 2025, site plan application 25238 received preliminary administrative approval.

The matrix on the screen is an overview of the changes that were made by the design team between the two site plan applications.

The following slides include visual aids of these changes that have been made between the current site plan and the previous site plan, which was overturned.

So the previous approved site plan, let me see if my pointer works awesome.

This site plan was previously approved under application 22047.

This plan included one row of north south parking, parking spaces between the West Building and Little Horse Drive, a reduction request for the overall number of parking spaces, and two departure requests for building frontage requirements.

This is the landscaping plan that was previously approved under application 22047.

This plan included a new trail through Sundance Springs open space area, 2700 square feet of outdoor patio space, no sidewalk along South Third, and no dedicated snow storage areas.

These are the building designs that were previously approved under application 22047.

These buildings included 6,714 square feet of usable floor area above grade for the West Building, 6,016 square feet of usable floor area in the east building above grade, flat roof designs, and full basements, which is where the almost 10,000 square foot number came up earlier.

This site plan under consideration today, it includes two rows of north-south parking, no parking spaces between the West Building and Little Horse, no parking reduction requests, and no departure requests.

This landscape plan is the current landscape plan.

This plan includes no new trail through Sundance Springs open space.

Here, here, and here.

Sidewalk and trail connectivity have been incorporated into the design along with ample bike parking to ensure pedestrian use or encourage pedestrian use of this commercial node as was intended in the original PUD approval.

Our team has worked closely with the city staff to develop a site plan that will benefit the surrounding neighborhoods, is consistent with the Bozeman's growth policy, meets all applicable codes and regulations.

We are confident that the city staff has conducted a proper and thorough review of this site plan application and that this commission will uphold the conditional approval issued by the planning staff.

I'm also available for questions, but I did have a few notes from kind of hearing the last two presentations.

So just one of the things I had been kind of contemplating as a designer while sitting there, you know, considering the idea that that conceptual rendering may have entitled this lot to things.

And um that conceptual rendering didn't show any homes on the 141 residential lots.

So perhaps those 141 homes shouldn't have been placed there under that design.

It showed an illegal approach crossing an open space onto South Thurb.

So perhaps this lot would be entitled to that illegal approach.

Um it showed a gas station concept, which was not a principal use then or now for B1 and would have required a CUP approval, but perhaps we'd be entitled to that and would not be required to go through a CUP approval.

Um it had parking on both side setbacks and rear setback, as well as within a water course setback and the approach to the site would have also encroached into the water course setback.

And these are all entitlements that I'm sure we you know wouldn't be willing to ask for based on a picture in a previous document.

Um our team has tried very hard to comply with the spirit of the PUD.

We brought in a new architect, um, fully redesigned the buildings, and our takeaway from the previous meeting was that a lot of that spirit of design had more to do with the look and feel of the buildings, which those have been changed and now completely comply with those guidelines.

And I'm getting the sense that perhaps the market study hasn't been read, it's been referred to a lot.

Um and you know, maybe I haven't had a chance to look at it for the rest of you.

Um but in that market study, it does talk about that at the time of the study, the developer had lot to under contract to an individual that was intending to put a gas station on it, which is kind of that backstory of why that's shown that way.

But the market study goes on to talk about the estimated uses being limited to the B1 type neighborhood services and lists multiple uses, not only a gas station.

Um so again, just a few notes and uh again available for questions, but I'm gonna ask Brian Gallag to come up and kind of finish our you know presentation portion here before we get into the question and answer.

Thank you so much.

Uh good evening, uh members of the commission, Brian Galleck, uh attorney.

Uh just a few brief comments.

I'd like to echo, I think, a couple of comments that Commissioner Magic made as well as uh uh Commissioner Fisher with respect to uh you know why is there a disconnect here, and what's the appropriate documents or standards which this commission needs to apply.

And Commissioner Magic's right with respect to you've got zoning, you've got subdivision, you've got growth policies, you've got covenants, which can impose greater standards than the law requires.

And when a purchaser of property in this town in this county acquires property, you're on actual notice of restrictions with respect to the property.

You're on constructive notice of what's recorded, kind of courthouse, or doesn't matter state law, and on inquiry notes of what you know what what an investigation of those types of documents would lead to.

In this particular case, I mean there's a can of construction that you don't go to absurd results and listening to this respectfully.

A lot of work went into this, but this is kind of it's an absurd argument.

And properly you need to apply the zoning, the covenants, the PD, the master plan, just as your staff did in this particular case.

Your staff are your experts.

So I would recommend that you pay attention to what they say, because it supports your decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Magic.

This falls back to you.

Thanks very much toward those presentations.

Um I don't think I have any questions right now.

Something might come up after we do the route and drop in, but not right now.

Fair enough.

Commissioner Sweeney.

I just have one question.

Am I allowed to ask the landowner?

The question?

Yes, he's here and ready to answer questions.

Thank you, sir.

Michael.

Thank you, Michael.

So when you purchased this lot, how did you understand the covenants that you became a party to upon purchasing within this subdivision?

That those were optional or enforceable, or how did you interpret that?

So Marlena was involved in the purchase also.

Brian was all involved in the purchase.

We we did some due diligence.

We had actually found out that the prior owner, who I believe bought it from the developer, wanted to change it to residential, and the city said absolutely not, it's gonna stay commercial, then sold it to us with a plan of building a neighborhood village.

And been doing that for nine years.

And we're maybe we're close.

I hope we're close.

But we read through all the B1 zoning and neighborhood commercial and said this is a great project, it'll be great for the community.

I drive my kids by there five times a day, going to elementary school, middle school, and now high school.

And uh I'm really amazed by the resistance.

I mean, everybody's got an opinion, but I was the only one willing to put my money there.

And now it seems everybody wants to be my development partner.

They're all welcome to come join me and build it with me, but they just keep changing the the field as we were playing.

Sorry, I guess my question was pertaining to the declaration of covenants conditions and restrictions for Sundance Springs Section 2, neighborhood services property.

So, yeah, how did you understand those covenants when you bought the property?

As if they were covenants and not city design guidelines.

So they're recorded as covenants and the covenants allowed for variances.

The covenants very clearly laid out who is subject to the covenants and who uh is um a voting member of those.

And those are the two lot commercial lots are the voting members, they have a board, and in the first round, they had approved a variance for the flat roof design.

And so that was how we understood the covenants.

It wasn't until the previous commission meeting where it was determined that those were design guidelines that needed to be enforced by the city that it which felt like a conflict when the um design guidelines or covenants clearly laid out a variance process for these lot owners to review that.

So that was where a little bit of the design change came in.

And so that was us trying to be respect um responsive to the previous feedback that these are going to be now applied as um city requirements, not as you know, design requirements that can be you know modified between the two commercial lot owners as was implied.

And it and is typical of a covenant situation where if everyone or sometimes a percentage, whatever is laid out, may amend those covenants as they choose to.

So that was our understanding at the time.

Thank you.

What she said.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And we we met about this prior to purchasing and many times after.

Okay.

And so um you guys acknowledged the finding of facts that this commission um during the last appeal said the guidelines must be applied.

So you went to great lengths to adjust the um building facade, the roof, the height, the design.

Um it's a beautiful the first building, it's a beautiful building.

Um you've done a great job.

You need all of those requirements.

Um, but you didn't tackle the parking in the setback as required in the guidelines.

Is there a reason why?

Um well, so I did discuss that with planning staff.

And we the conclusion was that um the parking was allowed in there, so we left it there.

However, if that is a point of contention, that I feel like it could be addressed the same way as the lighting oversight with the 0.8 foot candles versus the 0.3 foot candles, and this can easily be adjusted to move that shift that parking down six more feet in order to get out of that setback and not me.

I I mean, at least in my opinion, it wasn't a major change, right?

Like everything else can stay the same.

We just shift a few things you know, down six feet and no no heartburn there.

Um the yeah, like I said, we uh we had these discussions with staff and we had gone through the concept review and we looked at all of those things, and we essentially had taken the plan because from the findings of fact, it felt like we didn't have too far to go last time around, right?

We had just these design guidelines that we were trying to meet.

So we were trying to identify the areas that needed to be modified.

And that was not identified as an area that needed to be modified between then and now.

Um but again, not something that we're married to.

Thank you very much.

That is all my questions.

Well, thanks for the presentation.

Um I maybe to follow up on Commissioner Sweeney.

So when you bought this property, I presume you saw that colorful, what's called the master plan, you know.

Um and that that showed the you know the village door in that in that spot.

How did you conclude that okay?

I could put two buildings in this spot um compared to you know what what that that map should show?

So I did help Michael with the due diligence when he was looking at this, and the first thing I said was, hey, what are you talking about?

This is zoned residential.

And what it's not shown on the city zoning as B1.

And so I went down to the city office and was like, hey, why does this guy think he can do commercial here?

And they showed me the file and just said these are B1 lots and you can do anything in the B1 uses.

The master plan conceptual rendering did not come up until the last uh appeal process, and when everybody started kind of digging deep into those old files.

So that is not a document that is uh like easily accessible for someone purchasing this lot.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

And then uh you spoke a little bit to this this desire to capture kind of that spirit of of the PUD with the new with the with this application.

Um and um can you speak maybe uh just a little more to that?

I mean, uh the the buildings you feel like these buildings are much more in in um um you know, in the spirit of of kind of what's what's been built in Sundance Springs and what what what these what the design guidelines call for.

Yes, that was our takeaway.

It was the the brick wasn't uh you know, nobody was a big fan of the brick last time, the flat roofs, um a lot of the glass, so all of those things were changed this time around.

Um and then there was concerns about the parking and the parking reduction is allowed in the code, and we didn't take any parking reduction this time.

Um we uh switched from the ba, you know, the full um basement to the crawl space.

The outdoor patio area was very much you know mentioned as a concern last time around.

So I mean that got cut down by you know almost more almost like a quarter, you know.

So, you know, we did try to really respond to all that feedback that we got.

Um the site with the water course setback and kind of trying to protect that riparian area does really kind of narrow how much you know flexibility there is with orientation of you know locations of things.

So it'd be kind of awkward to try to split the um drive aisles and have a building this way, and then some parking here, and um, you know, just in general, putting parking lots closer to streams generates more pollutants towards the streams, and um, and then this way we're protecting kind of a lot of that uh open feel because it's backing open into the open space and you know feels inviting for the neighborhood to actually bike over and those kinds of things.

So um, yes, we very much tried to and even our previous trail that was going through open space that we assumed that would be um welcomed.

Um and that was not something that we needed to have on there, and we were happy to take it off.

That was more of a we just were trying to help with the trail system that is there and just trying to incorporate everything into the existing residential as much as possible.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bowman.

Commissioner Bodie.

All of my questions have been answered.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yep.

Same for myself.

Any further questions from the commission?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

And gals.

Okay.

So at this point, let's open this to public comment.

Um you'll get you're welcome to to talk.

You have three minutes um to speak.

The light will go on, you'll get the green light goes on, yellow light goes on at two minutes, red light goes on when your time is done.

We do ask.

Uh this I understand there's a little tension over this.

We do ask that you refrain from any sort of clapping in response or cheering in response to a comment because we want to keep this a neutral zone, a warm and welcoming spot for anyone to give comment without worrying about the reaction.

Somebody always has to go first, right?

My name is Scott Bishke, 3940 East Graph in Sundance Springs.

I don't have hardly any planning knowledge, but I've learned a lot tonight listening to all the things about B-1 code and zoning and PUDs.

I think when we bought our lot in Sundance Springs in 2001, the only time the PUDs might have come up is in the title search.

The only things we cared about, and I'm trying to give you some perspective from someone who lives in the neighborhood.

Albeit we do live three blocks three blocks away about uh from the development proposed.

Um the only things we cared about was the covenant and the master plan.

And it seems like this group all over tonight is getting wrapped around the axle about what's the master plan and what isn't.

And I really appreciated Jeff's uh description because it is exactly what we saw.

We had just had a mention of digging deep.

I wish they would have come to me.

I have the master plan in my file for Sundance Springs.

As recently as within the last two or three years, we had a party to introduce neighbors at our house.

We pulled that plan out and we put down stickers on it.

I don't understand why a master plan is not a master plan.

You guys are all smart about planning and have some great resources, but I can tell you that map is the only thing as a residence of Sundance Springs for 25 years.

That map has been what we have believed our neighborhood is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I ask if you were interested in speaking that you line up just because again, because uh to avoid being here till the the end of the uh all the all the way, you know, too too much longer.

Hi, I'm uh Scott Deshmaker.

I'm currently on the board of directors at Sundance Springs Resident Owners Association, but I'm speaking um, I guess just as a treasurer of the organization because we don't really have well it wasn't until it became a uh board member that I understood there were two separate HOAs governing you know the residential side and the commercial lot owners.

But in the course of looking at that, I discovered that the commercial lot owners are responsible for helping us cover our uh snow removal and road maintenance costs.

And so anyway, I on my own reached out to the uh commercial lot owners and we came up with a uh calculation for sharing the maintenance cost, and so for the past believe seven years without any you know bickering back and forth.

They've been good neighbors and contributing to our road maintenance and uh snow breed mobile costs, and you know that's amounted to uh thousands of dollars at this point, so I appreciate them as neighbors.

So that's that's my comment.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Hello, uh, good evening.

My name is Martha Lahner.

I reside at 3602 Good Medicine Way, along with my husband, who will be speaking after me.

I want to ask all of you um uh to um that you that are here tonight.

I hope all of you are listening very closely.

Um my husband and I were there when this was done.

Okay.

We had lived in Bozeman for um 20 years at 3602 Good Medicine Way.

And when this happened, um it became a major project.

Oh more than a major pro, I shouldn't even call it project.

More like a I don't know.

It's just in everybody was in over their head trying to get this piece this section of land uh set up.

So tonight, as we are speaking, I hope that you will also give what we're saying a lot of consideration, because there were a lot of people that were um involved in getting it to this point what we've been talking about.

I mean lots, and we work very hard, and my husband is gonna explain that a little bit more here.

Um as my husband, let's see.

All right, where did I leave off here?

Can I have my own?

Um, we were very much involved back when the Sundance Springs PUD was finally approved by the City Commission in January 1996.

I am mainly here tonight, or here this evening to represent the hundreds of people I worked with to make the Sundance Springs PUD a quality development, including the two lots near where I live.

I was there, and I am directly involved, not sitting on the sideline, but actually taking an active approach, even though my husband was very much involved.

I had other way things that I think were really important, especially when you're living in a place like that.

It's beautiful.

If you haven't been out there, take a walk.

I mean, we have more people on Good Medicine Way than they than anywhere else.

I mean, we don't hardly have any people with trucks or cars, and the people that use this is absolutely amazing.

And I I hope that as you are considering this, consider what we're talking about.

Okay.

I was okay.

Um Ms.

Launter, may I ask that you wrap up?

Pardon me?

Uh you've reached your three minutes.

Three minutes?

Yes.

Let me just a little bit.

Okay.

Um I actually videotaped all of those meetings, eight of them over a three to four year period.

I'll tell you, they tell you a lot.

Anyway, so all I'm requesting is that the city not violate the public trust.

You're violating everybody's trust, not just the people who have been talking tonight.

And uh by not in here by not inhering to the original PUD master plan and development restrictions.

We work so long and so hard to keep our residential neighborhood a very safe, quiet, and enjoyable enjoyable place to live.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Leonard.

Good evening.

Good evening, honorable city commissioners.

My name is Terry Lawner.

I'm gonna have to read this so I stay within my three minutes.

I've got three pages, three minutes.

Um I bought our property in 1973 out there.

And uh, so we've been there for 53 years, chasing cattle out of our yard initially.

Our property is part of the Sourdough Creek property subdivision adjacent to the Sundance Springs PUD.

We have been actively involved and have fought long and hard over the years, along with many others in keeping our neighborhood a quiet, safe, and enjoyable family residential neighborhood.

Starting in 1993, my wife and I, along with many, many others, protested the annexation and development of the Sundance Springs property, because the initial developer wanted townhouses and condos out there to the tune of up to maybe 500 people.

That protest drove the that initial developer bankrupt.

Uh after more after almost three years of protesting, eight public hearings and many discussions with both city and county commissioners, the final result was a high-quality PUD approved by the City Commission starting in 1996, finalized in 1998, with abundant open space and trails now enjoyed by many.

I think that some of us lost a few years of our life in fighting this issue.

It was quite contentious and very stressful.

This PUD included two commercial lots near the corner of South Third and Golden Stein Roads with several rules and restrictions for developing these two lots for neighborhood services only.

These rules and restrictions were based on a master plan with development restrictions that should be adhered to today.

Now the developer of one of these lots, lot two, is continuing with the intention to develop the this lot under the guise of neighborhood services.

The proposed development of this lot is in violation of the rules and restrictions of the PUD and Boseman City Development Codes for development of this lot.

Our expectations for development of this lot was for a small neighborhood store like Joe's Parkway, and not for a large multiple use establishment that would draw unreasonable commercial and public traffic to the heart of South Bozeman's residential neighborhoods.

This lot is adjacent to designated open space, established trails, and near the Sacagoa school.

Therefore, we are opposed to any development that would destroy the ambience of our safe, quiet, enjoyable, and well-established residential neighborhood.

I I know I'm over, I gotta say make my wife my last pitch.

Therefore, we are requesting that the proposed second application, number 25238 to develop this 1.3 acre parcel, lot two, of land in the Sundance Springs POD be denied.

But with the regulations and restrictions that are legally binding in the original and final POD approved by the City Commission initially in 1996, along with Bozeman Municipal Codes.

And to the best of our knowledge, this original POD has not been amended.

Our request is also based on the Bozeman City Commission's decision 401 on February 27, 2024 to deny the developers' first application to develop this lot.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

By the way, as an aside, all the commotion that we went through there resulted in one thing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Terry and Martha.

I'm Ron Craighead.

I've owned property in the area since 1988.

I've been through this whole process.

I was on the group, the community group who opposed this development right from the very start.

Initially it was all residential.

And the big point of contention then was that most of it was being developed on a hundred-year floodplain.

Okay, that issue went away.

It was the city that introduced the PUD parameter for this.

The original development was not under a PUD.

So the city's kind of created this whole problem.

We're dealing with it right now.

It happened 34 years ago.

So here we are.

Okay.

What are you going to do with it?

And you're talking, you know, we mentioned about uh doing market studies for business, the businesses that were there.

It's an important element to this.

How are we going to address traffic issues?

Has there really been a study about that?

Have you looked at the efficacy of Goldenstein Lane?

At the time, I remember Martha and Terry.

We did um we looked into future plans for improving Goldenstein.

There were none.

The Montana Highway Department had no plans whatsoever to accommodate the traffic from a commer for commercial business.

So that's a factor in all of this.

They do not want B1 zoning in their rural neighborhoods.

So do what you have to do, but please consider and make accommodation for blending in with the surrounding community as well as you can.

So we appreciate it very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You don't need to speak that closely to it.

It makes it hard to hear.

Online if you're too close to the microphone.

Good evening.

I'm Don Murdoch, Bozeman Negative, negative.

Bozeman native.

And uh grew up on South Wilson.

At the very end of it, it turned into a gravel road.

But uh some eight decades later, or here we are back in Bozeman.

We certainly enjoy the amenities that we have here.

Particularly in the Sundance area where we have our home.

It's quiet.

No traffic to speak of.

But wherever this is going is not in line with the uh way it's been.

And uh so anyway, uh enjoy your deliberation, and uh we'll see you down south.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Connor Brown, resident of the city of Bozeman.

Well, first I'd like to say wow, development is very complicated.

Um, and I would like to thank you as commissioners, your uh thorough work on this project as well as city staff and the engagement from the community, it shows how special this place is.

Um and then second, I would like to voice my support for this project because one, I think it's shown that it's met the expectations that have been thoughtfully laid out for it through these processes, and has also shown that it has a commitment to do so in order to get the project across the finish line.

And then also as a resident of the south side of town.

I support this and future commercial developments that limit my commuting to downtown and 19th, as that obviously clogs up transportation networks that are already busy and also engages in the city's goal of multimodal transportation and commercial nodes.

And so in Layman Speak, being able to hop on a bike and go down and get a get a bite to eat or something like that and utilize the trails that are uh in the enjoy the natural area uh that surrounds this project.

So thank you and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you.

I'm Tim Sullivan.

I am a resident of Bozeman, actually live in Sundance Springs.

And I wanted to kind of come and could I sort of bridge both worlds because I actually know the owners of the commercial lots as well and was hoping that I could somehow reassure some of my neighbors that when we moved into the neighborhood, we knew they were commercial lots.

We had some fear about that, of course, as anyone would.

And then when we met these guys at Zacaduia and a Morningstar, sitting through innumerable Memorial Day concerts and all the other things that we many of us had to do, had a little break with COVID, but after that we were back to them.

Um, these are our neighbors, these are great, these were really good people.

And knowing that they were going to be the landlords of these properties gave me a huge amount of relief.

Because I know when you put in when you put in commercial properties, who knows who's gonna be there in two years?

You know, you put it in your pizza shop and you're so happy and your kids are walking down there, and then and then it's gone, and it's just you know, I don't know.

I mean, I don't want to, I was gonna say a lot of things there, but there could be a lot of bad things.

And that's what would happen, and the only protection we have against that is a good landlord.

And I know both these guys, and my worry is if we keep pushing back, you know, I don't want I don't want anything there.

Absolutely nothing.

What I want is for the city to give them a fair price and turn into a park.

Like that's my proposal.

Like, like let's just get rid of this whole thing, give them some money and let's make it into a park and I'm done.

Um but I do want to reassure my neighbors, like I know these guys, and I'm happy to set up meetings with them with the people so you can meet them and be like, oh, good, you know, you're looking out for it.

They have kids, they want their kids to be in a good place.

So that was my hope.

And I think your guys' job is crazy.

You know, I don't know what you all are gonna do because if you decide, if you decide you're gonna overturn this, I mean I gotta be honest, I'm a little pissed about my taxes, because I don't know what these guys have been doing, but if if you have to turn these guys over twice, I'm like, what the heck?

Get some fire them, get somebody else doing this.

Because they're telling you the wrong stuff.

I don't understand any of it.

And it's so complicated, but I will say I can vouch for these guys as landlords, and I and I don't know if we can vouch for the next guys they sell it to.

So that's my worry.

Anyway, thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Sullivan.

Good evening.

My name is John Mills.

Um, my wife and I are residents in Bozeman, and we live actually on Peace Pop Drive within maybe a half a block of lot number two.

So we walk by it frequently.

I've got just a few things that I haven't heard a lot about tonight that I think is important that you hear from a resident.

If if the City Commission, if you as commissioners proceed with approving the application as it is, the proposed buildings, the restaurant, the bar, the patio areas, are going to make lot number two, something that is going to be a citywide appeal.

Now think about the traffic that would come to a restaurant like that in Bozeman.

You know how the nuance of something brand new, and what is that going to do traffic-wise?

That will fill that parking lot, and it's going to lead to spillover onto our streets, which are not wide streets.

And that's going to create safety issues for residents, children, anybody that's walking in the neighborhood, which happens frequently.

I can attest to it because we live there.

How about a patio?

Wouldn't you love to have a patio outside of your house that somebody else is running with uh goodness knows what's going on because they're also serving alcohol.

So that's another consideration that I have not really heard addressed tonight.

Those are the really key things that strike me as being concerns that you ought to give some consideration to in your thought process and decision making.

And I I really appreciate everything that you are doing because you guys have a very difficult job.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Nelson.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Ryan Le Foley.

Um I've been here for 26 years.

I have three children, and they all go to Sactua, and as well as the high school.

Um I love Bozeman, and I will have to say this thinks.

It's it's a commercial lot, right?

And I would hate to be the house there overlooking it all the time, right?

Seeing a beautiful field and then seeing buildings going up.

That being said, I own the five acres next to Michael.

And I have to be honest with you.

I want the G VLT.

Hey, can we partner up?

Make it an open space, anything like that.

Nope.

We have no interest.

So it also was proposed to be residential.

You know, they tried to pass that.

It got denied.

And now it's commercial.

It seems like this is meant to be commercial.

And the biggest thing for me is I know a lot of people in Sundance Springs.

I know these are opposing, and I get that.

And again, I feel for them, right?

But also a lot of people like I think about hey, how could I market this?

Well, let's go walk around the neighborhood.

Oh, you're a dentist, oh, you're a lawyer, you're a yoga instructor.

Great.

Can I build this for you?

Like, what can we do to help and make things nice?

And I think that's exactly what the applicant has done.

He's met, try to make the building change, meet all the nice, make it look really pretty, if you ask me.

So I personally think it is fair.

That being said, I don't know the rules and regulations of Bozeman, so I put my trust in city planning because that's what they do.

They're the experts.

So if they say, yes, this looks good, this abides by all the rules, then I put my faith in them.

Just like I do with law enforcement, just like I do with the fire department, just like I do with all my teachers that teach by kids.

So again, I'm going off of what they're going off of.

And I really do think you should approve this.

So I think it will be a benefit to all of Bozeman.

And again, we're not building high rises here.

Like Michael has very good intentions, and so do I.

So I appreciate your time.

Thank you for all you do and wish you the best.

Thank you.

I'm going to extend the meeting to 1030, and we'll have a discussion about how far we're going to go.

That means I have to quit by 1030.

You get to quit at 10.03.

Good evening.

Nice try.

I'm Jeff King.

I live in Sundance Springs.

I was one of the first residents there.

Um I'm at 339 Peace Pipe.

You know, when you look at this lot number two proposal, I just want to remind you of something.

That is that there's lot number one across the street.

It's three times bigger.

On the master plan drawing, which is the only thing we have left of the master plan since the document was removed from the files.

On the master plan drawing, we show one building on lot number two.

We show five on lot number one.

If you allow two buildings on lot number two, will you have to allow ten buildings on lot number one?

I think the owner might think so.

It's of concern.

This is precedent here.

What you do here is multiplied by many across the street because it's three times bigger.

Think about that.

You know, when you look at the drawing, uh we all took away from it.

It was a complicated master plan that was in writing, but we we all looked at the conceptual drawing, and that's where we got the one building idea.

5,000 square feet, one building.

I think it still sticks.

The file's been removed, but the drawing came off the written document.

The drawing represents the only thing that is left of a document that was taken out of your files.

I think the drawing has to have precedence here.

It's all you've got.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

King.

Good evening, who's talking?

Good evening.

I'm Laurie Wallace.

I own property in the Alder Springs subdivision, which also accesses the local elementary school and Sacajeoia Middle School.

I'm very concerned about the traffic that's going to impact that neighborhood as well as the Sundance neighborhood.

When I drive around my neighborhood, there are children who are clueless about crossing streets.

They're on bicycles chatting with each other, looking at their phones, crossing streets regardless of what the traffic is doing.

If we're going to have people coming and going much, much more because of these lovely restaurant patio, I'm concerned for the children.

I think the noise is a good idea.

Another problem, too.

If you live in that neighborhood and you're used to the quiet and suddenly you have this commercial entity that has created this noise, I think that's problematic.

I appreciate very much that Mr.

Poole went to the trouble to explain all the different ways he dug into how this should not be going forward, how this plan should be denied.

As sweet a plan as it is, as great the accommodations that they made, and I think they did a great job doing that.

But the idea, like Terry and Ms.

Balmus, would you keep it addressed to us?

The the ideas that people, hundreds of people did over decades to create to fight this.

But then in the end, did you hear what the man said?

Gallatin Valley Regional Park ended up being created because they created such a protest.

There's the opportunity for you to talk to Gallatin Valley Land Trust again to talk to the other people in this town who have money and maybe buy up this piece of land and make another place that is a lovely park for the residents in that area to bike do to play in for the birds for the wildlife.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Ballness.

On this application on this appeal.

Second call.

Third call.

Before we uh let's let's who do we have on um online, Mr.

Mouse.

First up, we have Aaron Renna.

Go ahead, Miss Rennan.

Can you hear me?

Miss Rennan, we can we your your mic is unmuted.

Hi there, can you hear me?

Now we can.

Thank you for listening to me.

My name is Erin Renna.

My family and I have lived in West Meadow subdivision, which is neighboring to Sundance Springs since 2009.

We care deeply about Bozeman in this neighborhood and are raising our two children here.

I believe some of the soul and heartbeat of Bozeman are small pocket neighborhoods.

I know the north side and the west side have many small commercial zones, which give neighborhoods an opportunity to have a place to have a coffee shop, different commercial opportunities.

I do feel like in our South Side, Sundance Springs and West Meadow, that is missing from our neighborhood.

I also believe that when people chose to purchase property in Sundance Springs in West Meadow, they were aware that there were commercial properties that could be zoned commercial and have these business opportunities.

So I am in favor of allowing Sundance Springs development to move forward.

The developers have taken the time to meet the City of Bozeman's codes and standards.

Our planning process relies on developers following the rules and application standards that are in place at the time when application is deemed complete.

In this case, it appears the developers have done exactly that.

When applicants meet the established codes and standards, it's important that the city honor that process and allow the project to proceed accordingly.

I drive past this property every day as I take my kids to Saca Jawia.

I use the trails with my dogs and my kids daily, sometimes twice daily.

I definitely support mixed use areas within residential neighborhoods to allow for walkability to potential businesses, allowing conveniences and community gathering spaces.

I think it's a huge benefit to our neighborhood to have the opportunity to have a commercial property in our amazing little south side neighborhood.

I think it'll add um a vibrance and um make it a really really um successful opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Renna.

Mr.

Mause, who's next.

I'm sure another request for comment.

So I'll close the public comment.

And we have a quick decision here.

I would like to I would propose that we get through the rebuttals this evening and then we can close the public record and bring this back.

We have a date March 24th to continue this, which would just be a discussion among the five of us.

Mr.

Morris, it would be a benefit that Mr.

Morrison will be in the room and it won't be 10:30 when we're making a decision.

So is that the will?

Is that everyone I'm getting nods here?

All right.

Um, Mr.

Morrison, I hope you can handle a few more, a little more time on Zoom.

Rebuttal.

The process is it's not quite time restrained.

We do ask if you could keep it to about five minutes, but we will give you the time you need.

We will allow questions after each rebuttal and and the um staff.

Why can I not pronounce that word?

Appellants, and then landowners will get the chance to rebut.

Thank you.

Ms.

George.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

Aaron George, community development director again for the record.

So a couple of clarifications based on uh what we heard in the last couple of hours.

First, the 1996 PUD findings of fact that uh Commissioner Sweeney asked about, were part of Mr.

Poole's comment with the site plan application.

Um so it is part of the record, but we do have paper copies that we can hand out for you all to make that easier if you would like.

Um, but just wanted to note that um once is demonstrated that a project complies with the conditions.

So reminder, this was the uh preliminary uh PUD findings effect.

Once it's demonstrated the applicant complies with those conditions, then it's consumed in the final PUD approval and final plan, which is why we didn't attach it to the packet.

This was like the first and the earliest of the steps in the development process.

Um, it's incorrect to call this only a residential PUD.

Heard that mentioned uh earlier, I think it was during the appellants presentation.

Uh, in page two of that document, the findings of fact.

Uh it's actually in the finding number one.

Uh that uh refers to neighborhood services lots.

So that is part of the original uh findings of fact for the PUD.

Number three, the master plan, as has been discussed at great length, is not the final plan.

Um we did show you visual here.

Thank you, Zachary's on it.

Uh this what we're gonna show here, and we showed you earlier is the final plan.

And it has a 1998 date versus the 1997 date on that master plan drawing.

Thank you, Zachary.

So that's what we are considering the final plan.

So again, it just shows lots.

Um couple more things.

We'll keep to our five minutes.

The market study was submitted.

It was submitted in 1997.

It referenced, well, it does reference an anticipated village convenience store and gas station.

It goes on to say uses will be limited to B1 type neighborhood services and are estimated to include uses similar to the following, and then lists 18 possible uses and other B1 permitted uses.

And that condition states in part uses permitted on these lots include professional offices and other permitted uses listed in the B1 district.

So I read that to you in my presentation.

Just revisiting that again.

So it was determined at the time that the final PUD and the final plan were approved by commission, that that market study had been provided.

It did identify uses, but it identified 18 possible uses and other B1 uses.

So it was not controlling with one particular use.

Every day.

So this is not because we're emotionally invested in the project or anything like that.

We're simply doing our jobs.

In conclusion, a reminder, the PUD and the two Western lots designated for B1 neighborhood service uses were already approved by City Commission in 1995.

With the preliminary PUD findings of fact, which were actually signed in the very early part of 1996.

That's not open for your decision at this time.

PUD was already approved.

The B1 uses being allowed in these lots was already approved.

So what is before you is a detailed site plan proposal proposing two buildings which comply with the PUD, the code, and the CCRs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions?

I had a couple of questions and they were answered.

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Yes, thank you.

I just have one question.

The parking issue.

The property owner developer suggested that they would be willing to deal with that.

Is that something that we could deal with as an amendment or would it require?

Starting from square one.

It's absolutely something that could be dealt with with an amendment.

Sorry, let me pull up the before Zachary's decision.

Maybe help a little bit with that.

So what I would suggest the commission do the next when you close the hearing and come back when they come back is to make findings about why the parking as design in the side plan does not comply with the existing documents.

And then you would need to make findings as to and specifically state what it would take and then make a condition of approval.

And that's a very parallel approach to what the staff has presented with the lighting issue.

Commissioner Sweeney is all right.

I'd like to make one quick point on that that might clarify.

So Zachary referred to this much earlier, but the building envelope that's referenced that you were citing earlier.

Building envelope, what that really means is the buildable area that's established by setbacks.

The setbacks are not referenced, they're in.

For example, the residential portion of this PUD the design guidelines explicitly say that there is a 25-foot front setback that has to be applied.

And so while that is significantly more strict than Bozeman zoning code, which is only 15 feet.

And so in that situation, we would apply the stricter of the two codes.

In this situation, the PUD design guidelines tells us to reference Bozeman municipal code.

It doesn't provide a setback saying you have to be 20 feet, you have to be 15 feet.

It says look at Bozeman municipal code, and that's how we reviewed it.

Thank you very much.

Sorry, that's the last question I have.

No problem.

Just want to make sure everyone's got their questions.

I have no questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bode.

I have no questions.

Mr.

Mayor.

Neither do I.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

So now we give the appellant appellants.

Excuse me.

So sorry.

Five minutes.

It's a guideline.

We recommend five.

We ask for five minutes, but if you need more.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor and Mayor.

I'm Kim Wilson.

I'm the other attorney for the appellants.

Mr.

Poole's going to briefly respond to a couple of the points that were made, and then I'd like to have just a minute to do a wrap-up.

Thank you.

Yeah, there were a couple of things that I just would like to show that are in response to the wrong talk.

That are in response to a couple of things that have been said regarding when the uh PUD references the code.

And I think Mr.

Krueger was absolutely correct that if you want something very specific, you can put it in your PUD.

This is from the PUD.

You can see the picture of it on the bottom and the quote on the top is the covenant's detail how the neighborhood services properties within the Sundance Springs subdivision are to be developed and maintained beyond the minimum requirements of the Bozeman zoning code, which exists at the date of the execution of this document.

That would be 1998.

And the 92 code was in effect at the date of the execution of that document.

So beyond the minimum requirements.

So that means the minimum requirements of the code are what's the minimum requirements of the PUD.

And anything that's in the PUD goes beyond those minimum requirements of the code at the date of execution.

So I think that the staff, personally, I think the staff erred in referencing the current code for every time, for instance, in the PUD, when the PUD says the setbacks in the municipal code, the PUD also says very expli very explicitly the code that exists at the date of execution.

I'd like to also uh just talk for a second about the block frontage.

Um whoops, I got too far.

Let's see.

Block frontage standards.

Um staff has said that there's only one frontage on the site.

Uh that's true.

There's only one street frontage on the site.

Um section F of the block frontage standards uh posit something a little different, multiple frontage situations where a property and buildings front onto multiple block frontages, which would be the street frontages, or internal frontage designations.

An internal frontage designation would be, for instance, a parking lot.

And that's listed here.

Um when a building or building is located such that it faces its adjust adjacent to multiple block frontages, which by definition right up above it in section S includes an internal frontage.

The orientation in front of the building must be cited and placed on the property in the following order of precedence.

First, you have to front streets, then you have to front trails, and after that, you can do a special residential or an internal roadway, such as a parking lot.

So this is clearly applicable because it references both frontages, block frontages, streets, and internal frontages, right?

That's what it applies to very explicitly.

It's right there in the code, insertal frontage.

If something fronts both the both the front and the block frontage.

Here you go, here's the diagram.

This building fronts the street to the left and the side uh the parking lot in front.

So therefore that code is applicable, right?

Um all buildings must be placed on the designated uh all buildings, not just the ones that front the street, all buildings must be placed and designated to present the front and primary front and primary facade to the street or block frontage in the highest order of precedence.

So if there's room to on the lot, if there's room to front a trail, then you gotta front a trail.

And it also says the primary frontage.

It doesn't say just an entrance.

That's an arbitrarily low standard because it says the primary frontage.

In this case, we have a doorway here on the long side of the building that faces the parking lot, and this doorway accesses an atrium, the stairwell, the shared bathrooms, and all four business, uh all four business spaces in the building.

That's the primary frontage by any standard.

If you could if you if if there is such a thing as a primary frontage, this is it, because it provides access to everything in the building.

The other is simply a side door.

The code says you have to put the primary frontage to the street.

They haven't done that.

The code also says that this second building needs to front a trail.

It doesn't.

And those that was the basis for disapproving it last time.

The arrangement remember the block frontage standards are all about the arrangement of building and parking.

The arrangement of building and parking has not changed.

This commission denied the application because of violations of block frontage standards, and nothing has changed.

Nothing has changed.

And finally, the last piece.

Uh the city identified the master plan, the the master plan, not the site plan, not the master plan, the thing labeled master plan.

The city identified that.

I've got it in here, I won't show you.

The city has approved improvements that are not shown on that master plan, which is part of the approved final plan.

That's a violation of the code.

It shows one building, there are two.

That's enough.

That's enough to turn this back.

It's not about parking lots, it's not about all the other stuff.

It's not about setbacks.

It's about the fact that there are two buildings that there are two buildings proposed where one is shown.

And you're not allowed to do that unless you amend it.

The code says you if you want to change it, you can amend it, and it requires an amendment, and they haven't done it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Poole.

Dr.

Wool.

Mr.

Swanson.

Could you be brief?

Oh sorry.

Wilson.

Wilson.

I'll be less than, I'll be a minute, if that's or less.

Just two points.

One is the current code doesn't preclude enforcement of the master plan and development guidelines that were part of the adopted uh PUD.

So in other words, those covenants uh are essentially the adopted rules and regulations that have to be followed today.

There's clearly, as we've discussed tonight, all sorts of problems with this master plan document.

Um the problem, though, for the Commission here is that that is the document that the city approved 30 years ago as defining the scope.

And as Mr.

Poole has pointed out, um, that document shows only one building there.

And in response to the developers' engineers comment that, well, the document doesn't show buildings on the residential lots, that's because it wasn't required to do so.

But the city at the time required uh in order to meet that uh commercial criteria, they had to identify what kind of uses they were putting in the commercial.

That's why uh that's different there.

So I would just say to you the bargain was struck by the city uh 30 years ago, uh, and we would hope that uh the city would honor the intent uh uh of the original uh PUD here and deny this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from the Commission for the appellants?

Mr.

Mayor.

No questions.

All right, thank you.

Landowner.

Um Thanks again for everything and having us here.

And well, um, you know, we've heard a lot of feedback today, and we've you know been working with this now for six years.

We've been patient, we've been trying to do everything we can to comply with the codes, to work with the neighbors, to do everything we can.

Um it is at some point, can't please everyone.

And I do have a hard time um imagining that if we were proposing an another gas station in town with a large parking lot adjacent to uh creek, that that would have less noise issues, less it would be safer for the children.

Um and you know, with all these, you know, and and with an entitlement to not have to go through a CUP process for that um to for them to be able to sell vapes and alcohol on premise and all of these things.

So um I'm sure we'd be having similar discussions with that kind of proposal.

So um again, I really appreciate staff's time and that I've got a great client to work with on this that has been willing to be patient and revamp this, and I trust that the city commission will um make the right choices and if that needs you know having some amendments to this, we are all open for that.

Um we're only wanting to do what is best here and what fits in and finally get a little commercial node started out in this area.

So thank you so much and have a good night.

Thank you, Commissioners for taking the time.

I know it's late.

I'm usually in bed by now.

Thank you.

Any questions for the the landowners?

Mr.

Mayor.

I think we're good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I'm going to close the public hearing portion of this.

Um, do you have some instructions for us?

So a couple things.

The first thing I would suggest you guys do is move to continue to a date cert.

And I think the city manager has a date that will work for your agendas.

So before you do that, I just wanted to make a note for everybody that showed up, but the appellant and the the landowner and then all of the public that now that the record is closed.

The commission, unless you decide otherwise, but my suggestion will be that you do not consider any additional evidence or testimony from this moment forward.

And what that means, that the public sends in written comment or seeks to comment at whatever date you extend it to, you will need to reopen the public hearing to do that.

So my suggestion would be that you stick to that the record is closed.

So between now and whatever date you have, just recognize that anything that comes in will not be considered part of the record.

And if we later have like a question arises later, can we ask staff or ask the um other parties?

You would be reopening the public hearing, so refer to the record as already been established.

Okay.

Is that clear?

Okay.

So we would need a motion to continue this to March 24th.

I wouldn't uh I guess Commissioner Magic.

Yeah.

Uh I'm gonna make motion that we um continue consideration of appeal two pipe seven six nine regarding conditional approval of the Sunday and Springs Commercial Light Law two site plan application number two five two three eight to March 24th, a month from now.

Second.

So we have a motion, a second.

Anybody want to speak to that or we we all good?

Good.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Ross.

Commissioner Madger.

I.

Commissioner Sweeney.

Aye.

Commissioner Bowdoin.

Aye.

Deputy Mayor Fisher.

Aye.

Mayor Morrison.

All right.

That is passed.

We'll we'll continue this hearing on the 24th of March.

We will not be taking any more public comment.

We will not be I think so.

So we're not not gonna be talking about this with no ex parte communications.

Weird it's like it's vacuum sealed.

Anything else?

Do we have any uh FYIs?

Um I guess I just have a uh a thought about um timeline for our six-month calendar.

I know that we have a um draft resolution for having non-voting seats um for MSU students on advisory boards.

I'm just getting kind of concerned about our time frame to for making a decision on this.

Students are going to be graduating in March.

Or March in May.

My goodness, wouldn't they be excited about that?

They'll be graduating in May.

ASMSU is having student body government elections in April.

And so we'll be seeing some turnover of um the people that we've been having this conversation with for the past year.

And ideally, if the resolution were to pass, I would hope that this body would give the ASMSU body the um opportunity to have enough time to build out the program before the end of the academic calendar.

Um because ideally they could select some students to get appointed to these boards, and um we would know who those students would be before the fall semester starts so they can start right away at the beginning of the semester.

So all that to say um I'd love to get this on the calendar for March 24th.