Bozeman commission continues Sundance Springs Lot 2 appeal after hours of testimony

The Bozeman City Commission continued its hearing on the appeal of site plan application 25238 for Sundance Springs Commercial Lot 2, scheduling further deliberations for March 24 after more than two hours of presentations, rebuttals and public comment.

The dispute centers on whether documents from the subdivision's 1990s approval — particularly the PUD master plan and the preliminary findings of fact — impose binding limits on how Lot 2 may be developed, or whether city staff correctly reviewed the current site plan under the zoning and code in effect when the application was deemed adequate. Community Development Director Aaron George and Associate Planner Zachary Moon told commissioners staff found the two proposed buildings — each just under 5,000 square feet and 33 feet tall — comply with the 2025 code and the applicable PUD/CCRs except for lighting levels along the residential adjacency, for which staff proposed a condition of approval requiring compliance before final site‑plan sign‑off.

Appellants and their attorneys urged the opposite view. Rob Ferris Olson and Dr. Jeff Poole argued the commission’s prior PUD findings and the PUD’s approved final plan are part of the legal basis for issuing permits; they said the master plan and the conditions attached to the PUD required proposed uses and a market study that constrained development to a smaller, village‑type commercial building. Dr. Poole pointed to code language and the 1996–1998 approvals, saying, “No city administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan,” and urged commissioners to overturn the director’s decision and deny the site plan.

The landowner and project team disputed that interpretation. Landowner Michael Schreiner, civil engineer Marlena Sadai and legal counsel said they had revised the earlier design after the 2024 appeal, reduced building sizes and changed architectural details to comply with the PUD’s design guidance. They emphasized that the final PUD and subsequent staff review consider B1 neighborhood uses and that the submitted market study and covenants allow a range of permitted B1 uses; they said the current site plan responds to the 2024 findings and is consistent with applicable code. The landowner team also said some outstanding technical issues — the lighting standard and parking configuration questions raised by neighbors — could be addressed as conditions or modest plan adjustments.

Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Neighbors who helped negotiate the Sundance Springs PUD in the 1990s told the commission they had long understood the master plan to show a single small commercial building on Lot 2 and said approving two buildings would change the character of the neighborhood and increase traffic and noise near Sacagawea school. Other residents, including some who live in the neighborhood, urged the commission to allow a small commercial node that would reduce trips to downtown and provide local services, saying the applicants had worked to meet the city’s design expectations.

Before closing the public record, the commission received legal advice from the city attorney that, because the hearing record had been closed, any additional written comments submitted before the March 24 continuation would require reopening the public hearing to be admitted. The commission then voted to continue the appeal to March 24; the motion was made on the record by Commissioner Majic and passed unanimously. Commissioners also put a note on the record allowing an earlier start on March 24 to ensure adequate time for deliberation and to avoid late‑night decisionmaking.

What happens next: the commission will reconvene March 24 to deliberate and, if ready, render a final decision. Staff recommended any approval include clear conditions (for example, correcting lighting to meet the residential adjacency standard) and precise findings of fact about how PUD documents and municipal code were applied. Opponents say the commission must require an amendment to the PUD if it intends to allow more or different development than the approved final plan showed.

The continuation preserves the closed record and gives commissioners time to review the code arguments, the 1996–1998 PUD documents and the recent staff analysis before voting.