HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-16 CC Mtg - A4. Public Hearing for Subdivision Review ProcessPage 1 of 9
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment
Public Hearing Dates: Planning Board public hearing is October 4, 2016 at 6 pm.
City Commission public hearing is October 24, 2016 at 6 pm.
Project Description: A revision to multiple sections of Chapter 38, BMC to amend
procedures for review of major and minor subdivisions and required associated
supporting materials.
Project Location: Applicable throughout the City
Recommendation: Approval
Advisory Board Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application
materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the
findings presented in the staff report for application 14642 and move to recommend
approval of the text amendment.
City Commission Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application
materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the
findings presented in the staff report for application 14642 and move to approve text
amendment and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the
Unified Development Code.
Report Date: October 14, 2016
Staff Contact: Chris Saunders, Interim Director
Agenda Item Type: Action - Legislative
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
None.
Project Summary
The City is required to adopt regulations governing the subdivision of land. Those
regulations must conform to the state authorizing statutes in Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA. The
state revises this chapter almost every legislative session. The 2013 Montana Legislature
adopted changes to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA.
The State of Montana adopted changes to the Administrative Rules of Montana for Uniform
Standards for Final Subdivision Plats (ARM 24.183.1107) and Uniform Standards for
Certificates of Survey (ARM 24.183.1104) in response to the 2013 legislative changes. The
City must update its regulations to correspond with those changes.
242
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment Page 2 of 9
The City also includes local standards to coordinate review of development and the
operations of various City functions such as parks and utilities. The staff have evaluated the
existing regulations and determined that changes are desirable to make the subdivision
regulations more clear, effective, efficient, and equitable and to conform with statutory
changes. A summary of the changes in each section follows. The changes are presented in the
order in which the text appears in the presently in-force municipal code. Revisions have
continued as the process has moved forward. The attached draft includes the latest revisions.
This set of amendments is being processed as part of the larger update to the Unified
Development Code. If approved, the changes will take effect with the overall adoption in
early 2017.
Sections 1-3: revise subdivision review process for consistency in text references to
review times, application intake process, reference to required information, and payment of fees and refunds.
Section 4: revise timing for submittal of material for final plat review and require deeds
for transfer of real property as part of the final plat. Update references to changed
administrative rules of Montana.
Section 5: Address subdivisions by lease or rent to reflect state law changes removing subdivision review requirement for some development.
Section 6-7: Clarify application and consequences of court ordered exemptions from
subdivision review.
Section 8: Clarify definition of subdivision exemptions in relation to subdivisions.
Section 9: Delete no longer needed section regarding subdivisions by rent or lease.
Section 10: Clarify standards for certificate of survey and when lots are or are not combined.
Section 11: Remove extra requirement from submittal materials for subdivision
exemptions.
Section 12-16: Change text and signatory authority for subdivision final plat certificates to reflect changed responsibilities of staff.
Section 17-19: Add certificates to address transfer of water and private improvements
from developer to recipient.
Section 20: Revise text regarding easements to reference statutory terms and allow
stormwater to be included with ditch owner consent.
Section 21: Match terminology for consistency with other municipal code sections and correct erroneous cross reference.
Section 22: Revise term to generally accepted term in engineering profession.
Section 23: Expand scope of items subject to maintenance requirements after platting,
correct references, and address maintenance for multiple phase projects.
243
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment Page 3 of 9
Section 24: Revise application material for subdivision pre-applications to get early
identification of important information.
Section 25: Address provision or transfer of water rights with preliminary plats. Remove
duplicative language regarding stormwater. Include wildlands-urban interface information.
Section 26: Revise materials for final plat to include conditions of approval sheet and
contents, supporting documents, and project narrative.
Section 27: Revise definition of common open space.
Section 28: Delete unnecessary definition for date of submission for plats.
Section 30: Revision definition of division of land.
Section 31: Revise definition of subdivision to match changes in state law.
Alternatives
1) Accept the recommendation as written.
2) Suggest alternative wording.
Planning Board Recommendation
The Planning Board conducted their public hearing on October 4, 2016. No public
comment was received. The Planning Board recommended approval on a vote of 4:1. The
video of the meeting is available for viewing on line
at http://www.bozeman.net/Departments/Administration/City-Commission/Streaming-
Video/Archives. Minutes of the meeting are attached.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3
Planning Board Recommendation ...................................................................................... 3
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................ 5
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................. 5
Section 76-1-606, MCA (Effect of Growth Policy on Subdivision Regulations) .............. 5
Section 76-3-102, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)................................................................ 6
244
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment Page 4 of 9
Section 76-3-501, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)................................................................ 7
APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............... 8
APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ...................................................... 8
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................... 8
ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 8
245
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment Page 5 of 9
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Having considered the criteria established for a zone map amendment, the Staff recommends
approval as submitted.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment on October 5, 2016
and recommends approval.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on this text amendment on October 4, 2016 and
forwards a recommendation of approval to the City Commission. The meeting was held at
121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meetingbegan at 6 p.m.
The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the text amendment on October 24, 2016.
The meeting will be held at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meeting will begin at 6
p.m.
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following criteria. As an amendment is a legislative action,
the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy direction. The burden of proof that
the application should be approved lies with the applicant.
In considering the following criteria, application must be evaluated against subdivision
criteria 1-17. A favorable decision on the proposed application must find that the positive
outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria 1-17.
Section 76-1-606, MCA (Effect of Growth Policy on Subdivision Regulations)
1. Subdivision regulations adopted after a growth policy has been adopted must be made
in accordance with the growth policy.
Yes. The following selections of goals and objectives from the growth policy, while not
exhaustive, indicate that the proposed changes are in accord with the goals and objectives of
the growth policy. No conflicts with the growth policy have been identified.
Objective G-1.2: Ensure that adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure are
available and/or financially guaranteed in accordance with facility or strategic plans prior
to, or concurrent with, development.
Objective G-1.3: Require development to mitigate its impacts on our community as
identified and supported by evidence during development review, including economic,
health, environmental, and social impacts.
Goal G-2: Implementation – Ensure that all regulatory and non-regulatory
implementation actions undertaken by the City to achieve the goals and objectives of this
plan are effective, fair, and are reviewed for consistency with this plan on a regular basis.
246
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment Page 6 of 9
The above three items show that identification of impacts and provision of mitigation in a
manner concurrent with development is consistent with the growth policy.
Section 76-3-102, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)
2. Promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the subdivision of
land.
Yes. The amendments bring the City’s regulations into compliance with the state statute. The
revisions address issues of water supply, mitigation of development impact, and transfer of
infrastructure from the developer to the City or other appropriate party. The subdivision
regulations regulate the subdivision process.
3. Prevent the overcrowding of land.
Yes. Land become overcrowded when the intensity of use is greater than the services
provided to the property. The proposed revisions are part of system which matches intensity
of mitigation to proposed intensity of use. Revisions to submittal materials will help ensure
that adequate information is available to determine adequacy of public facilities. Therefore,
the ordinance will help ensure that a given area of land has capacity to support the level of
use.
4. Lessen congestion in the streets and highways.
Neutral. The proposed revisions do not change the requirement for street frontage,
construction of sidewalks, or traffic mitigation. Therefore, no impact is expected to this
criterion.
5. Provide adequate light, air, water supply, sewage disposal, parks and recreation areas,
ingress and egress, and other public improvements.
Yes. The revisions make revisions to the material to be submitted with subdivision
applications. The improved information will facilitate analysis of needed facilities so that
necessary improvements are provided with each development.
6. Require development in harmony with the natural environment.
Yes. The proposed does not alter the basic standards for land development. No changes to
environmental regulations are included with this proposal. The existing regulations address
various natural environment issues including stormwater control and protection of water
courses. The revisions do explicitly include information on the urban wildland urban
interface for the purpose of considering fire mitigation and impacts. Correct placement and
location of development will reduce impact on the natural environment.
7. Protect the rights of property owners.
Yes. The procedural requirements of the City’s subdivision regulations protect rights. The
proposed revisions increase the coordination with holders of water rights and agricultural
247
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment Page 7 of 9
water user facilities. Water rights and conveyance rights for irrigation water are property
interests. This will protect the interest of those persons.
8. Require uniform monumentation of land subdivisions and transferring interests in real
property by reference to a plat or certificate of survey.
Yes. The amendments revise the subdivision process to specifically require the use of deeds
to transfer interests in real property. The use of deeds and associated realty transfer
certificates will improve the chain of title to parcels like parks and common open spaces. The
deeds reference the recorded plats and are part of the recording process. Both public and
private interests are addressed in this manner.
Section 76-3-501, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)
This section requires local governments to adopt regulations that reasonably provide for:
9. Orderly development within the jurisdictional area.
Neutral. The revisions to not modify the basic street grid, park requirements, or other
standards which establish an orderly pattern of development.
10. Coordination of roads within subdivided land with other roads, both existing and
planned.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
11. Dedication of land for roadways and for public utility easements.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
12. Improvement of roads.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
13. Provision of adequate open spaces for travel, light, air and recreation.
Neutral. The standards for this subject are unaltered.
14. Adequate transportation, water and drainage.
Yes. The revised regulations address the contents to be submitted with a development
application. This includes an expanded description of how irrigation water will be provided
to proposed parks, information on anticipated water consumption for the development and
how that demand will be offset.
15. Regulation of sanitary facilities, subject to section 76-3-511, MCA.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
16. Avoidance or minimization of congestion.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
248
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment Page 8 of 9
17. Avoidance of subdivision which would involve unnecessary environmental
degradation and the avoidance of danger or injury to health, safety, or welfare by reason of
nature hazard or the lack of water, drainage, access, transportation, or other public services or
would necessitate an excessive expenditure of public funds for the supply of such services.
Yes. The proposed amendments require information on hazards, such as the wildland urban
interface, which are a known hazard. This enables analysis and identification of necessary
mitigation measures to reduce hazards to future land owners.
APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
PROVISIONS
Zoning Designation and Land Uses:
The proposed amendments address all subdivisions. These can occur in any zoning district
and for any type of land use.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation:
The proposal applies to subdivisions anywhere in town and with all types of future land uses.
For discussion on being in accord with the growth policy see criterion 1.
APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Noticing for amendments to the municipal code is provided by publication of a legal ad in the
Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Publication for this amendment was done on September 18th and 25,
2016. One public comment was received as of the writing of this report.
FISCAL EFFECTS
No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by
this amendment. The City will incur periodic costs to administer the process.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Draft Amendment Text
Planning Board minutes and resolution
249
14642, Staff Report for the Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment Page 9 of 9
Public comment
250
Ord 15-1881
Page 1 of 54
AMENDMENT 2F
AMENDING MULTIPLE ARTICLES, INCLUDING 38.02, 38.03, 38.04, 38.05, 38.06,
38.23, 38.24, 38.39, 38.41, AND 38.42, OF CHAPTER 38, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE, BMC, REGARDING THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISIONS TO UPDATE
PROVISIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHANGES IN STATE LAW,
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF MONTANA, AND BEST PRACTICES.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and
Montana law to regulate the subdivision of land to promote public health, safety and welfare and
otherwise execute the purposes of Section 76-3-102, MCA; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the City Charter and Montana law to adopt
subdivision regulations and provide for the enforcement and administration of subdivision
regulations and otherwise reasonably provide for the intentions of Section 76-3-501, MCA; and
WHEREAS, the 2013 Montana Legislature adopted changes to the Montana Subdivision
and Platting Act, Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA; and
WHEREAS, the State of Montana adopted changes to the Administrative Rules of
Montana for Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats (ARM 24.183.1107) and Uniform
Standards for Certificates of Survey (ARM 24.183.1104) in response to the 2013 legislative
changes; and
WHEREAS, changes in administrative procedures and changing best practices require
clarification of certain code provisions; and
WHEREAS, modifying standards for processing subdivision applications will increase
efficiency while better addressing the purposes of Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA and meeting the
local needs of Bozeman;
251
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 2 of 54
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
Section 1
That Section 38.02.010.B of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
B. Unless the plat is located in an area where the state or the city does not have jurisdiction, the
county clerk and recorder may not record any instrument that purports to transfer title to or
possession of a parcel or tract of land that is required to be surveyed by the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 et seq.) unless the required certificate of
survey or subdivision plat has been filed with the county clerk and recorder and the
instrument of transfer describes the parcel or tract by reference to the filed certificate or plat.
This provision does not apply if the parcel or tract to be transferred was created before July
1, 1973, and the instrument of transfer for the parcel or tract includes a reference to a
previously recorded instrument of transfer or is accompanied by documents that, if recorded,
would otherwise satisfy the requirements of this subsection B. The reference or document
must demonstrate that the parcel or tract existed before July 1, 1973. However, these
references or documents do not constitute a legal description of the property and may not be
substituted for a legal description of the property.
Section 2
That Section 38.03.020.A.3 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
3. Preapplication plan review. For subdivision preapplication review, the developer shall
submit a complete application for preapplication plan review, the appropriate review
fee, and copies of all required preapplication information as set forth in section
38.41.030.
a. Planning department review. The planning department shall review the
preapplication plan and advise the developer as to whether the plans and data meet
the goals and objectives of applicable plans and this chapter.
252
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 3 of 54
(1) Agency review. The planning department will distribute the preapplication
information to appropriate county and city departments and state and federal
agencies for review and written comment. All written comments received from
various agencies, along with the planning department's comments regarding
whether the plans and data meet the standards, goals and objectives of
applicable plans, ordinances, and this chapter, and for informational purposes
identification of local regulations, state laws, and growth policy provisions that
may apply to the subdivision process, will be forwarded to the applicant to aid
in the preparation of the subdivision application. The planning department
shall provide a list of the public utilities, agencies of government, and other
parties who may be contacted and their timeframes for comment on the
subdivision application. The comments collected by the planning department
shall be provided in person or by letter to the subdivider or their agent within
30 calendar working days of a complete application being received by the city.
The 30 calendar working day review period shall be considered met if the letter
is dated, signed and placed in the outgoing mail within the 30 calendar
working day review period.
(2) Time for review. The planning department shall review the preapplication plan
and within 30 working days advise the developer as to whether the plans and
data meet the goals and objectives of applicable plans and this chapter. Every
effort shall be made by the planning department to obtain department and
agency comment within this time period.
b. Optional planning board review. If the developer so wishes, the developer may
request in writing that the planning board review preapplication plans. The letter of
request and additional copies of the preapplication materials are required for this
optional review.
(1) The request must be received at least 30 working days prior to the planning
board meeting at which it is to be considered. The application will be
submitted to the planning board at their next available meeting. A copy of the
253
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 4 of 54
approved minutes of the planning board meeting will be forwarded to the
developer.
c. Time for follow-up submittal. A complete subdivision preliminary plat application
shall be submitted to the planning department within one calendar year of the date
the planning office dates, signs and places the letter in the outgoing mail or sends
the letter via electronic mail.
d. The property owner will not receive formal written notification on the acceptability
or adequacy of a subdivision preapplication plan submittal.
Section 3
That Section 38.03.040 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
A. After the requirement for a preapplication review has been satisfied, the developer may
submit a subdivision application within one year of the date of the City’s written comments
as required by 38.03.020.A.3.a(2). Subdivision applications shall be submitted, along with
the appropriate review fee and all required subdivision application information as set forth in
article 41 of this chapter to the planning department and must conform to the requirements of
this chapter. The preliminary plat shall be prepared by a surveyor licensed to practice in the
state.
1. Acceptability and adequacy of application. The time limits in subsections 1.a and b of this
section apply to each successive submittal of the application until a determination is
made that the application contains the required materials and is adequate for review and
the subdivider or their agent is notified.
a. The planning department shall review a subdivision application within five working
days of receipt of the application and applicable fee submitted in accordance with any
deadlines established for submittal to determine if the application is acceptable. A
subdivision application is considered to be received on the date of delivery to the
reviewing agency if it is accompanied by the applicable review fee. An application is
acceptable only if it contains all of the information required by this chapter. If the
application is unacceptable, the application, the review fee and a written explanation
of why the application is unacceptable will be returned to the subdivider, who is the
254
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 5 of 54
property owner. If the application is acceptable the subdivider shall be so notified.
The property owner may designate in writing another party to receive notifications
regarding acceptability. The five working day review period shall be considered met
if the letter is dated, signed and placed in the outgoing mail within the five working
day review period. If the applicant chooses to withdraw the application, the applicant
may request a refund if procedures for such have been created in the administrative
manual adopted by the Director of Community Development. Subsequent resubmittal
shall require payment of a review fee as if it were a new application.
b. After the application is deemed acceptable it shall be reviewed for adequacy. The
review for adequacy shall be conducted by the appropriate agency with expertise in
the subject matter. The adequacy review period shall begin on the next working day
after the date that the planning department determines the application is acceptable
and sends the required notice to the subdivider; and shall be completed within not
more than 15 working days. The 15 working day review period shall be considered
met if the letter is dated, signed and placed in the outgoing mail within the 15
working day review period. If the application is inadequate, a written explanation of
why the application is inadequate will be returned to the subdivider, who is the
property owner. If the application is adequate the subdivider shall be so notified. The
property owner may designate in writing another party to receive notifications
regarding adequacy.
(1) In the event the missing information is not received by the city within 15 working
days of notification to the subdivider of inadequacy, all application materials
except the City’s file record copy and one-half of the review fee shall be returned
to the subdivider or their representative. Subsequent resubmittal shall require
payment of a review fee as if it were a new application.
(2) A determination that an application is adequate does not restrict the city from
requesting additional information during the subdivision review process. A
determination of adequacy establishes the applicable review criteria as specified
in section 38.34.080.A.
c. The DRC may grant reasonable waivers from submittal of application materials
required by these regulations where it is found that these regulations allow a waiver to
255
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 6 of 54
be requested and granted. If in the opinion of the final approval authority the waived
materials are necessary for proper review of the development, the materials shall be
provided before review is completed.
d. In order to be granted a waiver the applicant shall include with the submission of the
subdivision application a written statement describing the requested waiver and the
reasons upon which the request is based. The final approval body shall then consider
each waiver at the time the subdivision application is reviewed. All waivers must be
initially identified with the preapplication stage of review.
2. Review by affected agencies. After an application is deemed acceptable, the planning
department may submit copies of the preliminary plat and supplementary information to
relevant public utilities and public agencies for review and comment, and for major
subdivisions to the planning board for its advice pertaining to the approval or denial of the
subdivision application. Review by public agencies or utilities shall not delay the city
commission's consideration of the subdivision application beyond the statutorily specified
review period. If the planning department shall request review by a public utility, agency of
government, and other parties regarding the subdivision application that was not identified
during the pre-application review the planning department shall notify the subdivider.
3. Planning board review. At a regularly noticed public hearing, the planning board shall review
all major subdivision applications, together with required supplementary plans and
information, and determine whether the plat is in compliance with the city's growth policy.
The planning board shall hold a public hearing on all major subdivisions. Pursuant to MCA
76-1-107, the planning board has delegated its review of all minor subdivisions from a tract
of record to the planning director.
a. Public testimony. All written public comment received at or prior to a public
hearing shall be incorporated into the written record of the review. Minutes shall be
taken of verbal comment received during the public hearing or public meeting
before the planning board and shall be incorporated into the written record of the
review. Copies of the minutes and written comments shall be included in any
recommendation made to the city commission by the planning board.
b. Planning board recommendation. Within ten working days of their review, the
planning board shall submit in writing to the city commission, a resolution
256
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 7 of 54
forwarding its advice regarding compliance with the city's growth policy, and a
recommendation for approval, conditional approval or denial of the subdivision
application.
4. Planning director review. The planning director shall review all minor subdivision
applications, together with required supplementary plans and information, and
determine whether the plat is in compliance with the city's growth policy. The planning
director shall make a written recommendation including a summary of the agency
review and analysis of the review criteria established in this chapter and a
recommendation for approval, conditional approval or denial of the subdivision
application.
a. Public testimony. All written public comment received during the planning
director's review shall be incorporated into the written record of the review. Copies
of written comments shall be included in any recommendation made to the city
commission by the planning director.
5. City commission review. The city commission shall review and take action on all
proposed subdivisions.
a. The following requirements for a public hearing or a public meeting, and for
statutory review periods, shall be met:
(1) First minor subdivision created from a tract of record. The city commission
shall consider the subdivision application and the planning director's
recommendation during a regular public meeting of the commission. The city
commission, when legal and physical access is provided to all lots shall
approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision application of a first
minor subdivision within 35 working days of the determination that the
application is adequate, unless there is a written extension from the developer
for a period not to exceed one year from the date the application was
determined to be adequate. A minor subdivision must be reviewed as a second
or subsequent minor subdivision if the tract has been previously subdivided or
created by a subdivision; or the tract has descended from a tract of record
257
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 8 of 54
which has previously been divided by exemption or other means into 6 or more
tracts of record since July 1, 1973.
(a) Variance requests for minor subdivisions. If the developer of a minor
subdivision is requesting a variance from any requirement of this chapter,
the procedures of section 38.35.070 must be followed except that a public
hearing shall not be held.
(2) Subdivisions eligible for summary review. The city commission shall consider
the application and the planning director's recommendation during a regular
public meeting of the commission. The city commission shall approve,
conditionally approve or deny a proposed subdivision that is eligible for
summary review within 35 calendar working days of determination that the
application is adequate, unless there is a written extension from the developer.
The written extension may not exceed one year. Minor subdivisions are
eligible for summary review if the plat has been approved by the state
department of environmental quality whenever approval is required by MCA
76-4-101 et seq.
(3) Second or subsequent minor subdivision created from a tract of record. For the
second or subsequent minor subdivision created from a tract of record, the city
commission shall hold a public hearing on the subdivision application. The city
commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision
application of a second or subsequent minor subdivision within 60 working
days of the determination that the application is adequate for review, unless
there is a written extension from the developer, not to exceed one year from the
date the application was determined to be adequate.
(4) Major subdivisions. For a major subdivision, the city commission shall hold a
public hearing on the subdivision application. The city commission shall
approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision application within 60
working days of the determination that the application is adequate for review if
the subdivision has less than 50 lots, and within 80 working days of the
determination that the application is adequate for review if the subdivision has
258
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 9 of 54
50 or more lots, unless there is a written extension from the developer, not to
exceed one year from the date the application was determined to be adequate.
(5) Public testimony. All written public comment received at a public meeting or
public hearing prior to a decision to approval, approve with conditions, or deny
a subdivision application shall be incorporated into the written record of the
review. Minutes shall be taken of verbal comments received during the public
hearing before the city commission and shall be incorporated into the written
record of the review maintained by the city.
(6) New and credible information. The city commission shall determine whether
public comments or documents presented to the city commission at a public
hearing regarding a subdivision application held pursuant to section
38.03.040.A.445 constitute:
(a) Information or analysis of information that was presented at a public
hearing held pursuant to section 38.03.040.A.445 that the public has had a
reasonable opportunity to examine and on which the public has had a
reasonable opportunity to comment; or
(b) New information regarding a subdivision application that has never been
submitted as evidence or considered by either the city commission,
planning board or by city staff at a hearing during which the subdivision
application was considered.
(c) If the city commission determines that the public comments or documents
constitute new information not previously considered at a public hearing,
the city commission may:
(i) Approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed subdivision
without basing its decision on the new information if the governing
body determines that the new information is either irrelevant or not
credible; or
(ii) Schedule or direct its agent or agency to schedule a subsequent public
hearing before the city commission for consideration of only the new
information that may have an impact on the findings and conclusions
259
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 10 of 54
that the governing body will rely upon in making its decision on the
proposed subdivision.
(iii) In deciding whether the information is both new and credible the city
commission shall consider:
(A) Whether the topic of the information has previously been
examined or available for examination at a public hearing on the
subdivision application;
(B) Whether the information is verifiable, and if applicable
developed by a person with professional competency in the
subject matter;
(C) Whether the information is relevant to a topic within the
jurisdiction of the city.
(d) If a subsequent public hearing is held to consider new and credible
information, the 60 working day review period required in section
38.03.040.A.4.5 is suspended and the new hearing must be noticed and
held within 45 working days of the governing body's determination to
schedule a new hearing. After the new hearing, the otherwise applicable
time limit for review resumes at the governing body's next scheduled
public meeting for which proper notice for the public hearing on the
subdivision application can be provided. The governing body may not
consider any information regarding the subdivision application that is
presented after the hearing when making its decision to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the proposed subdivision.
(7) When the subdivision does not qualify, pursuant to MCA 76-4-125(2), for the
certification established in section 38.03.050 the city shall at any public
hearing collect public comment given regarding the information required by
section 38.41.050.A.9. regarding sanitation. The city shall make any comments
submitted or a summary of the comments submitted available to the subdivider
within 30 working days after conditional approval or approval of the
subdivision application.
Commented [COB1]: This is being struck out but is hard to tell due to the placement of the strikethrough.
260
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 11 of 54
(a) The subdivider shall, as part of the subdivider's application for sanitation
approval, forward the comments or the summary provided by the
governing body to the:
(i) Reviewing authority provided for in MCA tit. 76, ch. 4, for
subdivisions that will create one or more parcels containing less than
20 acres; and
(ii) Local health department or board of health for proposed subdivisions
that will create one or more parcels containing 20 acres or more and
less than 160 acres.
(b) Parcel size.
(i) For a proposed subdivision that will create one or more parcels
containing less than 20 acres, the governing body may require
approval by the department of environmental quality as a condition of
approval of the final plat.
(ii) For a proposed subdivision that will create one or more parcels
containing 20 acres or more, the governing body may condition
approval of the final plat upon the subdivider demonstrating, pursuant
to MCA 76-3-604, that there is an adequate water source and at least
one area for a septic system and a replacement drainfield for each lot.
b. Criteria for city commission action. The basis for the city commission's decision to
approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision shall be whether the
subdivision application, public hearing if required, planning board advice and
recommendation and additional information demonstrates that development of the
subdivision complies with this chapter, the city's growth policy, the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act and other adopted state and local ordinances,
including, but not limited to, applicable zoning requirements. The city commission
may not deny approval of a subdivision based solely on the subdivision's impacts
on educational services; or based solely on parcels within the subdivision having
been designated as wildland-urban interface parcels by the most recent city-adopted
hazard mitigation plan and its supporting documentation. When deciding to
Commented [COB2]: This is adopted on a five year cycle to comply with FEMA requirements. Most recently done by Commission Resolution 4392. Will be getting updated soon and we could augment discussion of WUI. Hyperlink:
https://www.readygallatin.com/?wpfb_dl=39 Page 4-121 begins the fire discussion. The described Community Wildfire Protection Plan has been completed. It was not prepared by the City and is not updated on a regular cycle..
261
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 12 of 54
approve, conditionally approve or deny a subdivision application, the city
commission shall:
(1) Review the preliminary plat, together with required supplementary plans and
information, to determine if it meets the requirements of this chapter, the
development standards and policies of the city's growth policy, the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act, and other adopted state laws and local
ordinances, including but not limited to applicable zoning requirements.
(2) Consider written comments from appropriate public agencies, utilities or other
members of the public.
(3) Consider the following:
(a) Relevant evidence relating to the public health, safety and welfare;
(b) Other regulations, code provisions or policies in effect in the area of the
proposed subdivision;
(c) The recommendation of the advisory bodies; and
(d) Any relevant public testimony.
(4) When the subdivision does not quality qualify, pursuant to MCA 76-4-125(2),
for the certification established in section 38.03.050 the city commission may
conditionally approve or deny a proposed subdivision as a result of the water
and sanitation information provided pursuant to section 38.41.050.A.9. or
public comment received pursuant to MCA 76-3-604 on the information
provided pursuant to section 38.41.050. A conditional approval or denial shall
be based on existing subdivision, zoning, or other regulations that the city
commission has the authority to enforce.
(5) The city may not approve a proposed subdivision if any of the features and
improvements of the subdivision encroach onto adjoining private property in a
manner that is not otherwise provided for under Title 76, chapters 3 or 4,
MCA, or if the well isolation zone of any proposed well to be drilled for the
proposed subdivision encroaches onto adjoining private property unless the
owner of the private property authorizes the encroachment. For the purposes
of this section, "well isolation zone" has the meaning provided in 76-4-102,
MCA.
262
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 13 of 54
c. City commission action. If the city commission denies or conditionally approves
the subdivision application, it shall forward one copy of the plat to the developer
accompanied by a letter over the appropriate signature stating the reason for
disapproval or enumerating the conditions that must be met to ensure approval of
the final plat. This written statement must include:
(1) The reason for the denial or condition imposition;
(2) The evidence that justifies the denial or condition imposition; and
(3) Information regarding the appeal process for the denial or condition
imposition.
d. Mitigation. The city commission may require the developer to design the
subdivision to reasonably minimize potentially significant adverse impacts
identified through the review required by this chapter. The city commission shall
issue written findings to justify the reasonable mitigation required by this chapter.
The city commission may not unreasonably restrict a landowner's ability to develop
land, but it is recognized that in some instances the unmitigated impacts of a
proposed development may be unacceptable and will preclude approval of the plat.
When requiring mitigation under this subsection, the city commission shall consult
with the developer and shall give due weight and consideration to the expressed
preference of the developer.
e. Findings of fact. Within 30 working days of the final action to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions a subdivision, the city commission shall issue written
findings of fact that discuss and weigh the following criteria, as applicable
(pursuant to MCA 76-3-608):
(1) Criteria.
(a) Compliance with the survey requirements of the Montana Subdivision and
Platting Act;
(b) Compliance with this chapter and the review process of these regulations;
(c) The provision of easements to and within the subdivision for the location
and installation of any necessary utilities;
263
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 14 of 54
(d) The provision of legal and physical access to each parcel within the
subdivision and the notation of that access on the applicable plat and any
instrument transferring the parcel; and
(e) For major subdivisions, the findings of fact shall also address the effect on
agriculture, agricultural water user facilities, local services, the natural
environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and public health and safety.
(2) Required components. The written findings of fact shall contain at a minimum:
(a) Information regarding the appeal process for the denial or imposition of
conditions;
(b) Identifies tThe regulations and statutes used in reaching the decision to
deny or impose conditions and explains how they apply to the decision;
(c) Provides tThe facts and conclusions that the governing body relied upon in
making its decision to deny or impose conditions. The documents,
testimony, or other materials that form the basis of the decision and
support the conclusions of the governing body may be incorporated into
the written findings by reference.
(3) Federal or State Governmental Entity Input. If a federal or state governmental
entity submits a written or oral comment or an opinion regarding wildlife,
wildlife habitat, or the natural environment relating to a subdivision
application for the purpose of assisting a governing body's review, the
comment or opinion may be included in the governing body's written
statement under this section only if the comment or opinion provides scientific
information or a published study that supports the comment or opinion. A
governmental entity that is or has been involved in an effort to acquire or
assist others in acquiring an interest in the real property identified in the
subdivision application shall disclose that the entity has been involved in that
effort prior to submitting a comment, an opinion, or information as provided
in this subsection.
f. Initial subdivision application approval period. Upon approving or conditionally
approving a subdivision application, the city commission shall provide the
264
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 15 of 54
developer with a dated and signed findings of fact and order. This initial approval
shall be in force for not more than:
(1) one calendar year for minor subdivisions,
(2) two calendar years for single-phased major subdivisions and
(3) three calendar years for multi-phased major subdivisions
after the date of the findings of fact and order. At the end of this period, the city
may, at the written request of the developer, extend its approval for a mutually
agreed-upon period of time.
g. Extensions of preliminary plat approval period. Any mutually agreed upon
extension must be in writing and dated and signed by the subdivider or their
authorized agent and by the city commission or their authorized agent. More than
one extension may be requested for a particular subdivision. Each request shall be
considered on its individual merits. An extension of the subdivision approval under
this chapter does not extend other city or non-city agency approvals, e.g. for design
of infrastructure extensions, necessary to complete the project. Review authority for
extensions is established in article 34. When evaluating an extension request, the
city shall consider:
(1) Changes to the development regulations since the original approval and
whether the subdivision as originally approved is essentially compliant with
the new regulations;
(2) Progress to date in completing the subdivision as a whole and any phases,
including maintenance of the remainder of the site in good condition;
(3) Phasing of the subdivision and the ability for existing development to operate
without the delayed development;
(4) Dependence by other development on any public infrastructure or private
improvements to be installed by the subdivision;
(5) Demonstrated ability of the subdivider to complete the subdivision;
(6) Whether mitigation for impacts of the subdivision identified during the
preliminary plat review and findings of fact and order remain relevant,
adequate, and applicable to the present circumstances of the subdivision and
community.
265
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 16 of 54
h. Changes to conditions after approval. Upon written request of the developer, the
city commission may amend conditions of subdivision application approval where
it can be found that errors or changes beyond the control of the developer have
rendered a condition unnecessary, impossible or illegal. Changes to conditions that
are not unnecessary, impossible or illegal shall be subject to the provisions of
section 38.01.070.
(1) The written request shall be submitted to the planning department.
(2) The written consent of all purchasers of land (via contract for deed, etc.) shall
be included with the written request to amend conditions.
(3) If it is an application for a major subdivision, the city commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the request. If it is an application for a minor
subdivision, the city commission shall consider the request at a regularly
scheduled meeting.
(a) If a public hearing is held, public notice of the hearing shall be given in
accordance with this chapter.
(4) The city commission may approve the requested change if it meets the criteria
set forth in this chapter.
(5) The city commission shall issue written findings of fact as required in this
chapter.
Section 4
That Section 38.03.060 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
A. After the conditions of preliminary approval and the requirements for the installation of
improvements have been satisfied, the developer shall cause to be prepared a final plat. The
final plat shall conform to the uniform standards for final subdivision plats as set forth in
24.183.1107 ARM as may be amended and to the standards required by the Gallatin County
Clerk and Recorder. The applicant is responsible to verify that they are complying with the
most recently adopted Clerk and Recorder standards. Plans and data shall be prepared under
the supervision of a registered surveyor, licensed in the state, as their licensing laws allow.
266
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 17 of 54
1. Final plat submittal. The final plat and all supplementary documents shall be submitted
to the planning department at least 30 working days prior to the expiration of
subdivision application approval or any extension thereto. The submittal shall include a
final plat application form, the appropriate review fee, all information required by
38.41.070 and a written explanation of how each of the conditions of subdivision
application approval has been satisfied.
a. The final park plan, if one is associated with the plat, shall be reviewed and
approved, after a recommendation from the city recreation and parks advisory
board, prior to or simultaneously with the final plat. The installation of any park
improvements to meet minimum development standards or conditions of approval
shall comply with article 39 of this chapter.
2. County treasurer certification. A final plat will not be accepted as complete until the
county treasurer has certified that no real property taxes and special assessments
assessed and levied on the land to be subdivided are delinquent.
3. Review of abstract, deeds, and covenants. With the final plat, the developer shall submit
to the planning department a certificate of a licensed title abstractor showing the names
of the owners of record of the land to be subdivided and the names of lienholders or
claimants of record against the land, and the written consent to the subdivision by the
owners of the land, if other than the developer, and any lienholders or claimants of
record against the land. The certificate of licensed title abstractor shall be dated no
earlier than 30 calendar days prior to submittal. Covenants shall also be submitted to the
planning department with the final plat application. The planning department staff will
obtain the city attorney's approval of the covenants and the city attorney's certificate.
a. With the final plat, the developer shall submit to the planning department a
certificate of a licensed title abstractor showing the names of the owners of record
of the land to be subdivided and of any off-site land used to satisfy park land
dedication requirements, and the names of lienholders or claimants of record
against the land, and the written consent to the subdivision by the owners of the
land, if other than the developer, and any lienholders or claimants of record against
the land. The certificate of licensed title abstractor shall be dated no earlier than 30
267
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 18 of 54
calendar days prior to submittal. If necessary, the certificate shall be updated so that
the certificate is dated no earlier than 90 days prior to the City Commission’s action
on the final plat.
b. Covenants shall be submitted to the planning department with the final plat
application. At least 30 working days prior to submission of the final plat
application to the planning department, the developer shall submit a copy of the
covenants to the City Attorney’s office.
c. If an improvements agreement will be required per 38.39.060 then the proposed
associated financial security shall be provided at least 30 working days prior to
submission of the final plat application for review by the City Attorney.
d. Transfer of ownership of public land, off-site land, private land, personal property,
improvements and water rights; documents required.
(1) For the transfer of real property in satisfaction of required or offered
dedications to the City, and required or offered donations or grants to the
Property Owners Association (POA), the subdivider or owner of the property
shall submit with the application for final plat a warranty deed or other
instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring fee simple ownership to
the city or the POA.
(2) For the transfer of personal property installed upon dedicated parkland or City
owned open space, or POA owned parkland or open space, the subdivider shall
provide the City an instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring all
its rights, title and interest in such improvements including all applicable
warranties to such improvements to the city or the POA.
(3) The subdivider or owner of the property must record the deed or instrument
transferring ownership or interests at the time of recording of the final plat with
the original of such deed or instrument returned to the city or POA as
applicable.
(4) For the transfer of ownership interest in water, the subdivider or owner of the
property shall submit with the application for final plat a deed or other
instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring ownership to the City
268
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 19 of 54
or POA, along with all required state Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation documentation, certification and authorization.
d. Certificates.
(1) Public lands/improvements shall be described in the certificate of
dedication/consent, listed in the certificate of completion, be completed or
subject to an improvements agreement.
(2) Private lands/improvements shall be described and addressed in the certificate
of donation/grant and completion of private improvements, be completed or
subject to an improvements agreement.
4. Review by the planning department. The planning department will then review the final
plat application to ascertain that all conditions and requirements for final approval have
been met. If all conditions and requirements for final approval have been met, the
planning department shall forward a report to the city commission for their action.
5. Final plat approval. The city commission shall examine every final plat, and within 45
working days of the date of receipt submission of a complete final plat application to the
planning Community Development department, shall approve it if it conforms to the
conditions of preliminary approval and the terms of this chapter. “Date of receipt” means
the date of delivery to the reviewing agency if accompanied by the applicable review fee.
The city commission shall examine every final plat at a regular meeting.
a. If the final plat is approved, the director of public service shall so certify the approval
in a printed certificate on the plat.
b. If the final plat is denied, the city commission shall cause a letter to be written to the
developer stating the reasons therefore.
A final subdivision plat may not be approved by the city unless all certificates, with the
exception of the director of public works and the county clerk and recorder, have been
complied with, signed and notarized and all subdivision regulations and conditions of
preliminary plat approval have been met. A final subdivision plat may not be filed with the
county clerk and recorder unless all certificates, with the exception of the county clerk and
recorder, have been complied with, signed and notarized. This shall include the certification
by the county treasurer that no real property taxes and special assessments assessed and
269
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 20 of 54
levied on the land to be subdivided are delinquent. A final subdivision plat may not be
approved by the city commission or filed by the county clerk and recorder unless it complies
with the uniform standards for final subdivision plats as established 24.183.1107, ARM as
may be amended and as required by the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder.
a. If the final plat is approved, the director of public service shall so certify the approval
in a printed certificate on the plat.
b. If the final plat is denied, the city commission shall cause a letter to be written to the
developer stating the reasons therefore.
6. Filing. The developer shall file the approved, signed final plat and all other required
certificates and documents with the county clerk and recorder within 60 days of the date
of final approval.
Section 5
That Section 38.04.010 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising
38.04.010.A and adding a new subparagraph 38.04.010.D as follows:
A. Land subdivisions created by rent or lease, rather than sale, refer to areas that provide
multiple spaces for manufactured homes, mobile homes or recreational camping vehicles
regardless of the size of the area or whether the spaces will be made available for rent by the
general public for a fee. The land shall be owned as one parcel under single ownership,
which can include a number of persons owning the property in common. Subsequent action
to sell interests in less than the entirety of the development may necessitate review under
Parts 5 and 6 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act prior to any sale. Subdivisions
complying with section 38.05.010.A.8 and 9 are not subject to this article. Land subdivisions
created by rent or lease are not subject to this article or the Montana Subdivision and Platting
Act if:
1. They are developed on property which has been subdivided in compliance with Parts 5
and 6 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act or which have a boundary
documented by a certificate of survey recorded after July 1, 1973; and
270
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 21 of 54
2. They are reviewed as a site plan, conditional use permit, or planned unit development as
described and authorized under this chapter; and
3. They comply with the adopted zoning regulations and other land development standards
adopted by the city.
. . .
D. Buildings for lease or rent. A building or buildings created for lease or rent on a single lot is
not a subdivision of land but must be in conformance with applicable zoning regulations. For
this section "Building" means a structure or a unit of a structure with a roof supported by
columns or walls for the permanent or temporary housing or enclosure of persons or property
or for the operation of a business. Except as provided in MCA 76-3-103(15) the term
includes a recreational camping vehicle, mobile home, or cell tower. The term does not
include a condominium or townhome.
State law reference— Similar provisions, MCA 76-8-101.
Section 6
That Section 38.05.010.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows with
the remainder of the section to remain unaltered:
A. Unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this chapter or the
Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (the "Act"), the requirements of this chapter pertaining to
subdivisions and the Act may not apply when:
1. A division of land is created by order of any court of record in this state or by operation of law
or that, in the absence of agreement between the parties to the sale, could be created by an
order of any court in the state pursuant to the law of eminent domain (MCA 76-3-201(1)(a));
a. Before a court of record orders a division of land, the court shall notify the governing body
of the pending division and allow the governing body to present written comment on the
division;
b. Lots created as described in this section that do not comply with the standards of Chapter
38, BMC are not “nonconforming” lots subject to 38.32.030 and are not individual
buildable lots.
271
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 22 of 54
Section 7
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.05.010.A to strike
the entire text of subparagraphs 8 and 9 and renumber the subparagraphs that follow:
8. The land upon which an improvement is situated has been subdivided in compliance with
this chapter and the Act, the sale, rent, lease or other conveyance of one or more parts of
a building, structure or other improvement situated on one or more parcels of land is not a
division of land (MCA 76-3-202);
9. The sale, rent, lease or other conveyance of one or more parts of one or more buildings,
structures or other improvements, whether existing or proposed, is not a division of land
when a transferable parcel of land with an individual legal description is not created. The
sale, rent, lease or other conveyance of one or more parts of buildings, structures or other
improvements, whether existing or proposed, is subject to zoning standards and review
procedures (MCA 76-3-204);
810. A division of land created by lease or rental of contiguous airport-related land
owned by a city, county, the state, or a municipal or regional airport authority provided
that the lease or rental is for onsite weather or air navigation facilities, the manufacture,
maintenance, and storage of aircraft, or air carrier-related activities (MCA 76-3-205(1));
911. A division of state-owned land unless the division creates a second or subsequent
parcel from a single tract for sale, rent or lease for residential purposes after July 1, 1974
(MCA 76-3-205(2)); and
1012. Deeds, contracts, leases or other conveyances that were executed prior to July 1,
1974 (MCA 76-3-206).
. . .
State law reference— Similar provisions, MCA 76-3-201, 76-3-202, 76-3-204, 76-3-205, 76-3-
206.
Section 8
That Section 38.05.020.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows with
the remainder of the section to remain unaltered:
272
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 23 of 54
A. Unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this chapter or the
Act, the following divisions or aggregations of land tracts of record of any size, regardless of
the resulting size of any lot created by the division or aggregation, are not subdivisions
under this chapter and the Act, but are subject to the surveying requirements of MCA 76-3-
401 for lands other than subdivisions and are subject to applicable zoning regulations
adopted under title 76, chapter 2, Montana Code Annotated (MCA 76-2-101 et seq.). A
division of land may not be made under this section unless the county treasurer has certified
that no real property taxes and special assessments assessed and levied on the land to be
divided are delinquent. The county clerk and recorder shall notify the planning department
of any land division described in this section or MCA 76-3-207(1).
Section 9
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by deleting Section 38.05.030 in its
entirety and reserving the section:
Sec. 38.05.030. Reserved.Exemptions from surveying and filing requirements but subject to
review.
Subdivisions created by rent or lease are exempt from the surveying and filing requirements
of article 3 of this chapter and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, but must be submitted
for review and approved by the city before portions thereof may be rented or leased unless
exempted by article 4 of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1645, § 18.10.030, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1769, exh. C(18.10.030), 12-28-2009;
Ord. No. 1808, § 5, 7-11-2011)
State law reference— Similar provisions, MCA 76-3-208.
Section 10
That Section 38.05.060.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
273
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 24 of 54
A. All certificates of survey or amended subdivision plats claiming an exemption inside city
limits and subject to survey requirements shall be submitted to the planning department. The
procedures and requirements of this chapter are limited to the exemptions discussed in
section 38.05.070.
1. Submittal. A claimant seeking an exemption under the Act and this chapter shall submit
to the planning department a claim on the appropriate application form, including a
signed certificate of exemption, together with evidence to support the claim and any
other information required by this chapter.
2. Review. The planning department will review the claimed exemption to verify that it is
the proper use of the claimed exemption.
a. During this review, planning department staff will visit the proposed site,
understand thoroughly the nature of all activity occurring on the site, and shall
identify any existing or potential zoning conflicts. The planning department shall
prepare a memo evaluating the claimed exemption against applicable review
criteria, which shall also be made available to the claimant or the claimant's
representative.
b. In assessing the claimant's purpose for the exemption, the planning department will
evaluate all relevant circumstances including the nature of the claimant's business,
the prior history of the particular tract in question, and the proposed configuration
of the tract, if the proposed exemption transactions are completed.
c. Where a rebuttable presumption is declared in this chapter, the presumption may be
overcome by the claimant with evidence contrary to the presumption. If the
planning department concludes that the evidence overcomes the presumption and
that from all the circumstances the exemption is justified, the exemption will be
allowed. On the other hand, if the planning department concludes that the
presumption is not overcome and that from all the circumstances the exemption is
not justified, the exemption will be disallowed.
274
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 25 of 54
d. If the exemption is allowed, the planning department shall so certify in a printed
certificate on the certificate of survey or amended plat within 30 days of
submission of a complete application.
e. If the exemption is disallowed, the planning department shall provide written
notification, within 30 days of submission of a complete application, of its decision
to the person claiming the exemption and to the county clerk and recorder.
3. Filing requirements. An amended plat or a certificate of survey of a division of land
which is exempt from review must be filed within 180 days of the completion of the
survey.
a. Certificates of survey. A certificate of survey may not be filed by the county clerk
and recorder unless it complies with the following procedures for divisions of land
exempted from public review as subdivisions. Certificates of survey for divisions
of land meeting the criteria set out in MCA 76-3-207, must meet the following
requirements:
(1) A certificate of survey of a division of land that would otherwise be a
subdivision, but that is exempted from subdivision review under MCA 76-3-
207, may not be filed by the county clerk and recorder unless it bears the
acknowledged certificate of the property owner stating that the division of land
is exempt from review as a subdivision and citing the applicable exemption.
(2) If the exemption relied upon requires that the property owner enter into a
covenant running with the land, the certificate of survey may not be filed
unless it bears a signed and acknowledged recitation of the covenant.
(3) If a certificate of survey invokes the exemption for gifts and sales to members
of the landowner's immediate family, the certificate must indicate the name of
the proposed grantee, the relationship of the grantee to the landowner and the
parcel to be conveyed to the grantee.
(4) If a certificate of survey invokes the exemption for the relocation of common
boundary lines:
(a) The certificate of survey must bear the signatures of all landowners whose
parcels tracts of record will be altered by the proposed relocation. The
275
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 26 of 54
certificate of survey must show that the exemption was used only to
change the location of or eliminate a boundary line dividing two or more
parcels tracts of record, and must clearly distinguish the prior boundary
location (shown, for example, by a dashed or broken line or a notation)
from the new boundary (shown, for example, by a solid line or notation);
(b) The certificate of survey must show the boundaries of the area that is
being removed from one parcel tract of record and joined with another
parcel tract of record. The certificate of survey may, but is not required to,
establish the exterior boundaries of the resulting parcels tracts of record.
Unsurveyed portions of the parcels must be labeled, "NOT A PART OF
THIS CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY" or "NOT INCLUDED IN THIS
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY". However, the certificate of survey must
show portions of the existing unchanged boundaries sufficient to clearly
identify both the location and the extent of the boundary relocation;
(3c) If a boundary line will be completely eliminated, the certificate must
establish the boundary of the resulting parcel tract of record.
(d) The certificate of survey must contain the following notation: "The area
that is being removed from one tract of record and joined with another
tract of record is not itself a tract of record. Said area shall not be
available as a reference legal description in any subsequent real property
transfer after the initial transfer associated with the [certificate of survey
or amended plat] on which said area is described, unless said area is
included with or excluded from adjoining tracts of record."
(5) If the certificate of survey invokes an exemption from subdivision review
under MCA 76-3-207, the certificate of survey must bear, or be accompanied
by, a certification by the county treasurer that all taxes and special assessments
assessed and levied on the surveyed land have been paid.
(6) For purposes of subsection 3.a of this section, when the parcel of land for
which an exemption from subdivision review is claimed is being conveyed
under a contract-for-deed, the terms "property owner," "landowner" and
"owner" mean the seller of the parcel under the contract-for-deed.
276
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 27 of 54
(7) Procedures for filing certificates of survey of divisions of land entirely
exempted from the requirements of the Act. The divisions of land described in
MCA 76-3-201, 76-3-205 and 76-3-209, and divisions of federally owned land
made by a United States government agency are not required to be surveyed,
nor must a certificate of survey or subdivision plat showing these divisions be
filed with the county clerk and recorder. A certificate of survey of one of these
divisions may, however, be filed with the county clerk and recorder if the
certificate of survey meets the requirements for form and content for
certificates of survey contained in this section and bears a certificate of the
surveyor performing the survey citing the applicable exemption from the Act
or, when applicable, that the land surveyed is owned by the federal
government.
(8) A certificate of survey shall not be filed by the county clerk and recorder
unless it complies with the uniform standards for certificate of surveys
specified in section 24.183.1104, ARM as may be amended or as required by
the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder.
(9) Certificates of survey that do not represent a division or aggregation of land,
such as those depicting the retracement of an existing parcel and those
prepared for informational purposes, must contain a statement as to their
purpose and must meet applicable requirements of ARM 24.183.1104 for form
and content. If the purpose of a certificate of survey is stated as a retracement
or partial retracement, and if multiple tracts of record contained within the
parcel's perimeter boundary on the certificate of survey are not individually
shown, then the certificate of survey does not expunge the tracts of record
unless it represent a division or aggregation of land, contains the
acknowledged certificate of the property owner(s) citing the applicable
exemption in its entirety, and conforms with the Administrative Rules of
Montana for certificates of survey exempted from review as subdivisions .
b. Amended plats. Unless a division of land is exempt from subdivision review by
MCA 76-3-201 or 76-3-207(1)(d) or (e), an amended plat shall not be filed by the
county clerk and recorder unless it complies with the uniform standards for final
277
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 28 of 54
subdivision plats specified in section 24.183.1107, ARM as may be amended or as
required by the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder. A survey document that
modifies lots in a platted and filed subdivision and invokes an exemption from
subdivision review under MCA 76-3-201 or 76-3-207(1)(d) or (e), must be entitled
"amended plat of the (name of subdivision)," but for all other purposes is to be
regarded as a certificate of survey and subject to the requirements of this code
subsection 3.a of this section.
Section 11
That Section 38.05.070.A.1.c.(2) of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as
follows:
(2) Who will have title to and possession of the remainder of the original parcel;
and
Section 12
That Section 38.06.020.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows with
the remainder of the section to remain unaltered:
A. All plats of subdivisions must contain a certificate of dedication or certificate of consent. In
the case of corporate ownership, the proper corporation officer must sign, a corporate notary
form must be used, and the corporate seal must be affixed. The certificate shall read as
follows:
1. Certificate of dedication.
CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION
(I), (We), the undersigned property owner(s), do hereby certify that (I) (We) have caused to be
surveyed, subdivided and platted into lots, blocks, streets, and alleys, and other divisions and
dedications, as shown by the plat hereunto included the following described tract of land to wit:
Description
(Exterior Boundary Description of Area Contained in Plat and Total Acreage)
278
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 29 of 54
The above-described tract of land is to be known and designated as (name of subdivision), City
of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and the lands included in all streets, avenues, alleys,
roads, highways, and parks, playgrounds, or public lands or other public improvements shown on
said plat are hereby granted and donated to the City of Bozeman for the public use and
enjoyment. Unless specifically listed herein, the lands included in all streets, avenues, alleys,
roads, highways, and parks, playground easements, or public lands or other public improvements
dedicated to the public are accepted for public use, but the city accepts no responsibility for
maintaining the same. The owner(s) agree(s) that the city has no obligation to maintain the lands
included in all streets, avenues, alleys, roads, highways, and parks, or public lands or other
public improvements, hereby dedicated to public use. The lands included in all streets, avenues,
alleys, roads, highways, and parks, or public lands or other public improvements dedicated to the
public for which the city accepts responsibility for maintenance include (list specific streets,
avenues, alleys, roads, highways, and parks, for or other public lands or other public
improvements).
The undersigned hereby grants unto each and every person firm or corporation, whether public
or private, providing or offering to provide telephone, electric power, gas, internet, cable
television or other similar utility or service, the right to the joint use of an easement for the
construction, maintenance, repair and removal of their lines and other facilities in, over, under
and across each area designated on this plat as "Utility Easement" to have and to hold forever.
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Acknowledged and notarized signatures of all record owners of platted property)
. . .
Section 13
That Section 38.06.030 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
In those cases where the area being platted or the plat of subdivision is subject to any liens,
mortgages, claims, or other encumbrances by parties or other owners, the following certificate
shall be required:
279
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 30 of 54
CONSENT OF MORTGAGEE(S)
(I), (We), the undersigned mortgagee(s) or encumbrancer(s), do hereby join in and consent to the
described plat., (I) (We) release releasing (my) (our) respective liens, claims or encumbrances as
to any portion of said lands now being platted into streets, avenues, parks or other public areas
which are dedicated to the City of Bozeman for the public use and enjoyment.
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Acknowledged and notarized signature of all encumbrances of record)
Section 14
That Section 38.06.050 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
All subdivision plats or certificates of survey shall contain a certificate of surveyor which shall
read as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR
I, the undersigned, (Type or Print Name), Registered Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that
between ____________/____________/____________, ____________, and
____________/____________/____________, ____________, I surveyed (Name of Subdivision
or Certificate of Survey), and platted drew the same as shown on the accompanying plat (or
certificate of survey) and as described in accordance with the provisions of the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 through 76-3-625), and the Bozeman Municipal
Code.
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
Section 15
That Section 38.06.060 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 38.06.060. - Improvements.
280
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 31 of 54
A. Where improvements are to be installed prior to final plat approval, the final plat of
subdivision shall contain a certificate of completion of public improvements. The certificate
shall list all completed and accepted improvements, and shall read as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF
IMPROVEMENTS
I, (Name of Subdivider), and I, (Name of Subdivider's Registered Engineer), a registered
professional engineer licensed to practice in the state of Montana, hereby certify that the
following improvements, required to meet the requirements of chapter 38 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code or as a condition(s) of approval of (Name of Subdivision), have been
installed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, or financially
guaranteed and covered by the improvements agreement accompanying this plat.
Installed Improvements: (List improvements in accordance with section 38.06.060.A).
Financially Guaranteed Improvements: (List improvements in accordance with section
38.06.060.B). The subdivider hereby warrants said improvements against any and all
defects in these improvements for a period of two years from the date of acceptance by
the City of Bozeman.
The subdivider grants possession of all public infrastructure improvements to the City of
Bozeman and the city hereby accepts ownership possession of all public infrastructure
improvements, subject to the above indicated warranty.
Signature of Subdivider (Date) ____________
Signature, Number, and
Seal of Engineer (Date) ____________
Signature, Director of
Public Works (Date) ____________
281
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 32 of 54
B. If all required subdivision improvements will not be installed prior to final plat approval,
and the final plat will be recorded subject to an improvements agreement and financial
guarantee, this certificate shall be modified to also list all improvements not completed.
Section 16
That Section 38.06.110 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
A. The following certificates shall be provided in a printed certificate on the amended plat or
certificate of survey for allowed exemptions:
1. Certificate of governing body.
CERTIFICATE OF GOVERNING BODY
I, (Planning DirectorDirector of Community Development), do hereby certify that the
accompanying (Certificate of Survey or Amended Plat) has been duly reviewed, and has been
found to conform to the requirements of the Subdivision and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 et
seq.), and the Bozeman Municipal Code.
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Signature), Planning Director of Community Development
2. Certificate of exemption. Reference to exclude the survey from state department of
environmental quality review can also be added to this certificate, as appropriate.
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
(I), (We) certify that the purpose of this survey is to (state exemption), and therefore this survey
is exempt from review as a subdivision pursuant to MCA 76-3-207(1) (add appropriate
subsection).
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
282
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 33 of 54
(Acknowledged and notarized signatures of all record owners of surveyed property)
Section 17
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.06.120 to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.06.120. – Conditions of approval notifications and certifications.
The following certificate shall be required on the Conditions of Approval sheet:
NOTIFICATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS
(I), (We), the undersigned property owner(s), do hereby certify that the text and/or graphics
shown on the Conditions of Approval sheet(s) represent(s) requirements by the governing body
for final plat approval and that all conditions of subdivision application have been satisfied.
(I), (We), the undersigned property owner(s), do hereby certify that the information shown is
current as of the date of this certification, and that changes to any land-use restrictions or
encumbrances may be made by amendments to covenants, zoning regulations, easements, or
other documents as allowed by law or by local regulations.
(I), (We), the undersigned property owner(s), do hereby certify that (I) (We) acknowledge that
federal, state, and local plans, policies, regulations, and/or conditions of subdivision approval
may limit the use of the property, including the location, size, and use as shown on the
Conditions of Approval sheet or as otherwise stated. Buyers of property should ensure that they
have obtained and reviewed all sheets of the plat and all documents recorded and filed in
conjunction with the plat. Buyers of property are strongly encouraged to contact the local
planning department and become informed of any limitations on the use of the property prior to
closing.
283
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 34 of 54
DATED this ____________ day of ____________, ____________.
(Acknowledged and notarized signatures of all record owners of platted property)
Section 18
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.06.130 to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.06.130. – Certificate of completion of non-public improvements.
Where non-public improvements are to be installed prior to final plat approval, the final plat of
subdivision shall contain a certificate of completion of non-public improvements. The certificate
shall list all completed and accepted improvements, and shall read as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF NON-PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
I, (Name of Subdivider), hereby certify that the following non-public improvements, required to
meet the requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code or as a condition(s) of
approval of (Name of Subdivision), have been installed in conformance with any approved plans
and specifications prepared in accordance with the standards of Chapter 38 or other City design
standards, or have been financially guaranteed and are covered by the subdivision improvements
agreement accompanying and recorded with this plat.
Installed Improvements: (LIST ITEMS EXCLUDING THOSE LISTED BELOW).
Financially Guaranteed Improvements: (LIST ITEMS OR STATE NONE).
I, (Name of Subdivider) hereby warrant said improvements against any and all defects for a
period of two years from the date of acceptance by (Name of Property Owners’ Association).
Unless specifically listed in the Certificate of Dedication, the city accepts no responsibility for
maintaining the same.
The subdivider hereby grants ownership of all non-public infrastructure improvements to the
(Name of Property Owners’ Association) created by Document Number
______________________(To be filled in when recorded)
284
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 35 of 54
By: (Signature of Subdivider) Date: _____________________________
Section 19
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.06.140 to read as
follows:
Sec. 38.06.140. – Certificate of completion of water-related improvements.
A. When irrigation of public facilities are to be installed prior to final plat approval, the final
plat of subdivision shall contain a certificate of completion of water-related improvements.
The certificate shall list all completed and accepted improvements, including but not limited
to all irrigation system record drawings, and shall read as follows:
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF WATER-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS
I, (Name of Subdivider), hereby certify that the following improvements, necessary to
meet the requirements of chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code or as a condition(s)
of approval of (Name of Subdivision), have been installed in conformance with the
approved plans and specifications, or financially guaranteed and covered by the
improvements agreement accompanying this plat.
Installed Improvements: (List improvements).
Financially Guaranteed Improvements: (List improvements).
The subdivider hereby warrants said improvements against any and all defects for a
period of two years from the date of acceptance by the City of Bozeman.
The subdivider hereby grants ownership of all public infrastructure improvements to the
City of Bozeman and the city hereby accepts ownership of all public infrastructure
improvements, subject to the above indicated warranty.
Signature of Subdivider (Date) ____________
Signature, Director of
Public Works (Date) ____________
285
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 36 of 54
Section 20
That Section 38.23.060.D of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
D. Easements for agricultural water user facilities.
1. Except as noted in subsection D.2 of this section, the developer shall establish appropriate
irrigation agricultural water user facility easements that:
a. Are in locations of appropriate topographic characteristics and sufficient width to allow
the physical placement and unobstructed maintenance of active open ditches or below
ground pipelines. The easement shall facilitate the delivery of water for irrigation to
persons and lands legally entitled to the water under an appropriated water right or
permit of an irrigation district or other private or public entity formed to provide for
the use of the water right;
(1) The easements shall ensure the conveyance of irrigation water through the land to
be developed to lands adjacent to or beyond the development's boundaries in
quantities and in a manner that are consistent with historic and legal rights; and
(2) A minimum easement width of ten feet is required on each side of irrigation
canals and ditches.
b. Are a sufficient distance from the centerline of the irrigation agricultural water user
facility to allow for construction, repair, maintenance and inspection of the ditch or
pipeline; and
c. Prohibit the placement of structures or the planting of vegetation other than appropriate
grass species within the irrigation agricultural water user facility easement without
the written permission of the facility owner.
2. The developer need not establish irrigation agricultural water user facility easements as
provided above if the following provisions were met or will be met via the subdivision or
site plan process:
a. The average lot size is one acre or less and the subdivider developer provides for
disclosure, in a manner acceptable to the review authority, that adequately notifies
potential buyers of lots that are classified as irrigated land and may continue to be
286
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 37 of 54
assessed for irrigation water delivery even though the water may not be deliverable;
or
b. The water rights are removed or the process has been initiated to remove the water
rights from the subdivided or developed land. If the water rights have been or will be
removed from the land within the development it shall be so noted with the
preliminary plat or plan submittal. denoted on the preliminary plat. If removal of
water rights is not complete upon filing of the final plat or approval of the final site
plan, the subdivider developer shall provide written notification to prospective buyers
of the intent to remove the water right and shall document that intent, when
applicable, in agreements and legal documents for related sales transactions.
3. The realignment or relocation of active irrigation ditches or pipelines is discouraged. If an
irrigation agricultural water user facility or points of diversions thereon are proposed to
be realigned or relocated, the developer's professional engineer shall certify, prior to final
plat or final plan approval, that the water entering and exiting the realigned or relocated
irrigation agricultural water user facility is the same quality and amount of water that
entered or exited the facility prior to realignment or relocation.
4. Stormwater from a development shall not be discharged to an irrigation agricultural water
user facility without written approval from the owner of the facility and corresponding
stormwater conveyance easements.
5. As land is converted from agricultural to urban uses, and irrigation ditches will no longer
in use, the ditches shall be legally abandoned and may be filled If the developer
demonstrates that easements have been extinguished pursuant to state law, or the holder
of the easement consents in writing to the extinguishment, or the easement is not required
per subsection D.2, the developer may remove ditch laterals from within the subdivision.
6. If agricultural water user facility easements are required, a notice shall also be recorded
with a final plat or prior to final plan approval, stating that the easements are subject to
the requirements of Section 70-17-112, MCA restricting interference with canal or ditch
easements and that irrigation works are subject to Section 85-7-2211 and -2212, MCA
regarding duties and liability. The notice shall include language to assure the duties are
binding upon all successors in interest and remain in effect until such time that the
agricultural water user facility is abandoned in accordance with the requirements of
287
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 38 of 54
Montana Law or alternative requirements are agreed to in writing by all applicable
parties. The easements shall be prepared as documents separate from a final plat but may
be referenced on a final plat.
Section 21
That Section 38.34.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 38.34.080. - Date of submittal and associated review standards.
A. Subdivision. Review and approval or disapproval of a subdivision under these regulations
may occur only under those regulations in effect at the time a subdivision application for
approval of a preliminary plat is deemed sufficient adequate according to section 38.03.040
or for an extension under article 3 of this chapter is submitted to the city.
B. Nonsubdivision. Review of nonsubdivision applications shall be under such regulations as
are in effect at the time an application for approval of a preliminary site plan is deemed
complete adequate according to section 38.19.070 38.19.090; except that an interim zoning
ordinance adopted according to MCA 76-2-306 shall apply to a nonsubdivision application
without limitation to the date of completeness adequacy of the application until final action
has been taken on the application. An applicant may waive, in writing, the shield from
changing ordinances established by this section. In the event that such waiver is provided,
the nonsubdivision application shall be reviewed under the ordinances in effect on the date
of the final action on the application.
State law reference – Sections 7-21-1003 and 73-3-604, MCA
Section 22
That Section 38.39.050.A.3 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
3. As-built record Record drawings. As-built record Record drawings of all public
infrastructure improvements constructed within the city, drawn to the specifications
required by the city, shall be submitted prior to final plat approval, per section
288
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 39 of 54
24.183.1107(3.g)(5)(f), ARM as may be amended, or other relevant equivalent final
benchmark for site development.
Section 23
That Section 38.39.090 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
A. General. For the purposes of this section, "common areas and facilities" include:
1. Public and/or private park land;
2. Boulevard strips in public rights-of-way along external subdivision streets and adjacent to
parks and/or open space;
3. Common open space;
4. Neighborhood centers (except for neighborhood commercial and civic uses and their
grounds); and
5. Pathways.;
6. Lighting;
7. Stormwater facilities, and
8. Irrigation facilities installed in common areas.
B. Development. If common areas or facilities will be developed by the subdivider or by a
property owners association, a development plan shall be submitted with the preliminary
plat application for review and approval. The development plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the city prior to the installation of improvements in common areas or the
installation of common facilities. An approved park master plan would satisfy this
requirement.
1. Landscaping. When landscaping and/or irrigation systems will be installed in park land,
boulevard strips or common open space, the development plan shall be accompanied by
a landscaping plan and an irrigation design that was prepared by qualified landscaping
and irrigation design professionals. When landscaping and irrigation systems in
common areas are installed by the subdivider, the subdivider shall warrant these
improvements against any and all defects in these improvements for a period of two
years from the date of installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. When
landscaping and irrigation systems in a park are installed by the subdivider, the
subdivider shall comply with the Parks Design Standards and warrant these
289
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 40 of 54
improvements against any and all defects in these improvements for a period of two
years from the date of installation of the landscaping and irrigation system.
2. Tree permits. If trees will be planted in dedicated city park land or boulevard strips, tree
planting permits shall be obtained from the forestry department.
C. Maintenance. When common areas or facilities will be maintained by the subdivider or by a
property owners association, a maintenance plan that complies with 38.38.030 section
38.39.030 shall be submitted with the preliminary plat application for review and approval.
The maintenance plan shall include a maintenance schedule, and a mechanism to assess and
enforce the common expenses for the common area or facility. The maintenance plan shall
be included in the subdivision covenants. The developer shall provide all necessary
maintenance until the improvements are transferred to a property owners association, or
other final custodian, at which point the property owners’ association or other final
custodian will be responsible for all necessary maintenance of common areas or facilities
identified in the maintenance plan. Maintenance shall be provided by the property owners
association for parks until the city shall establish a park maintenance district or other
dedicated funding source and affirmatively accept responsibility for maintenance. The
provisions of section 38.38.030.A.8 apply to this section.
1. Landscaping warranty. The maintenance plan shall provide that Any required or
proposed landscaping must be maintained in a healthy, growing condition at all times,
and that aAny plant that dies must be replaced with another living plant that complies
with the approved landscape plan.
2. Irrigation System warranty. The maintenance plan shall provide that any required or
proposed irrigation system must be maintained in an appropriate and efficient manner and
kept in good operating condition, and that any components of the irrigation system that
break must be fixed and replaced if necessary with components approved in the irrigation
system design plan.
3. Shade tree maintenance. The forestry department shall be responsible for the
maintenance of shade trees in all city rights-of-way and on city property, including parks.
D. Maintenance Area. For a multiphase project with common areas and facilities, the
maintenance mechanism shall include all phases of the project, and shall be created for the
entire project with the first phase. No property shall be removed from the maintenance area
290
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 41 of 54
or mechanism without prior approval by the city to ensure continued maintenance of
common areas and facilities, and on-going fulfillment of all obligations.
Section 24
That Section 38.41.030.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended to add
subsections 13, 14 and 15 as follows:
13. Wildlife. Describe key wildlife habitat issues that may be associated with proposed
subdivision. Describe how the subdivision will consider fish and wildlife resources in the
course of project design. Describe subdivision early planning suggestions from local
FWP field biologists at FWP regional offices. This description should consider the
following:
a. The species of fish and wildlife, including those designated as Species of Concern,
that use all or part of the project planning area (proposed subdivision site plus a one-
half-mile radius around it) on a year-round, seasonal, or periodic basis.
b. Existing vegetation, aquatic habitats, and wildlife habitats in the project planning area
(e.g., water bodies and their associated riparian habitat, big game winter range, native
grassland or shrubland habitats, areas used by black or grizzly bears).
c. The proposed subdivision’s potential impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat, both
during construction and at full build-out, taking any applicable fish and wildlife
habitat standards into account.
14. Waivers of right to protest. Include copies of or the recorded document numbers of all
existing waivers of right to protest special improvement districts or maintenance districts
which are applicable to the property proposed to be subdivided.
15. Water rights. Describe how the proposed subdivision intends to satisfy 38.23.180.
Provide documentation of all water rights appurtenant to the proposed subdivision; e.g.
previous payment-in-lieu of water rights, groundwater certificates, statements of claim,
provisional permits, decreed rights, canal or water users association shares etc.
Section 25
291
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 42 of 54
That Section 38.41.060.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows with
the remainder to remain as presently written:
9. Agricultural water user facilities.
a. Type, description, ownership and users of facilities.
b. Written documentation demonstrating active use of facilities, for example the
delivery of non-potable water supplies for irrigation, conversion to stormwater
facilities, or other use. If a facility is not being actively used, include a written plan
for discontinuance including all documentation required pursuant to Montana law.
c. Describe any proposed realignment. All realignments must comply with all relevant
requirements of state Montana law.
d. Information from the owner(s) of the facility concerning the proposed use or
discontinuance of the facility.
10. Water and sewer. Provide an engineering design report and/or other documentation
demonstrating that adequate water distribution systems and capacity, and sewage
collection and disposal systems and capacity, exists or will be provided to serve the
proposed subdivision.
a. Water rights. Describe how the proposed subdivision intends to satisfy 38.23.180.
Provide documentation of all water rights appurtenant to the proposed subdivision; e.g.
previous estimates or actual payment-in-lieu of water rights, certified well logs, decrees
or adjudications, etc.
11. Stormwater management. A stormwater management plan meeting the requirements of
section 40.04.700 and the city’s adopted stormwater master plan.shall be submitted with
the preliminary plat. A system shall be designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease and
other pollutants from the runoff from the private and public streets and all lots,
including:
a. The plan shall depict the retention/detention basin locations, and locate and provide
easements for adequate drainageways within the subdivision to transport runoff to
the stormwater receiving channel. Stormwater receiving channels shall be clearly
identified for all ponds.
292
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 43 of 54
b. The plan shall include sufficient site grading and elevation information
(particularly for the basin sites, drainageways and lot finished grades), typical
stormwater retention/detention basin and discharge structure details, basin sizing
calculations, and a stormwater maintenance plan.
c. Any necessary stormwater easements.
12. Streets, roads and alleys.
a. Description. Describe any proposed new public or private streets, roads or alley, or
substantial improvements of existing public or private streets, roads or alleys. The
developer shall demonstrate that the land to be subdivided has access onto a legal
street.
b. Access to arterial. Discuss whether any of the individual lots or tracts have access
directly to arterial streets or roads, and if so, the reason access was not provided by
means of a street within the subdivision and how the access complies with section
38.24.090.
c. Modification of existing streets, roads or alleys. Explain any proposed closure or
modification of existing streets, roads or alleys.
d. Dust. Describe provisions considered for dust control on alleys.
e. Pollution and erosion. Explain how street, road and alley maintenance will be
provided to meet the department of environmental quality guidelines for prevention
of water pollution and erosion.
f. Traffic generation. Discuss how much daily traffic will be generated on existing
local and neighborhood streets, roads and alleys, when the subdivision is fully
developed, and provide the following information:
(1) The report format shall be as follows:
(a) Trip generation, using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual;
(b) Trip distribution;
(c) Traffic assignment;
293
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 44 of 54
(d) Capacity analysis;
(e) Evaluation; and
(f) Recommended access plan, including access points, modifications and any
mitigation techniques.
(2) The report shall include the following information:
(a) Land use and trip generation in the form of a table of each type of land
use, the number of units or square footage, as appropriate, the trip rates
used (daily and peak) and resulting trip generation.
(b) Traffic graphics, which show:
(i) A.M. peak hour site traffic;
(ii) P.M. peak hour site traffic;
(iii) A.M. peak hour total traffic;
(iv) P.M. peak hour total traffic;
(v) Total daily traffic (with site-generated traffic shown separately).
(c) A.M. and P.M. capacity analysis with an A.M. and P.M. peak-hour
capacity analysis provided for:
(i) All major drive accesses that intersect collector or arterial streets or
roads; and
(ii) All arterial-arterial, collector-collector and arterial-collector
intersections within one-half mile of the site, or as required by the city
engineer during the preapplication review, concept plan review, or
informal project review.
(d) For two-way stop controlled intersections, analysis of whether the
intersection would satisfy signalization warrants if the two-way stop
control was removed.
294
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 45 of 54
g. Capacity. Indicate the levels of service (before and after development) of existing
and proposed streets and roads, including appropriate intersections, to safely handle
any increased traffic. Describe any anticipated increased maintenance that will be
necessary due to increased traffic and who will pay the cost of maintenance.
h. Bicycle and pedestrian pathways, lanes and routes. Describe bicycle and pedestrian
pathways, lanes or routes to be developed with the development.
i. Traffic calming. Detailed drawings of any proposed traffic calming installations,
including locations and turning radius templates.
13. Utilities. The developer shall submit a copy of the subdivision plat to all relevant utility
companies. With the preliminary plat, the developer shall provide written
documentation of the following:
a. Affected utilities. Indicate which affected utilities the subdivision plat has been
submitted to for review, and include a copy of responses.
b. Include a description of:
(1) The method of furnishing electric, natural gas, cable TV, internet or telephone
service, where provided.
(2) Estimated timing of each utility installation.
(3) The developer shall provide a written statement from the utility companies that
the proposed subdivision can be provided with service.
14. Educational facilities. With the preliminary plat, provide a written statement from the
administrator of the appropriate school system indicating whether the increased
enrollment can be accommodated by the present personnel and facilities and by the
existing school bus system.
15. Land use.
a. Indicate the proposed use and number of lots or spaces in each:
(1) Residential area, single-household;
295
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 46 of 54
(2) Residential area, multiple-household. Types of multiple-household structures
and numbers of each (e.g., duplex, four-plex);
(3) Planned unit development (number of units);
(4) Condominium (number of units);
(5) Manufactured housing community (number of units);
(6) Recreational vehicle park;
(7) Commercial or industrial; and
(8) Other (please describe).
16. Parks and recreation facilities. The following information shall be provided for all land
used to meet park land dedication requirements:
a. Park plan. A park plan, including:
(1) Site plan for the entire property; showing developer installed improvements on
the initial park plan and proposed future improvements on the future park plan;
(2) Drainage areas;
(3) Utilities in and adjacent to the property;
(4) The zoning and ownership for adjacent properties;
(5) The location of any critical lands (wetlands, riparian areas, streams, etc.) and
location of watercourse setbacks;
(6) Park landscaping plan, prepared by a qualified landscape professional in
accordance with section 38.41.100, showing the location and specific types and
species of plants, shrubs, trees as well as grass seed mixes;
(7) General description of land, including size, terrain, details of location and
history, and proposed activities;
(8) Trail design and construction showing compliance with adopted city standards
and trail classifications;
296
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 47 of 54
(9) The requirement for approval of the final park plan by the review authority
with a recommendation from the city recreation and parks advisory board prior
to any site work;
(10) The requirement for a preconstruction meeting prior to any site work;
(11) Appropriate sections from the design guidelines for city parks;
(12) Cost estimate and installation responsibility for all improvements;
(13) If playground equipment will be provided, information including the
manufacturer, installation data and specifications, installer, type of fall zone
surfacing and age group intended for use shall be provided; and
(14) Soils information and analysis.
b. Park maintenance.
(1) Maintenance information, including levels of maintenance, a maintenance
schedule, and responsible parties;
(2) Weed control plan, including responsible parties; and
(3) Plan for garbage collection, snow removal and leaf removal including
responsible parties.
c. Irrigation information.
(1) An irrigation system map generally showing the locations and types of lines,
including depth, water source, heads, electric valves, quick couplers, drains
and control box; and
(2) If a well will be used for irrigation, a certified well log shall be submitted
showing depth of well, gpm, pump type and size, voltage, water rights, etc.
d. Phasing. If improvements will be phased, a phasing plan shall be provided
including proposed financing methods and responsibilities.
17. Neighborhood center plan. A neighborhood center plan shall be prepared and submitted
for all subdivisions containing a neighborhood center.
297
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 48 of 54
18. Lighting plan. The following subdivision lighting information shall be submitted for all
new subdivisions:
a. For subdivision applications where lighting is required or proposed, lighting plans
shall be submitted to the city for review and approval, and shall include:
(1) Isofootcandle plots for individual fixture installations, and ten-foot by ten-foot
illuminance-grid plots for multifixture installations, which demonstrate
compliance with the intensity and uniformity requirements as set forth in this
chapter.
(2) Description of the proposed equipment, including fixture manufacturer's
cutsheets, photometrics, glare reduction devices, lamps, on/off control devices,
mounting heights, pole foundation details and mounting methods.
(3) The lighting plan shall be prepared, and certified for compliance with the city's
design requirements and illumination standards, by a qualified lighting
professional. Qualified lighting professionals include electrical engineers,
architects, lighting designers and manufacturers representatives.
(4) Lighting calculations shall include only the illuminated areas; areas occupied
by buildings or other nonlighted areas shall be excluded from calculations.
b. When requested by the city, the applicant shall also submit a visual-impact plan
that demonstrates appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate on-site and off-site
glare and to retain the city's character.
c. Post-approval alterations to lighting plans or intended substitutions for approved
lighting shall only be made after city review and approval.
19. Miscellaneous.
c. Wildlands-Urban Interface. Describe the subdivision’s location within or proximity
to the Wildlands-Urban Interface (WUI) and ember zone designated by the most
recent city-adopted hazard mitigation plan. Describe any hazard from the
subdivision’s proximity to the WUI. List any provisions that will be used to
mitigate these hazards and reduce structure ignitability.
298
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 49 of 54
Section 26
That 38.41.070 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
A. A final subdivision plat may not be approved by the city unless all certificates, with the
exception of the director of public works and the county clerk and recorder, have been
complied with, signed and notarized and all subdivision regulations and conditions of
preliminary plat approval have been met. A final subdivision plat may not be filed with the
county clerk and recorder unless all certificates, with the exception of the county clerk and
recorder, have been complied with, signed and notarized. This shall include the certification
by the county treasurer that no real property taxes and special assessments assessed and
levied on the land to be subdivided are delinquent.
1. A final subdivision plat may not be approved by the city commission or filed by the
county clerk and recorder unless it complies with the uniform standards for final
subdivision plats as established in the Administrative Rule of Montana. The following
materials shall be provided with each application for final plat approval. Materials shall
be provided in the number of copies and form established by the Director of
Community Development.
2. A letter from the city engineer shall be submitted to the planning department with the
final plat application, where applicable, certifying that the following documents have
been received:
a. As-built drawings, i.e., copies of final plans, profiles, grades and specifications for
public improvements, including a complete grading and drainage plan.
b. Copy of the state highway access or encroachment permit where a street created by
the plat will intersect with a state highway.
3. Noxious weed MOU. Prior to final plat approval, a memorandum of understanding shall
be entered into by the weed control district and the developer. The memorandum of
understanding shall be signed by the district and the developer prior to final plat
approval, and a copy of the signed document shall be submitted to the planning
department with the application for final plat approval.
299
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 50 of 54
4. Final park plan. For all land used to meet park land dedication requirements, a final
park plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to final plat. The
final park plan shall include all of the information listed in 38.41.060.A.16 and shall
include evidence of compliance with the installation requirements of article 39.
5. Irrigation system as-builts. The developer shall provide irrigation system as-builts, for
all irrigation installed in public rights-of-way and/or land used to meet park land
dedication requirements, once the irrigation system is installed. The as-builts shall
include the exact locations and type of lines, including accurate depth, water source,
heads, electric valves, quick couplers, drains and control box.
6. Affordable housing. The developer shall provide a description of how the subdivision
has complied with chapter 38, article 43. The description shall be of adequate detail to
clearly identify those lots designated as subject to chapter 38, article 43 compliance
requirements and to make the obligations placed on the affected lots readily
understandable.
7. Conditions of Approval. A sheet(s) of the plat depicting conformance with subdivision
application approval shall be submitted as set forth in 24.183.1107 ARM as may be
amended and as required by the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall:
a. be entitled "Conditions of Approval of [insert name of subdivision]" with a title
block including the quarter-section, section, township, range, principal meridian,
county, and, if applicable, city or town in which the subdivision is located,
b. contain any text and/or graphic representations of requirements by the governing
body for final plat approval including, but not limited to, setbacks from streams or
riparian areas, floodplain boundaries, no-build areas, building envelopes, or the use
of particular parcels.
c. include a certification statement by the landowner that the text and/or graphics
shown on the Conditions of Approval sheet(s) represent(s) requirements by the
governing body for final plat approval and that all conditions of subdivision
application have been satisfied.
d. include a notation stating that the information shown is current as of the date of
the certification, and that changes to any land-use restrictions or encumbrances
300
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 51 of 54
may be made by amendments to covenants, zoning regulations, easements, or
other documents as allowed by law or by local regulations.
e. include a notation stating that buyers of property should ensure that they have
obtained and reviewed all sheets of the plat and all documents recorded and filed
in conjunction with the plat, and that buyers of property are strongly encouraged
to contact the local planning department and become informed of any limitations
on the use of the property prior to closing.
f. list all associated recorded documents and recorded document numbers.
g. include a tabulation of park land credit for the entire subdivision and attributed to
each lot.
h. include a tabulation of open space.
i. list easements, including easements for agricultural water user facilities.
8. Documents. The following documents shall accompany the final plat:
a. a title report or certificate of a title abstractor;
b. any covenants or deed restrictions relating to the subdivision;
c. the security required pursuant to 38.39.060, securing the future construction of any
remaining private or public improvements to be installed;
d. unless otherwise provided in this chapter, copies of final plans, profiles, grades, and
specifications for improvements, including a complete grading and drainage plan,
with the certification of a professional engineer that all required improvements
which have been installed are in conformance with the attached plans. The
subdivider must file copies of final plans, profiles, grades, and specifications for
improvements, including a complete grading and drainage plan, with the
certification of a professional engineer that all required improvements which have
been installed are in conformance with the attached plans, with the city engineering
division of the department of public works and the city parks department. A
statement shall be included on the Conditions of Approval sheet stating where the
plans can be obtained;
e. if a street, alley, avenue, road, or highway created by the plat will intersect with a
state or federal right-of-way, a copy of the access or encroachment permit;
301
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 52 of 54
f. a title report or certificate of a title abstractor for any off-site land intended to satisfy
park dedication requirements;
g. any deeds or documents for transfer of land and/or improvements to the city or the
Property Owners Association or other entity;
h. any deeds or documents for transfer of water rights; including but not limited to all
required state department of natural resources and conservation documentation, e.g.
ownership update form, permit, groundwater certificate and/or change authorization;
and
i. any other documents satisfying subdivision application approval required by the
governing body to be filed or recorded.
9. The developer shall submit with the application for final plat review and approval, a
written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval and
noted code provisions have been satisfactorily addressed. This narrative shall be in
sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note,
covenant, etc. in the submittal.
Section 27
That Section 38.42.630 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 38.42.630. Common open space, area, land, facilities, property.
Undeveloped land within a subdivision that has been designated, dedicated, reserved or
restricted in perpetuity from further development and is set aside for the use and enjoyment by
residents of the development. Common open space shall not be part of individual residential lots.
It shall be substantially free of structures, but may contain historic structures and archaeological
sites, and/or recreational facilities for residents, including but not limited to benches, picnic
tables and interpretive signage as indicated on an approved development plan. Stormwater
control facilities for the benefit of the subdivision may also be located within common open
space.
Property within a subdivision that has been designated, dedicated, reserved or restricted in
perpetuity from further subdivision development and is set aside for the use and enjoyment by
302
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 53 of 54
property owners of the development. Common property shall not be part of individual lots.
Common land includes common open space; parks, trails, and stormwater control facilities.
Section 28
That Section 38.42.780 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be deleted:
Sec. 38.42.780. Date of submission.
The date at which the plat or plan and all required supplementary information is received and
certified as complete by the planning department.
Section 30
That Section 38.42.900 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 38.42.900. Division of land.
The segregation of one or more parcels of land from a larger tract held in single or undivided
ownership by transferring, or contracting to transfer, title to or possession of a portion of the
tract, or properly filing a certificate of survey or subdivision plat establishing the identity of the
segregated parcels pursuant to these subdivision regulations this chapter and the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act (MCA 76-3-101 et seq.). The conveyance of a tract of record or an
entire parcel of land that was created by a previous division of land is not a division of land.
State law reference— Similar provisions, MCA 76-3-103(4).
Section 31
That Section 38.42.3030 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 38.42.3030. Subdivision.
A division of land or land so divided that it creates one or more parcels containing less than
160 acres that cannot be described as a one-quarter aliquot part of a United States government
section, exclusive of public roadways, in order that the title to or possession of the parcels may
be sold, rented, leased or otherwise conveyed transferred, and shall include any resubdivision or
303
Amendment 2F, Subdivision Review Process Revisions - draft
Amendment 2F
Page 54 of 54
condominium., and shall further include any a condominium or area, regardless of its size, that
provides or will provide multiple space for recreational camping vehicles or manufactured homes
unless otherwise exempted by this chapter. A subdivision shall comprise only those parcels less
than 160 acres that cannot be described as a one-quarter aliquot part of a United States
government section when the parcels have been segregated from the original tract, and the plat
thereof shall show all such parcels whether contiguous or not. The term also means an area,
regardless of its size, that provides or will provide multiple spaces for rent or lease on which
recreational camping vehicles or mobile homes will be placed.
State law reference— Similar provisions, MCA 76-3-103(15).
304
Subdivision Process Municipal Code Text Amendment, Application 14642
1
RESOLUTION NO. 14-642
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD REGARDING AN
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 38, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR CHANGES
TO PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a growth policy pursuant to Section 76-1-
601, Mont. Code Ann.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by ordinance by the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, Mont. Code Ann.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-3-101 et seq, MCA requires the City of Bozeman to adopt
regulations for the review of subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Montana has revised the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act necessitating some revisions to the City of Bozeman’s regulations; and
WHEREAS, there are procedural clarifications and revisions needed to conform to best
practices; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment application has been properly submitted, reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the required procedures; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 4, 2016, to review the application and any written or verbal public testimony on the
application; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public provided written or oral testimony on the matter of the text amendment application; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development, based on the materials and
information provided by the Applicant and analysis of the proposal included in the Staff Report,
recommended approval of the requested text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board reviewed the application against the purposes of the subdivision and platting act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board voted 4:1 to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the text amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, having heard and considered public
comment, application materials, and staff findings the City of Bozeman Planning Board voted 4:1 to officially recommend to the Bozeman City Commission approval of text amendment application no. 14642 to amend Chapter 38, of the Bozeman Municipal Code
305
Subdivision Process Municipal Code Text Amendment, Application 14642
2
DATED THIS 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 Resolution No. 14642
_____________________________ ____________________________
Tom Rogers, AICP Paul Neubauer, President
Department of Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board
306
City Planning Board and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, October 04, 2016 6:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave.
A. 06:02:57 PM (00:00:24) Call meeting to order
Henry Happel - Present
Paul Spitler - Present
Paul Neubauer
George Thompson
Lauren Waterton
B. 06:03:15 PM (00:00:42) Changes to the Agenda
C. 06:03:20 PM (00:00:47) Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an audible
tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the
purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for
comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
D. 06:03:26 PM (00:00:53) Action Items
1. Lakes at Valley West Phase 3 Subdivision,
Project Description: A Preliminary Major Subdivision application for the 3rd phase of a multi-
phase residential development located on 65 acres south of Durston Road, east and west of an
extension of Laurel Parkway. In association with a planned unit development. One phase with 56
lots and additional unplatted phases for future development. Eighteen relaxations are requested
with the PUD associated with this application. Project Location: Lot R2 of Phase 2 of the Lakes
at Valley West Subdivision, located in the NW ¼ of Section 9 Township 2S, Range 5E PMM City of
Bozeman, Montana. Located at 5600 Durston Road
307
06:03:31 PM (00:00:58) Tom Rogers begins presentation on the Lakes at Valley West Project for
Chris Saunders.
06:10:28 PM (00:07:55) Conclusion of staff presentation
Henry Happel questions if the relaxations requested are consistent with what’s happening in
Phase 1 and 2. Mr. Rogers confirms they are consistent.
06:11:18 PM (00:08:45) Applicant present begins – Mr. Statton.
06:18:43 PM (00:16:10) End of Applicant presentation
06:18:54 PM (00:16:21) George Thompson questions the square footage goals for the homes on
the lots being proposed. Applicant responds that they never committed to a square footage, but
the smallest home built so far is about 1,000sqft, most average under 2,000sqft. Applicant
states they are trying to stay in the $200,000-$400,000 price range. Currently a property is for
sale for $215,000, but had a lot of upgrades. He feels that they could get below $200,000
06:21:54 PM (00:19:21) Henry Happel questions where homes on Specific Street front – whether
it’s a city street or local street. Applicant responds some front a local street with access from the
City street. He states that the goal is to encourage parking in garage and driveways.
Paul Spitler questions the net density. Applicant responds that the overall gross is 3.3 units/acre
and 4.5 units/acre net for all phases combined. Further conversation between Mr. Spittler and
applicant regarding
06:24:53 PM (00:22:20) Paul Neubauer questions the maintenance of the woonerfs and if that
falls on the HOA. Applicant responds that it will be maintained by the HOA.
Mr. Neubauer questions the lift station needed. Applicant responds it is already in place, but
they will need to fund a portion of the costs.
06:26:10 PM (00:23:37) Lauren Waterton questions the high ground water and restriction on
basements. Applicant responds that they will not allow basements.
06:27:55 PM (00:25:22) Motion by George Thompson: Having reviewed and considered the
application materials, public comment and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the
findings presented in the staff report for application 16-320 and move to recommend approval
of the subdivisions with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.
Second by: Henry Happel
06:28:36 PM (00:26:03) George Thompson states that it’s an exciting project for Bozeman. He
feels the woonerf gives some opportunity in other projects, so is excited to see it implemented.
308
He is nervous with the high square footage homes, and supports smaller homes, especially on a
woonerf.
Henry Happel states that he visited the site a few days ago and likes what he saw. Questions
how it will look 30 years from now. He feels that from what he saw, that he walked away with
warm feelings.
06:30:31 PM (00:27:58) Paul Spitler states that he’d like to commend the applicant for the
thoughtfulness. However, he feels the project is far from town and that the project is really low
density, which is what we seem to be moving away from. He hopes we address these problems
in future projects. He realizes the project meets city requirements.
06:32:54 PM (00:30:21) Mr. Neubauer states that generally speaking he likes the project. He
feels that there have been a lot of relaxations that allowed the developer to make what they
wanted and he was hoping that the City would get more in the way of affordability. But he
understands the project costs money. He questions when a traffic study has lost its relevance.
He feels a lot has happened since the last traffic study in this area. He does not like the
developer signing a waiver of SID’s because that falls on new homeowners.
06:34:47 PM (00:32:14) Vote: Board Unanimously approves.
06:35:20 PM (00:32:47) Approval of meeting minutes: George Thompson moves to approves the
minutes from 5/17, 6/7, 6/21 and 8/2
Lauren Waterton Seconds
Lauren Waterton requests her name be corrected when noted at Laura.
Henry Happel requests that he be added as present on the minutes from one of the dates
approved.
06:37:18 PM (00:34:45) Board approves minutes with corrections – board unanimously
approves.
06:37:39 PM (00:35:06) Adds Zoning Commission to the meeting for the UDC discussion.
06:39:59 PM (00:37:26)
Erik Garberg
Julien Morrice
Henry Happel
Paul Spitler
Lauren Waterton
309
Paul Neubauer
George Thompson
Dan Stevenson
2. 15320 Amendment 2I
Administrative Text Amendments Addressing Covenants and Condominium Associations
06:40:23 PM (00:37:50) Mayana Rice begins presentation on Amendment 2I.
06:46:17 PM (00:43:44) Conclusion of presentation
06:46:23 PM (00:43:50) George Thompson questions the coordination of roads and naming of
roads. He questions if we can create consistency with how roads are named. Ms. Rice deflects
the response to Mr. Rogers who responds with information on how naming happens in the City.
Further discussion between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Thompson regarding street naming.
06:50:24 PM (00:47:51) Erik Garberg questions common areas being deeded to the HOA’s. He
questions if the property is deeded to the HOA, then it is essentially private property and how
some ordinances (such as off leash dogs) translates onto those properties. Ms. Rice responds
that if the HOA is maintaining, they can be more restrictive than the City, but not less restrictive.
06:52:52 PM (00:50:19) Julien Morice questions the same section and if there is more
information on park land specifically. Ms. Rice states there is more information on parkland in
other parts of the code.
06:54:27 PM (00:51:54) Julien Morice questions the requirement for HOA’s to meet regularly to
be maintained. He states that if the HOA doesn’t meet regular and maintain, then covenants
may not be valid. Ms. Rice states that it is an issue if they go obsolete. Ms. Rice states that it has
been proposed to create large districts for those spaces to be included in those districts for the
City to maintain, however, this is not on the table now.
06:56:11 PM (00:53:38) Julien Morice states that improvements need to be agreed upon up
front, so they don’t get pushed off until the last phase or the final phases don’t happen and so
improvements do not get made.
06:57:54 PM (00:55:21) henry Happel questions the procedure by which the ordinance revisions
being brought to the board are being drafted by staff, legal, etc. He feels they should see these
in semi-final form. He questions the process for which they come to the board. Ms. Rice
responds in detail about the process.
310
07:00:11 PM (00:57:38) Mr. Happel questions if there will be a final sign off before it goes to the
City commission. Ms. Rice says that yes, staff and legal will have a final look before going to the
commission.
07:00:28 PM (00:57:55) Dan Stevenson questions amendments to the language that will take
place after the board reviews it, specifically as it applies to conditions the board may propose.
Mayana Rice suggests they could recommend that staff reviews their comments and makes sure
it is included in an area of the code.
07:02:22 PM (00:59:49) Paul Neubauer suggests a grammatical correction.
Discussion regarding whether this is a public hearing – which would mean public comment. Tom
Rogers clarifies it is a public hearing and that the board should also review the final version of
the code before it goes into effect at the end of the process.
No Public Comment
07:05:36 PM (01:03:03) Motion by Julien Morice for the Zoning Commission: Having reviewed
and considered the application materials, public comment, recommendation of the zoning
commission and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the
staff report for application 15-320 and move to approve the text amendment and direct staff
to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified Development Code
amendment.
Second by: George Thompson
07:06:11 PM (01:03:38) Julien Morice states that he thinks there are some things that need to
be cleaned up a little, but all in all it looks good. He thinks we should move towards looking at
how we maintain parks in the future.
07:06:56 PM (01:04:23) Dan Stevenson agrees with Julien Morice’s comments. He suggests City
Staff look into the parks portion. He likes the idea of clarifying/defining common property and
the city’s requirements and desires of owning parkland in the conclusion of HOA’s.
Zoning Commission votes to unanimously approve.
07:07:56 PM (01:05:23) Motion by Julien Mo for the Zoning Commission: Having reviewed and
considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I
hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15-320 and move to
recommend approval of the text amendment.
Second by George Thompson
07:08:33 PM (01:06:00) Lauren Waterton states that this seems mostly to be a house keeping
item, and seems to be in keeping with other items they’re working on.
311
Henry Happel comments that on a substantive level, this seems just fine. However, in looking at
the language to be included in the ordinance. He thinks in the future we will not remember all of
the meetings and all that will be left will be the language. He does not feel it is as well thought
out as it should be – he feels it could be more polished. He does not feel the board should spend
too much time on the technical language of the draft, but that it should be brought to them
more polished. It should be as clear and consistent as possible when it gets to them. He does not
think that if it were up to him, that he would not approve this language. He thinks the city
attorney or whomever should review it and a more polished version should be presented to the
board.
Mr. Neubauer states that he appreciates Mr. Happel giving it such a fine level of scrutiny to it.
He agrees that he shares some of his concerns and that they should receive a more finalized
document, but that he trusts that it will be more polished in the end.
Mr. Happel finalizes his statement saying that he just would prefer to see a closer to final
version before approval.
Vote on the motion: Approved by: Paul Spitler, Paul Neubauer, George Thompson, Lauren
Waterton. Not approved by: Henry Happel Motion Passes.
3. 07:13:27 PM (01:10:54) 16377 Funds In-Lieu of Capital Facilities and
Intersection Level of Service Waiver Text Amendments
The establishment of standards for accepting funds in-lieu of required construction of
capital facilities and the establishment of procedures and criteria for granting a waiver
from the intersection level of service requirements.
07:14:35 PM (01:12:02) Mitch WerBell beings presentation on the Funds in Lieu of Capital
Facilities and Intersection Level of Service Waiver Text Amendments.
07:23:41 PM (01:21:08) End of presentation by Mr. WerBell.
Mr. Neubauer questions what he meant as provisional adoption. Mr. WerBell states that there
are a number of projects in the pipeline that this would apply to, so they are hoping to get this
into effect prior to the rest of the UDC update.
07:24:36 PM (01:22:03) Lauren Waterton questions how often the CIP is updated. Clarification
that it is updated annually.
Ms. Waterton questions when the request for cash-in-lieu should be made. Mr. WerBell
responds it could be during concept review, but needs to be done before the Development
Review Committee makes a recommendation on the project. Clarification between Ms.
Waterton and Mr. WerBell about the process.
312
07:25:55 PM (01:23:22) Ms. Waterton question who the review authority is. Mr. WerBell
responds that it would be the Director of Public Works.
07:26:16 PM (01:23:43) Mr. Happel questions if there will be a case where cash-in-lieu would be
suggested by the City. Mr. WerBell states that there may be cases, but they are not going to be
frequent. The goal is for them to be able to consolidate projects into one larger project instead
of piecing things together.
Mr. Happel states that he would like that to be clearer in the document. He feels most of the
language seems to imply that the suggestion comes from the applicant.
Mr. Happel questions to what level they need to specify in advance where the cash-in-lieu will
be used.
Mr. WerBell questions where Mr. Happel would like to see his suggestion added. Mr. Happel
states that he feels it will be best for the City Attorney to add that language where he sees fit,
but it should be clarified.
Craig Woolard responds that they will need to have something more than just a concept. He
states that they don’t want to take cash-in-lieu and then not be able to cover the cost of the
infrastructure needed. So, there would be an understanding of the ultimate costs for the project
before agreeing on an amount.
Mr. Woodlard states that this needs to be a fairly flexible project to make it work. If it is
narrowed down too tight, then it will be difficult for it to be functional. So, there is some
flexibility to allow director input.
07:31:11 PM (01:28:38) Mr. Happel questions some ambiguity with the language. He states that
he feels that needs to be clarified before they’re asked to vote on it as a board. Mr. Woolard
responds that the goal with this is that there is 3 year CIP plan. The goal here is to be able to
take cash-in-lieu for projects that they know are coming up in the three year plan, to make a
cleaner project.
07:33:57 PM (01:31:24) Mr. Happel states issues with the intersection language as well –
whether “scheduled in three years” means the start of construction of the completion. He feels
it needs to be clear to not be sideways with a developer.
Mr. Woolard states that if he had to pick, it would be projects that would start in 3 years. He
wants to be able to have a project start with a plan to fix a deficiency in the near future. He’s
hoping to have good development occur.
07:35:35 PM (01:33:02) Mr. Garberg questions the appendix referenced. It appears it’s not
created yet. He’s just curious if they’ve finalized this yet or if it’s still being worked on.
313
Mr. WerBell points out where the appendix is included and discusses its content. Mr. Garberg
states it’s not appendix A-F, but does see where the information is included.
07:38:13 PM (01:35:40) Julien Morice states that this funds-in-lieu will be going towards a
funding area. He questions what the funding area is – with specific dimensions. How do they
determine what is in a reasonable proximity.
Mr. WerBell states that he feels there is flexibility for the Director of Public Works. Mr. Woolard
gives an example of how he is able to use his discretion, but that the funds must directly be used
on a project related to that development.
Mr. Stevenson comments that to put specific dimensions or distances would be hard codify
since some projects may not be close to a specific project, but still necessary as a result of the
project.
Mr. Garberg questions what happens if the increase in infrastructure benefits more than the
development in question. Mr. Woolard stated they will have to explore that very carefully.
Mr. Garberg questions what the case is when a project is not part of the CIP. Mr. Woolard states
that it will not be eligible for the program. This program is for the 3 year CIP budget.
Mr. Morice questions how far they can work together projects to make this work for multiple
developments at once. Also, how can the City determine the variables in how much of the
improvements can be attributed to a specific project?
Mr. Woolard states that for the example that Mr. Morice presented, he would not use Cash-in-
lieu for that. It would be too complex and over too long of a period of time. Mr. Woolard
provides a more realistic example of when they would use the program.
Mr. Woolard provides additional examples of good examples of cash-in-lieu at Mr. Morice’s
request. Specifically short sections of sidewalks and chunks of roads.
07:50:40 PM (01:48:07) Mr. Thompson questions what happens if there are changes to the CIP.
Mr. Woolard states that they are changing the way CIP’s are done and how they are working to
avoid that. The goal is to have funding in place for the 3 year plan of Capital Improvements,
regardless of what happens. Certainty in the plan gives them more certainty which allows them
to entertain this idea of cash-in-lieu.
07:54:03 PM (01:51:30) Mr. Neubauer questions the waiver of right to protest SID’s. He states
that it is unfair to new homeowners buy into a neighborhood with infrastructure that is not
sufficient and need to be updated immediately. The developer is waiving the right for the future
homeowner.
He questions Mr. Woolard on his thoughts about deleting the portion about developers waiving
their right to protest SID’s.
314
Mr. Woolard responds that the SID is a tool to get funding for improvements, but does
recognize that it is burdensome. He’s reluctant to take away this tool.
Discussion continues between Mr. Neubauer and Mr. Woolard regarding the right to protest
SID’s and what SID’s are used for.
Mr. Morice states that SID’s are typically highlighted in the buy/sell agreement. But he
recognizes that there can be some cases where and SID is unknown at the time of sale.
08:02:53 PM (02:00:20) Mr. Garberg points out that putting cash-in-lieu into the bank could
alleviate some of the burden of SID’s in the future.
08:03:57 PM (02:01:24) Mr. Morice questions if he sees potential for this to expand beyond
small projects to be a big development tool.
Mr. Woolard states that it could be a tool for bigger projects if they got a firm grasp on it, but
there are a lot of legal questions that would play into it. He feels the cash-in-lieu is a very small
step of getting a better grasp on infrastructure.
08:06:31 PM (02:03:58) Mr. Happel questions the refund provisions in the ordinance. Mr.
Woolard offers clarification with regards to refunds.
Further clarification on wording within the ordinance between board members.
08:08:59 PM (02:06:26) End of questions for staff.
08:09:08 PM (02:06:35) No Public Comment
08:09:35 PM (02:07:02) Motion by Julien Morice for Zoning Commission Having reviewed and
considered the text of the ordinance, staff report, application materials, public comment, all
information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application
16-377 and move to recommend the City Commission approve the funds-in-lieu of capital
facility use text amendment.
Second by Erik Garberg
08:10:10 PM (02:07:37) Erik Garberg comments that he feels there was a lot of drilling of the
staff and thinks that’s a good thing. But he feels that this would be a good tool.
Julien Morice states he thinks it’s a great starting point and that it could grow into something. It
will keep projects from being over-charged for some improvements and help people develop.
08:11:28 PM (02:08:55) Dan Stevenson states that there needs to be clarification that the city
can require cash-in-lieu instead of construction and secondly clarification of the language in the
refund section
315
08:12:05 PM (02:09:32) Zoning Commision approves unanimously
08:12:17 PM (02:09:44) Motion by Lauren Waterton for the Planning Board Having reviewed
and considered the text of the ordinance, staff report, application materials, public comment,
all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for
application 16-377 and move to recommend the City Commission approve the funds-in-lieu of
capital facility use text amendment.
Second by George Thompson.
08:13:10 PM (02:10:37) Mr. Neubauer would like to amend the document to exclude the
portion about developers waiving the right to protest SID’s.
08:13:47 PM (02:11:14) No second by the board – amendment gets dropped.
08:14:03 PM (02:11:30) Back to the original motion. Mr. Neubauer comments that he feels it will
be a great tool and it’s a great step forward.
08:14:27 PM (02:11:54) Mr. Happel agrees that he thinks it’s a good program. He thinks the
draft ordinance is deficient. He thinks its deficient enough that it should not have been brought
to them in this state and should have been more polished. He gave examples of where there is
some inconsistency or poor layout or wording of the document and suggestions for
improvement. He feels it is poor drafting. He doesn’t feel it’s the Community Development
department’s responsibility, but perhaps the City attorney’s office.
08:17:58 PM (02:15:25) Vote on the motion: Approved by: Paul Spitler, Paul Neubauer, George
Thompson, Lauren Waterton. Not approved by: Henry Happel Motion Passed
08:18:59 PM (02:16:26) Motion by the Zoning Commission: Dan Stevenson: having reviewed
and considered the text of the ordinance, staff report, application materials, public comment
and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for
application 16-377 and move to recommend the City Commission approve the intersection
level of service waiver text amendment.
Second by Erik Gargberg
08:19:44 PM (02:17:11) Mr. Garberg comments that using the level of service C to determine if a
project requires improvements is a bit myopic. However, he will support the motion.
08:20:07 PM (02:17:34) Julien Morice states that he supports the motion.
08:20:21 PM (02:17:48) Vote by the Zoning Commission: Board unanimously approves.
08:20:29 PM (02:17:56) Planning Board motion presented by Lauren Waterton: having
reviewed and considered the text of the ordinance, staff report, application materials, public
comment and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
316
report for application 16-377 and move to recommend the City Commission approve the
intersection level of service waiver text amendment.
Second by: Henry Happel
Vote by Planning Board: Motion passes unanimously.
4. 08:21:15 PM (02:18:42) 14642 Subdivision Review Process Text Amendment
A revision to multiple sections of Chapter 38, BMC to amend procedures for review of
major and minor subdivisions and required associated supporting materials. Applicable
in all subdivisions and development city-wide.
08:22:12 PM (02:19:39) Mr. Rogers indicates that the only board that needs to review this is the
Planning Board, so if anyone from the Zoning Commission needs to leave, they are excused.
08:23:16 PM (02:20:43) Zoning Commission adjourns.
08:23:45 PM (02:21:12) Mr. Rogers begins presentation on the Subdivision Review Process Text
Amendment.
08:33:43 PM (02:31:10) Conclusion of presentation – open for questions of staff.
08:33:54 PM (02:31:21) George Thompson questions section 5 of the document. He requests
that Mr. Rogers expand on the requirements regarding rent or lease. Mr. Rogers explains.
08:36:48 PM (02:34:15) Paul Spitler questions if there are just procedural changes and not
necessarily substantive. Mr. Rogers states that is in the eye of the beholder. He feels they are
procedural.
Mr. Spitler questions how these changes are more equitable. Mr. Rogers states he’s not sure as
Mr. Saunders wrote that portion, but any time a process becomes more transparent, it can be
more equitable. The goal of this whole code update is to make it more transparent and easy to
understand for everyone.
Mr. Spitler questions if this is the right place to comment on the density. Mr. Rogers responds
that perhaps it is, but the growth policy dictates the density we are hoping for and zoning
classifications determine density requirements.
Mr. Spitler questions where in the subdivision review process are those densities spelled out by
the applicant and whether it’s part of the subdivision review process and should it be. Mr.
Rogers responds that upon subdivision and zoning density is set, and the applicant is required to
do those calculations as part of their application.
08:42:32 PM (02:39:59) End of questions for staff.
08:42:38 PM (02:40:05) No public comment.
317
08:43:11 PM (02:40:38) Motion by Mr. Spitler: Having reviewed the application and materials,
public comment and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in
the staff report for application 14-642 and move to recommend approval of the text
amendment.
Second by George Thompson
08:43:33 PM (02:41:00) Mr. Spitler states he feels this is good housekeeping in keeping up with
state and case law. He feels that they have done a thorough job.
08:43:55 PM (02:41:22) Mr. Happel comments that the effort is good. He questions what we are
doing here. He doesn’t really know if these amendments are all appropriate and covering
everything that needs to be covered and whether substantive changes should be made. He
thinks the City asking for their approval on this is going beyond their purview. He feels the City
attorney’s office should come with approval from him, not the planning board. It would take a
lot of time for him to go through the text completely and make sure he truly agrees with it. In
this circumstance, he would like to say he’s not able to vote on this, but he votes against it as a
sort of recognition that he doesn’t necessarily agree.
08:46:49 PM (02:44:16) Lauren Waterton states that to comment to Mr. Happel’s comment, she
does a lot of subdivision law review and they get sent down every couple of years and need to
be adopted, we can’t necessarily select which we want to approve and which we don’t. He
trusts staff is doing a pretty complete evaluation.
Mr. Neubauer states that the board puts a lot of faith in the staff to do a good job and present
them with a complete staff report. He states primarily their charge is to point out things that
conflict with the growth policy. He feels a lot of what they do is final stage subdivision review.
He thinks while re-doing the UDC it gives them a voice in what shapes the process. As the
growth policy gets updated, it’s another opportunity to shape the community.
Mr. Happel agrees, but to really get his head around the document, he’s just concerned that
he’s being asked to approve it and there’s a lot to review.
George Thompson states that he agrees with Mr. Happels concerns. But he’s agreeing to a
portion of the document that states that this document brings us in compliance with the state’s
requirements. He’s not sure what the state’s requirements are, so it’s an implicit trust in the
staff.
Discussion continues regarding approving the documents.
08:53:12 PM (02:50:39) Vote on the motion: Approved by: Paul Spitler, Paul Neubauer, George
Thompson, Lauren Waterton. Not approved by: Henry Happel Motion Passed.
318
E. 08:53:39 PM (02:51:06) FYI/Discussion
Mr. Rogers comments that he has been appointed the Planning Board and Zoning Commission
staff liaison. He states that he is responsible for providing information to the board on what
their role is.
Mr. Rogers provides some updates on what is happening with long range planning and how it
will interact with the Planning Board.
Further information to the board about their role in the process.
08:57:35 PM (02:55:02) Mr. Spitler questions when updating the community plan, they’re going
to be in the same situation they are here, and that they might see the first level, and that they
won’t have time to review it. He’s hoping there will be more time in the future when making a
growth plan. Mr. Rogers responds.
Further discussion regarding plans for updating the community plan.
F. 09:09:09 PM (03:06:36) Adjournment
For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our Interim ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301).
319
From:Henry H Happel
To:Chris Saunders
Cc:Tom Rogers
Subject:Amendment 2F
Date:Thursday, October 6, 2016 4:52:51 PM
Chris—
Here are a few comments on Amendment 2F which was discussed at Tuesday’s Planning Board meeting.
1. Section 10.A.3.a.(8) on page 26 of the Amendment refers to the “ARM as [it] may be
amended.” Section 10.A.3.b on the following page refers to the ARM, but drops the as may be amended language. I think courts in interpreting statutory language try to give meaning to all
differences in the text. That would likely mean here that a court would interpret the reference to the ARM in Subsection b. to mean the ARM as it exists now, and ignore any future
revisions to it. Is that what’s intended? I doubt it.
The ARM is referred to in various places in the text. Assuming that in each of these the intention is to refer to the ARM in whatever form it is in at the time, it would be best to always
say “the ARM as it may be amended.”
2. In Subsection 12.A.1, the Certificate of Dedication, there is a list, repeated five times in the Certificate, of the properties dedicated to the City. The lists are not consistent with regard to
playgrounds or playground easements. Unless there is some reason for these inconsistencies, they should be eliminated.
3. In Section 17, the last sentence of the Notifications and Certifications certificate states that
buyers are encouraged to contact the local planning department about limitations on use of the property “prior to closing.” A notice providing better protection to the public would strike the
word “closing” and replace it with “entering into a binding agreement for its purchase.” I don’t know whether State law would allow that change, however.
4. In Section 18, the Certificate of Completion of Non-Public Improvements contains a
statement by the subdivider that it "warrant(s) against defect in … improvements for a period of two years…. Unless there is some case law around this language, it seems to me a rather
casual and ambiguous statement of the subdivider’s obligations. I’d be happier with:
“I, (Name of Subdivider) hereby warrant to the City that all such improvement shall be free of any and all defects in materials, construction, and workmanship for a period of two years…”
What’s not listed is defects in design. I don’t know, given the City’s prior approval of the design of these improvements, whether a warranty of the subdivider on that matter is
appropriate.
Best,Hap
320