HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A3. UDC Hearing on Covenants and CondosPage 1 of 9
15320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Associations
Public Hearing Dates:
Zoning Commission and Planning Board joint public meeting Tuesday, October 4th,
2016
City Commission public hearing Monday, October 24, 2016
City Commission public hearing Monday, February 23, 2017
Project Description: A text amendment to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to
revise the covenants and condominiums requirements.
Project Location: Applicable throughout the entire corporate limit of Bozeman as it exist
now and as it evolves through annexation over time, and applies to all properties.
Recommendation: Approval
Recommended Motions:
Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment,
recommendation of the Planning Board and Zoning Commission, and all the information
presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320
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.
Report Date: February 21, 2017
Staff Contact: Mayana Rice, AICP; Associate Planner
Agenda Item Type: Action (Legislative)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
None identified at this time.
Project Summary
These text amendments are a part of the City of Bozeman Unified Development Code
(UDC) update. The amendment is identified as a number and letter code as the ordinance
adoption will occur in early 2017 for the entire UDC.
The proposed amendments address three primary areas in section 38.38, BMC. The first
change clarifies the definition of “common” property in 38.39.090.A.
183
15-320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Page 2 of 9
The second change is to 38.39.090.B clarifying the information needed within the
declaration of covenants. The changes made do not change the scope of the items identified
in the current ordinance. Rather they enhance and simplify the language. The only section
that is new is language identifying the need for “regular maintenance program”. The
ordinance now makes this a requirement of the declarations.
The third change the addition of 38.39.090.D which indicates a multi-phased project must
have an owners association created with the first phase. It also identifies that property
cannot be removed from the property owners association without approval by the city.
The fourth change is to add Section 3.A.9 referencing the addressing of condominiums from
Chapter 10, Article 7 BMC.
The final changes are intended to clarify code language, clean up grammatical changes, add
punctuation and remove redundant language. These changes came from planning staff,
planning board, and zoning commission members, with a final edit and review by the City’s
legal team.
Additional background information can be found in Appendix B.
Zoning Commission and Planning Board
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board met as a combined body on October 4th
, 2016,
to review the suggested updates. The discussion centered on a clarification of the
difference between open space, parkland and other common property definitions. The
change to the UDC was satisfactory to the members of ZC and PB.
The zoning commission made a motion to forward an approval recommendation to the City
Commission for the amendments as written with a 4:0 unanimous vote.
The planning board made a motion to forward an approval recommendation to the City
Commission for the amendments as written with a 4:1 vote based on concerns regarding
grammatical errors and redundant language.
The City commission met on October 24, 2016. After reviewing the staff recommendation,
the minutes from the ZC and PB and the public comment, requested that staff bring back a
more refined definition of “common property”. The questions revolved around common
property items being a list of types or a general definition.
The City’s legal team has since revised the document to ensure the language was amended
to reflect the full intent of the amendment.
Alternatives
Alternatives for Commission action are:
1) Accept the recommendation as written.
2) Direct use of alternative wording.
184
15-320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Page 3 of 9
3) Continue the item and request additional information from staff.
4) Do not adopt the amendments and leave the language as it exists.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
15320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Associations ................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Unresolved Issues ....................................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1
Zoning Commission and Planning Board ................................................................................... 2
Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3
Section 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ................................................... 3
Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing Covenants and
Condominiums ................................................................................................................................ 3
Section 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................ 4
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ................................................................................. 4
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ................................................................. 6
Section 76-1-606, MCA (Effect of Growth Policy on Subdivision Regulations) ...................... 6
Section 76-3-501, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)........................................................................ 7
APPENDIX A –Affected ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY provisions .................................. 8
appendix B – detailed project description and background ............................................................ 8
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ........................................................... 9
Appendix D - Owner Information and Reviewing Staff ................................................................. 9
Fiscal effects ................................................................................................................................... 9
ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 9
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing Covenants
and Condominiums
Having considered the criteria established for a municipal code amendment, the Community
Development Staff recommends the approval of the text amendments.
185
15-320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Page 4 of 9
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public hearing on the proposed
amendments on October 4, 2016.
The City Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on October 24, 2016.
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following:
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. An underlying principle of the Bozeman Community Plan is to 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.
Chapter 15 of the plan states: Creation of a subdivision often precedes or accompanies a
change in the use of that land. A subdivision generally remains in perpetuity and continues to
influence the location and intensity of land uses within and adjacent to the subdivision.
As this states, the influence of a subdivision is beyond the physical boundaries of the project.
Ensuring that the rules governing the subdivision ordinance are clear and encompassing
ensure compatibility within and adjacent to the subdivision.
Objective G-2.1 states that development requirements and standards are efficiently
implemented, fairly and consistently applied, effective, and proportionate to the concerns
being addressed. The intent of both ordinances is to improve City processes in a fair,
equitable and transparent manner to insure consistency.
This plan provides overarching policy direction for all City actions. Therefore, all actions
taken to implement this plan must be reviewed to ensure compliance.
Further under this goal, the Plan includes Objective G-2.4, which states: “Develop a balanced
system of regulatory requirements, programs, and incentives to ensure that development
within the Planning Area is in compliance with the Bozeman Community Plan.” Improving
language governing subdivisions and condominium association language will continue to
support balanced regulatory requirements.
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers.
Yes. The proposed amendments do not change the breadth of tools available to the City in
identifying and mitigating risk from land use and development.
186
15-320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Page 5 of 9
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. The proposed amendments do not change the requirements for provision of water or
sewer systems, provision of emergency response capability, or similar existing standards.
The proposed amendments do not eliminate any required standards currently adopted by the
City.
D. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks
and other public requirements.
Yes. The proposed text amendments will not affect publicly required transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks and other systems if and when development occurs. Established
procedures will provide for mitigation of impacts as they occur. Improving language
governing subdivisions and condominium association language will ensure phased projects
continue to comply at each phase.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. The proposed text amendments will not affect reasonable provisions of adequate
light and air. The text amendments are designed to improve review processes and create
efficiencies in achieving the over goals of the City.
F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Neutral. No changes to transportation standards are proposed.
G. Promotion of compatible urban growth.
Yes. The proposed text amendments will promote compatible urban growth improving
review processes. Improving language governing subdivisions and condominium association
language will ensure phased projects continue to comply at each phase.
H. Character of the district.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to the character of the
established zoning districts. Any development may be subject to the provisions being
amended if required. The actions and processes involved do not directly impact character of a
district.
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to land uses. The more
intensive uses are still reserved for appropriate zoning districts.
J. Conserving the value of buildings.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to building requirements
or standards.
187
15-320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Page 6 of 9
K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to the zoning districts.
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE
OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF EITHER THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE
AMENDMENT AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT
INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME
EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT
AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
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.
The amendment is in accord with the growth policy. See discussion under Criterion A above
for details.
Section 76-3-102, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)
2. Promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the
subdivision of land.
Neutral. The City’s subdivision regulations already include regulations and procedures for
subdividing land. The amendments will ensure those owners associations are created and
continue to comply at each phase of development.
3. Prevent the overcrowding of land.
Yes. Lands become overcrowded when the intensity of use is greater than the services
provided to the property. The amendments will ensure those owners associations are created
and continue to comply at each phase of development.
4. Lessen congestion in the streets and highways.
Neutral. The proposed revisions do not change the requirement for street frontage,
construction of sidewalks, or incorporation of trails in parks. Therefore, no impact is
expected to this criterion.
188
15-320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Page 7 of 9
5. Provide adequate light, air, water supply, sewage disposal, parks and recreation
areas, ingress and egress, and other public improvements.
Yes. The revisions apply specifically to owners associations and not other municipal
services. This criterion repeats several of the criteria for zoning review which are analyzed
above. See criteria D-F above for details.
The revisions include a requirement for review by the community development department
for any changes to the owners association.
6. Require development in harmony with the natural environment.
Neutral. The proposed does not alter the basic standards for development.
7. Protect the rights of property owners.
Yes. The procedural requirements of the City’s subdivision regulations protect rights. The
proposed regulations provide restrictions ensuring that phased developments are structured to
benefit all of the phases.
8. Require uniform monumentation of land subdivisions and transferring interests
in real property by reference to a plat or certificate of survey.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
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.
Yes. The amendments ensure the continued protection of infrastructure within subdivisions
and condominium.
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.
Yes. The amendments ensure the continued protection of adequate open spaces within
subdivisions and condominiums.
189
15-320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Page 8 of 9
14. Adequate transportation, water and drainage.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion.
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.
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 amendments ensure the continued protection of infrastructure within subdivisions
and condominiums.
APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
PROVISIONS
Zoning Designation and Land Uses:
The development of residential and commercial properties with common areas creates the
need to develop owners associations. These amendments apply to all zoning districts within
the City. These amendments are a part of the Unified Development Code Update.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation:
The proposal applies to all covenants created anywhere in the city. For discussion on accord
with the growth policy see zoning criterion A.
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
BACKGROUND
Project Description
The City seeks to revise the development code in a two-step process. Phase one focused on
the North Seventh Avenue corridor and urban renewal/tax increment district (TIF). Phase
two expands the focus to the entire City.
Amending language for the subdivision and condominium covenants is part of the phase two
process.
190
15-320, Amendment 2I, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing
Covenants and Condominium Page 9 of 9
Bozeman initially adopted zoning in 1934. Bozeman’s current UDC structure which includes
zoning, subdivision, and infrastructure standards was established in 2004. Many older
elements and standards were carried forward in 2004. The present text therefore does not
always reflect best zoning, planning and infrastructure practices.
The amendments to the subdivision and condominium covenants section will ensure that
phased projects are protected by covenants in a timely manner and fully cover all of the items
that are managed by an association.
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Table 38.40.040, BMC lists notice requirements for all types of applications.
The notice was submitted Wednesday February 15, 2017 for publication as a legal ad on
Sunday, February 19 and 26, 2016. Notice of the public workshops and hearings were posted
City’s website.
As this Text Amendment applies to the entire corporate limits of Bozeman as it exists now
and evolves over time through annexation, and it applies to all properties, there is no
requirement for posting specific properties.
No public comment has been received as of the writing of this report.
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Applicant: City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771
Representative: Department of Community Development
Report By: Mayana Rice, AICP; Associate Planner
FISCAL EFFECTS
No fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this text
amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
191
(Unified Development Code revision element 2I, Covenants & Condominium Provisions)
AMENDING ARTICLE 38.38, OF CHAPTER 38, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE, BMC, REGARDING COVENANTS AND PROPERTY OWNER
ASSOCIATIONS.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by its 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 its 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 City is authorized by its Charter and Montana law to adopt zoning
regulations and provide for the enforcement and administration of zoning regulations and
otherwise reasonably provide for the intentions of Section 76-2-304, MCA; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted regulations regarding property owner
associations and covenants as they interact with other land use and development regulations
adopted under various City authority; and
WHEREAS, it has become apparent that changes to these regulations are required.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
192
Section 1
Legislative Findings:
1. The standards within Chapter 38, BMC enable the development of the community in a
manner which avoids conflicts, provide for public notice of and comment on
development which may affect residents and land owners, and provide predictability in
government actions.
2. New subdivisions and site developments may rely upon covenants and property owner
associations to satisfy land development regulatory requirements.
3. Coordination across phases of multi-phase development is essential to enable reasonable
development patterns and ensure that beneficiaries of facilities participate in their
maintenance.
4. The sale or other loss of control of future phases can negatively impact the planned
location, size, and function of proposed and approved parks, stormwater controls, and
other facilities which are necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare and
configuration of which the City has relied upon in approving development applications.
Section 2
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.38.020 as follows:
A. General. If common property is to be deeded to the property owners association or
similar organization, of if the property owners association will be responsible for the
maintenance of the development's streets, centers, landscaping in street boulevards, park land or
pathways, If the review authority determines a common area, facility, or any other infrastructure
is to be created or constructed as part of the development and such common area, facility, or
infrastructure is required to be either owned by or maintained by the property owners’
association the developer must provide supplemental documents, as applicable, that (i) transfer
ownership of common area, facility, or infrastructure to the property owners’ association; (ii)
provide for the perpetual maintenance of common area, facility, or infrastructure by the property
owners’ association; and (iii) identify if access to the common area or facility is available to the
public or is restricted to the members of the property owners’ association. p Property owners’
association bylaws or the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall must be
prepared and recorded with the final plat or plan.
193
B. Bylaws or covenants, conditions and restrictions contents. The items listed below are
required to be included in the property owners' association bylaws or declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions and must be clearly identified within the documents.
The covenants must shall contain the following information at a minimum, provide:
1. The property owners’ association will be formed before any properties are sold.
1. 2. Membership. A is automatic and mandatory membership for each property or unit
buyer and any subsequent buyer.
2. 3. Common land/facilities. The legal description of the common land and a description of
common facilities. Means of enforcing the covenants, and of receiving and processing
complaints.
3. Enforcement. Persons or entities entitled to enforce the restrictions, responsibilities and
payment of assessments, including the city.
4. Perpetual reservation. Perpetual reservation and limited use of common property.
Common area and facilities must be perpetually reserved.
5. Right to use. The right of each property or unit owner to use and enjoyment of any
common property or facility.
6. 5. Responsibility. Responsibility The association is responsible for liability insurance, any
applicable tax assessments and the maintenance of any common property area or facilities to
be placed in the association.
7. 6. Assessments. A mechanism to assess the common expenses for the land or facilities
including upkeep and maintenance expenses, real estate taxes and insurance premiums.
Assessments shall require each p Property or unit owners to must pay a pro rata share of the
cost of any common expenses, with any assessment charged by the association becoming a
lien where necessary on individual parcels. Safeguards against unreasonably high charges
and provision to adjust assessments may be provided.
8. 7. The association may adjust the assessment to meet changed needs. A mechanism for
resolving disputes among the owners or association members.
194
9. 8. The conditions and timing of the transfer of ownership and control of common areas
and land facilities from the declarant to the association.
9. The permission of the city commission is required before the association can be
dissolved or the boundaries altered.
10. Regular maintenance program for items included in 38.39.090.A and any other common
area and facilities and that the association is responsible for the maintenance program.
Any other matter the developer or the city deems appropriate.
11. In the event it becomes necessary for a property owners association to retain an attorney
to enforce any of the association bylaws or covenants, conditions and restrictions, then
the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
C. If the property owners association fails to install or maintain improvements according to
approved plans, the city may, at its option, complete construction of improvements and/or
maintain improvements in compliance with section 38.38.030 and article 39 of this chapter.
The city's representative, contractors and engineers shall must have the right to enter upon
the property and perform such work, and the property owners association shall permit and
secure any additional permission required to enable them to do so. The city shall bill the
property owners association for any costs associated with the installation or maintenance of
improvements.
D. For a multiphase project, the property owners’ association shall be created for the entire
project with the first phase.
E. To ensure continued maintenance of common areas and facilities, and on-going fulfillment
of all obligations no property shall be removed from the property owners’ association
without prior approval by the city.
Section 3
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.38.030.A to read
as follows:
A. The city may require covenants to be recorded with the final plat when it is determined they
are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. Review of
195
covenants must comply with Section 38.03.060.A.3. All covenants shall must be considered
to run with the land. If the covenants are not marked or noted on the final subdivision plat or
other final approval document, they shall must be contained in a separate instrument which
shall must be recorded with the final plat or prior to final approval of other applications. The
covenants may be required to include, but are not limited to, the following provisions:
1. That all county declared noxious weeds will be controlled.
2. A section addressing agricultural uses of neighboring properties in the following form:
"Lot owners and residents of the subdivision are informed that adjacent uses may
be agricultural. Lot owners accept and are aware that standard agricultural and farming
practices can result in dust, animal odors and noise, smoke, flies, and machinery noise.
Standard agricultural practices feature the use of heavy equipment, chemical sprays and
the use of machinery early in the morning and sometimes late into the evening."
3. That all fences bordering agricultural lands shall must be maintained by the landowners
in accordance with state law.
4. The property owners association shall be responsible for the maintenance of subdivision
streets, common open space, centers, pathways, landscaping in street boulevards and/or
parks.
4. 5. That any covenant which is required as a condition of the preliminary plat approval and
required by the city commission may not be amended or revoked without the mutual
consent of the owners in accordance with the amendment procedures in the covenants,
and the city commission.
6. The condition and timing of the transfer of the property owners association from
developer to the subsequent purchasers.
5.7. Common area and facility maintenance plan. The developer shall must submit a legal
instrument setting forth a plan providing for the permanent care and maintenance of
common areas and facilities. These common areas and facilities shall include but are not
limited to commonly owned open spaces, recreational areas, facilities, private streets
and parking lots. These common areas and facilities shall also include but are not
limited to public parks, squares, open space, recreation areas, trails, as well as any
196
public streets, avenues and alleys not accepted by the city for maintenance. The same
shall must be submitted to the city attorney and shall must not be accepted by the city
until approved as to legal form and effect. If the common areas are Common areas and
facilities must be deeded to a property owners association and, the applicant shall must
record the proposed documents governing the association at the time of final plat filing.
Such documents shall meet the following requirements:
a. The property owners association must be established before any residences or other
properties are sold;
b. Membership in the association must be mandatory for each property owner with a
specified method of assigning voting rights;
c. Open space restrictions must be permanent and not for a period of years;
d. The property owners association must be made responsible for liability insurance,
taxes, and maintenance of common facilities;
e. The association must have the power to levy assessments which can become a lien
on individual premises for the purpose of paying the cost of operating and
maintaining common facilities; and
f. The governing board of any such association shall consist of at least three members
who shall be owners of property in the development.
6.8. Common area and facility maintenance guarantee. In the event the organization or any
successor organization established to own and maintain common areas and facilities,
shall must at any time fail to maintain the common areas or facilities in reasonable order
and condition in accordance with the approved plan, the city may cause written notice
to be served upon such organization or upon the owners of property in the development.
The written notice shall must set forth the manner in which the common areas or
facilities have failed to be maintained in reasonable condition. In addition, the notice
shall must include the demand that the deficiencies noted be cured within 30 days
thereafter and shall must state the date and place of a public meeting to be held within
14 days of the notice. At the time of public meeting, the city commission may modify
the terms of the original notice as to deficiencies and may extend the time within which
197
the same may be cured. If the deficiencies set forth in the original notice or
modifications are not cured within the time set, the city may enter upon such common
facilities and maintain the same for a period of one year, in order to preserve the taxable
values of properties within the development and to prevent the common facilities from
becoming a public nuisance. Such entry and maintenance shall must not vest in the
public any right to use the common facilities not dedicated to public use. Before the one
year period expires, the commission shall must, upon its own initiative or upon written
request of the organization theretofore responsible for maintenance, call a public
meeting and give notice of such meeting to the organization responsible for
maintenance or the property owners of the development. At the meeting, the
organization responsible for maintenance and/or the residents of the development may
show cause why maintenance by the city should not be continued for a succeeding year.
If the city commission determines that it is not necessary for the city to continue such
maintenance, the city shall must cease such maintenance at the time established by the
city commission. Otherwise the city shall must continue maintenance for the next
succeeding year subject to a similar meeting and determination at the end of each year
thereafter.
a. The cost of maintenance by the city shall must be a lien against the common
facilities of the development and the private properties within the development.
The city commission shall must have the right to make assessments against
properties in the development on the same basis that the organization responsible
for maintenance of the facilities could make such assessments. Any unpaid
assessment shall must be a lien against the property responsible for the same,
enforceable the same as a mortgage against such property. The city may further
foreclose its lien on the common facility by certifying the same to the county
treasurer for collection as in the case of collection of general property taxes.
b. Should the property owners association request that the city assume permanent
responsibility for maintenance of facilities, all facilities shall must be brought to
city standards prior to the city assuming responsibility. The assumption of
responsibility must be by action of the city commission and all costs to bring
facilities to city standards shall must be the responsibility of the property owners
198
association. The city may create special financing mechanisms so that those
properties within the area affected by the property owners association continue to
bear the costs of maintenance.
c. These common areas and facilities shall include but are not limited to commonly
owned open spaces, recreational areas, facilities, private streets and parking lots.
These common areas and facilities shall also include but are not limited to public
parks, squares, open space, recreation areas, trails, as well as any public streets,
avenues and alleys not accepted by the city for maintenance.
c.d. The city shall must assume permanent responsibility for maintenance of public
areas and facilities when a dedicated funding mechanism is adopted.
7.9. Guarantee for open space preservation. Open space shown on the approved final plan or
plat shall must not be used for the construction of any structures not shown on the final
plan.
8.10.Covenants may not contain provisions which inhibit compliance with the requirements
of chapter 38, article 43, for those developments subject to chapter 38, article 43. Some
examples are: privately required minimum home or lot sizes which can not be met.
9. Covenants and condominium declaration documents must require condominiums to be
assigned street addresses in compliance with chapter 10, article 7 BMC. Addressing
must not use X or other generic statements. Draft documents submitted for review prior
to final approval must include correct addresses.
10. Stormwater facilities maintenance as required by chapter 40 article 4 BMC.
199
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
200
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.
201
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
202
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.
203
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.
204
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.
205
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.
206
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.
207
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
208
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
209
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.
210
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.
211
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).
212