Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-26-18 City Commission Packet Materials - A3. Winco Foods Administrative Project Decision Appeal
Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 1 of 10 Report To: Mayor and City Commission From: Courtney Johnson, AIA, NCARB, Senior Planner Marty Matsen, Director of Community Development Subject: Appeal of the Administrative Project Decision for the Winco Foods Site Plan, Application 17585 Meeting Date: November 26, 2018 Agenda Item Type: Action Project Location: Max Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59718 CITY COMMISSION ACTION: At the conclusion of the consideration of the appeal, the City Commission may uphold, amend, or overturn the administrative project decision for Site Plan Application 17585. The decision may be overturned or amended upon the finding that such final administrative decision was erroneous. Report Date: November 9, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This appeal application concerns the administrative project decision to approve site plan application 17585 for Winco Foods, an application for a commercial development of an approximately 75,000 square foot grocery store within the Gallatin Center PUD Subdivision development at Max Avenue. The application for appeal was submitted by the following appellant(s): Cameron Seiler 1206 E.Curtiss St, Bozeman, MT 59715 Joel H. Dubar 322 Blackhawk Lane, Belgrade, MT 59714 Samara Yanny 734 23rd Ave #4, Bozeman, MT 59718 Christian Jakkola 2006 W.Koch St., Bozeman, MT 59718 John Robert McGowen, Jr. 108 8th Street, Belgrade, MT 59714 Justin Gipson 100 Mullan Hall, Bozeman, MT 59715 Appeals of administrative project decisions are governed by 38.250.030, BMC. For a discussion on the procedures during the appeal see below. According to the appeal application materials submitted, appellants base their appeal on two grounds, which are described in the appeal application narrative (attachment). First, appellants argue the subject application is not consistent with the Growth Policy. Secondly, appellants argue the subject application does not meet certain technical requirements of the current Unified Development Code (UDC) which took effect March 31, 2018. The technical requirements listed by the appellant(s) include traffic impacts, building design, landscaping, and block frontage requirements. Because the subject application was submitted and deemed adequate for review prior to the effective date of the current UDC, it was reviewed under the previous version of the UDC. According to the City Attorney’s Office, after the close of the public hearing, the Commission must make two determinations. First, prior to considering the merits of the appeal and after the close of the public 191 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 2 of 10 hearing the Commission must determine whether the appellants qualify as “aggrieved persons.” The appellants provide information related to why they qualify as aggrieved persons in two documents provided at the time of their submittal of the appeal: (i) narrative submitted along with the appeal (attached); and (ii) letter to City Attorney Greg Sullivan dated October 12, 2018. For more on this issue, please see the discussion below under “Appeal from an Aggrieved Person.” According to the City Attorney’s Office, if the Commission determines the appellants qualify as aggrieved persons the Commission must then decide upon the merits of the appeal. If the Commission determines the appellants do not qualify as aggrieved persons the Commission must then stop its deliberations. 192 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 3 of 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ....................................................................................................................................... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS: ......................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND: ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Site Plan Application: ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Review Timeline for the WinCo Foods’ site plan: ........................................................................................... 4 City Commission approved changes to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code: .................................. 5 Growth Policy and Long Range Planning: ....................................................................................................... 5 Bozeman Community Plan - Regional Commercial and Services Designation: .............................................. 6 Staff evaluation and Director’s approval of the site plan application: ........................................................... 6 APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: .................................................................................................... 6 APPEAL PUBLIC NOTICE: ..................................................................................................................................... 7 APPEAL PUBLIC COMMENT: ............................................................................................................................... 7 EVALUATION OF THE APPEAL: ............................................................................................................................ 7 APPEAL FROM AN AGGREIVED PERSON: ............................................................................................................ 8 BASIS OF THE APPEAL: ........................................................................................................................................ 8 APPEAL PROCEDURE: .......................................................................................................................................... 8 UNRESOLVED ISSUES: ......................................................................................................................................... 8 FISCAL EFFECTS: .................................................................................................................................................. 9 ATTACHMENTS: ................................................................................................................................................ 10 193 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 4 of 10 BACKGROUND: Site Plan Application: Property Owner and applicant Gallatin TR LP., and representative Madison Engineering LLC, submitted an application for a site plan approval on December 21, 2017. The application proposed the construction of an approximately 75,000 square foot grocery store along with associated site and infrastructure improvements. This site is part of the Gallatin Center PUD (Z-98119) and Subdivision (P-9834) both preliminary approved on September 8, 1998, Subdivision findings of fact approved on October 19, 1998 and final PUD approval by Director on November 17, 1998. Final plat of Phase 1 of the Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D Phase 4 recorded on April 5, 2006. Review Timeline for the WinCo Foods’ site plan: 16368 Informal Review 8/30/2016 Design Review Board 9/14/2016 Development Review Committee 9/14/2016 17429 Conceptual Review 8/1/2017 DRC Memo 10/03/2017 17585 Site Plan Application Submitted December 21, 2017 Resubmittal February 9, 2018 DRC Memo March 2, 2018 UDC Adequate for Review Memo March 30, 2018 Design Review Board (Approval) April 11, 2018 Resubmittal August 6, 2018 Final Memo August 29, 2018 Noticed public comment period August 31, 2018 – September 15, 2018 Final Approval September 28, 2018 18484 Appeal Application Submitted October 10, 2018 City Attorney Response Letter October 11, 2018 Appellant Response Letter October 12, 2018 Community Director Letter to Winco October 19, 2018 Community Director Letter to Appellants October 19, 2018 Notice November 02, 2018 – November 26, 2018 Commission Hearing November 26, 2018 Bozeman Chronicle Articles Sept 2, 2018 WinCo, again, proposes location in north Bozeman Oct 12, 2017 WinCo resubmits plans for north Bozeman grocery Apr 9, 2016 WinCo Foods planning new Bozeman grocery store Sept 2, 2018 WinCo, again, proposes location in north Bozeman 194 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 5 of 10 City Commission approved changes to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code: On January 4, 2018, the City Commission approved changes to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The changes were effective as of March 31, 2018. This application was deemed adequate for review on March 30, 2018, since it was found to include all the required elements in order for the City to make a decision on the project. Per Section 7-21-1003, MCA and implemented by 38.19.090 BMC, “… the review and approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the site-specific development plan must be based solely upon the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time that the complete site-specific development plan was submitted to the local government entity that has jurisdiction over the application.” Therefore, the standards adopted by Ordinance 1978 which took effect on March 31, 2018 do not apply to review of application 18488. Both state law and local ordinance note that a determination of adequacy does not restrict the City from requesting additional information and/or requiring code corrections prior to a recommendation of approval for the project. Growth Policy and Long Range Planning: Since 1958, the City of Bozeman has formally adopted long range plans for the community. State law identifies such documents as growth policies. The current growth policy is titled the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP). It was adopted in 2009 after an extensive public process and is the 6th adopted growth policy. A growth policy is not a regulatory document and does not confer any authority to regulate that is not otherwise specifically authorized by law or regulations adopted pursuant to the law. A governing body may not withhold, deny, or impose conditions on any land use approval or other authority to act based solely on compliance with a growth policy adopted pursuant to this chapter. (MCA 76-1-605.2.a/b.). When creating zoning regulations, the Commission must determine whether the zoning regulation substantially complies with the growth policy. As a result, individual projects that meet the standards set forth in the zoning regulations are generally presumed to be in compliance with the growth policy. The Commission has, however, required compliance with the Growth Policy in the approval of site plan applications. See current UDC 38.230.100.A.1, BMC and applicable UDC Sec. 38.19.100.A (“In considering applications for plan approval under this chapter, the review authority and advisory bodies must consider the following criteria: [… ] Conformance to and consistency with the city's adopted growth policy”). Figure 3-1 of the BCP presents the location of planned land use categories. Each category is described in Chapter 3 of the BCP. Table C-16 of the BCP identifies land use categories and associated implementing zoning districts. The B-2 zoning district is an implementing district for the Regional Commercial and Services growth policy land use category. Therefore, location of uses authorized in B-2 on the site is generally presumed to be in accordance with the growth policy. The City’s zoning structure has been revised and updated from time to time. Each time it has been evaluated for compliance with the current growth policy. Ordinance 1645, which includes B-2 as shown on table 38.07.010.B, adopted the overall zoning structure applicable to the WinCo site. Collectively, at the time of adoption of these zoning regulations, the overall package of standards and procedures were found to comply with the growth policy. Therefore, review and approval of an application which meets the adopted zoning standards is likewise generally presumed to be in compliance with the growth policy. Development of the site was evaluated for accordance with the growth policy on multiple occasions such as: • Initial zoning as B-2 concurrent with annexation, 195 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 6 of 10 • Initial review and approval of the Gallatin Center PUD • Review of each project to date within the Gallatin Center PUD • Review of the WinCo site plan application. Each time, the review was conducted against the then current growth policy. Therefore, each review reflected the current policy direction and priorities established through the public adoption process for the latest edition of the growth policy. As noted in the staff report supporting the WinCo site plan approval, the site plan was determined to substantially comply with the BCP. Bozeman Community Plan - Regional Commercial and Services Designation: (Chapter 3 Land Use Category Description, Bozeman Community Plan, 2009) The project site is designated as Regional Commercial and Services on Figure 3-1 of the BCP. That category is described as: “Bozeman is a retail, education, health services, public administration, and tourism hub and provides opportunities for these activities for a multi-county region. Often the scale of these services is larger than would be required for Bozeman alone. Because of the draw from outside Bozeman, it is necessary that these types of facilities be located in proximity to significant transportation routes. Since these are large and prominent facilities within the community and region, it is appropriate that design guidelines be established to ensure compatibility with the remainder of the community. Opportunity for a mix of uses which encourages a robust and broad activity level is to be provided. Residential space should not be a primary use and should only be included as an accessory use above the first floor. Any development within this category should have a well-integrated transportation and open space network which encourages pedestrian activity, and provides ready access within and to adjacent development.” Staff evaluation and Director’s approval of the site plan application: Staff reviewed the site plan in accordance with the Plan review criteria as outlined by Section 38.19.100 BMC (attachment) and developed the findings presented in the staff report for the application. The Director of Community Development concurred with the staff report and recommendation. Approval of the site plan application was issued on September 28, 2018 and the applicant was notified of the decision. The site plan application materials, staff report, and Director’s decision are attached. APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: The deadline for submission of an appeal application for this site plan was October 12, 2018. On October 10, 2018 an appeal of the Director’s decision was received by the City Clerk. The appeal was made per Sec. 38.250.030 BMC, “Administrative project decision appeals.” Staff reviewed the appeal application materials and found that the appeal application did NOT meet submittal requirements required for processing the appeal. The appellant was notified on October 11, 2018 that the appeal was incomplete (see letter to Jecyn Bremer from Greg Sullivan, City Attorney, dated October 11, 2018 (attached). The applicant supplemented additional materials on October 12, 2018. On October 19, 2018, the Director informed the WinCo site plan applicants and the appellants that a hearing on the appeal before the City Commission on November 26, 2018 was scheduled. 196 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 7 of 10 APPEAL PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the appeal hearing was completed in conformance with Article 38.220 BMC, “Applications & Noticing.” Notice was posted on site, mailed to property owners within 200 feet, and published in the newspaper two times on November 4, 2018 and November 11, 2018. The site notice was posted on November 2, 2018 and will be posted until the City Commission hearing on November 26, 2018. APPEAL PUBLIC COMMENT: No items of public comment were received by the Department of Community Development at the time of this staff report. Any public comment received by the Department will be forwarded to the City Clerk’s office for Commission consideration. EVALUATION OF THE APPEAL: Sec. 38.250.030.A BMC, “Administrative project decision appeals.” “An aggrieved person may appeal the final decision of the administrative review authority in the manner provided in this section. Any appeal of a final administrative decision to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application must be an appeal on the basis of the information available to the administrative review authority including this chapter, all submitted application materials, review and recommendations by administrative staff or advisory bodies, public comment and such other materials as were available. Denial of requests for waiver or alteration of applicable regulations is not a decision subject to appeal of an administrative decision. This section also applies to decisions by the administrative review authority regarding evasion of the Subdivision and Platting Act per section 38.240.360.” 197 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 8 of 10 APPEAL FROM AN AGGREIVED PERSON: For an appeal to be made the appellant, per Section 38.250.030.A BMC, must show that they are an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person is defined in Sec. 38.700.020 BMC as: “A person, as defined in this division 38.7001, who has a specific, personal and legal interest in the final decision of an agency, board or commission, as distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of all members of the community, and which interest would be specifically and personally prejudiced by the decision or benefited by its reversal” In their application materials, the appellant(s) state they are aggrieved persons since, among others reasons, they “work or have worked in Bozeman, commute via North 19th, drive Cattail Street and Max Avenue and have a vested interest in the traffic consequences related to the proposed WinCo project. Those concerns were further described in our initial appeal. Four of us live in Bozeman, some us have invested our savings in our homes, and we have a vested interest in Bozeman’s character, sense of place and unique identity, quality environment and community character.” BASIS OF THE APPEAL: As further described in the appeal application materials, appellants base their appeal on two grounds: first, the subject application is not consistent with the Growth Policy, and second, the subject application does not meet certain technical requirements of the current UDC. The technical requirements listed by the appellants include traffic impacts, building design, landscaping, and block frontage requirements. APPEAL PROCEDURE: The Commission must comply with the procedures for appeal as stated in 38.250.030.I, BMC. During the appeal the Commission will first hear from the administrative staff who are required to give an “explanation of the application and nature of the appeal.” Next, the appellants will have an opportunity to present their position. After the appellants, the landowner may give a presentation. Then, public comment. It’s at this point - close of the public comment that the City Attorney advises the Commission to first determine whether the appellants qualify as aggrieved persons before moving onto the merits of the appeal. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As noted above, after the conclusion of the public hearing and prior to making any decision on the merits of the appeal, the City Attorney’s Office recommends the Commission determine whether the appellants qualify as aggrieved persons. At this time this issue is unresolved. If the Commission determines the appellants qualify as aggrieved persons, the Commission must then consider the merits of the appeal. In his letter of October 11, 2018 to the appellant’s attorney, the City Attorney questions whether the appellants had commented during the administrative review by the Planning Director. Pursuant to 38.250.030.B, BMC, “failure to raise an issue during the provided public comment opportunity, in person or in writing […] precludes an appeal on that issue unless the issue could not have been reasonably known by 1 Persons. Includes any individual or group of individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations or any other organized group of persons, including state and local governments and agencies thereof. 198 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 9 of 10 any party during the time of the public comment opportunity.” The appellants indicated in their October 12, 2018 response to the City Attorney’s letter that their attorney was “acting on our behalf when she requested information from the Planning office and submitted comments and questions with respect to the August 29, 2018 final Memo from the Planning office…” It is not clear whether the appellant’s attorney’s comments were adequate to meet the above UDC requirement. During the staff presentation on the appeal, the City Attorney will be available to discuss this issue and how to address it during the appeal. ALTERNATIVES: If the Commission reaches the merits of the appeal after having determined the appellants are aggrieved persons, the City Commission has the following alternative actions available: 1. Uphold the approval of site plan application 17585 as established by the Director’s September 28, 2018 decision; 2. Amend the approval after making findings as to which of the criteria are met or not met, modify conditions of approval or code provisions, and approve site plan application 17585. The Commission must make specific findings regarding the site plan criteria. 3. Overturn the approval. Find that the Director’s original action was incorrect in some element, make alternative findings, and deny site plan 17585.The Commission must make specific findings regarding the site plan criteria. FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified. 199 Commission Memo Winco Foods Appeal Application: 18488 November 26, 2018 Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENTS: 18484 Winco Foods Appeal - Submission materials and communication 17585 Winco Foods Site Plan-Staff Report- Including public comment, site plan, landscape plan and elevations. 17585 Winco Foods Site Plan-UDC Adequacy Memo – March 30, 2018 17585 Winco Foods Site Plan-Design Review Board Minutes – April 11, 2018. AV Capture Link provided below: https://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=938a55ab-51c3-4b13-9516- 17c65f6b9836&prefilter=654,3835 Bozeman Municipal Code January 18, 2017 Reference Copy- Site Plan Criteria Section 38.19.100 (site plan criteria in place at time WinCo site plan application was determined to be adequate for review). Full application and file record: is available to view at the Community Development Department, 20 E. Olive, Bozeman, MT 59715 200 BOZEMANmtCommunity Development\p-\o. ifADMINISTRATIVE PROJECT DECISION APPEALAPAAPPLICATION SETSThis application is for an administrative project decision appeal to the Director of Community Developments decision on a project.I I , Complete and signed development review application form A1tzT Plan set that includes all administrative project decision appeal checklist items below O Complete and signed development review application form N1NOTICING MATERIALSCompleted and signed property adjoiners certificate form Nland materials if deviation proposed associated with an existing building.Base feeAPPLICATION FEE$1,550ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECT DECISION APPEAL CHECKLISTThe extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the aggrieved party and the information reasonably necessary for the City Commission to make its determination on the application.1. Name and address of the appellant;2. The legal description and street address of the property involved in the appeal;3. A description of the project that is the subject of the appeal;4. Evidence that the appellant is an aggrieved person as defined in article 42 of this chapter;5. List of names and addresses of property owners within 200 feet of the site, using the last declared county real estate tax records;6. Stamped, unsealed envelopes addressed with names of above property owners;7. Required appeal filing fee; and8. The specific grounds and allegations for the appeal, and evidence necessary to support and justify a decision other than as determined by the administrative review authority.CONTACT USAlfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street 59715 (FED EX and UPS Only)PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.netAdministrative Project Review Appeal (APA)Page 1 of 1Revision Date 01-18-18Required Forms: Al, N1Recommended Forms: Required Forms:201 TO: Mayor Cyndy AndrusDeputy Mayor Chris MehlBozeman City Commissionersc/o Department of Community DevelopmentPO Box 1230Bozeman, MT 59715FROM: Cameron Seiler 1206 E. Curtiss St. Bozeman, MT 59715Joel H. Dubar 322 Blackhawk Lane Belgrade, MT 59714Samara Yanny 734 23rd Ave #4 Bozeman, MT 59718John Robert McGowen, Jr. 108 8th Street Belgrade, MT 59714Christian Jakkola 2006 W. Koch St. Bozeman, MT 59718Justin Gipson 100 Mullan Hall Bozeman, MT 59715RE: Appeal of WinCo Site Plan, Application No. 17585,Project Address: Max Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715Project Location; Legal Description: Lot 12B & 12C Lot 12 PHI Gallatin Center Sub. PH 4The project that is the subject of the appeal is the ~75,000 square foot WinCo Foods store in the Gallatin Center, the parking area and drive lane between the existing Staples lot and Cattail Street, and the phased development thereof.We the appellants are aggrieved persons as defined in section 38.700.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bozeman, Montana. Specifically, we are persons who have specific, personal and legal interests in the final decision of an agency, board or commission, in this case the Director of Community Development and approval of the WinCo Foods store site plan, as distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of all members of the community. Our interests have been specifically and personally prejudiced by the decision of the Director of Community Development in approving the WinCo Foods store site plan and would be benefited by its reversal by the City Commission.The names and addresses of property owners and envelopes as required by section 38.220.040 are included above letter and the required appeal filing fee of $1550.00 and stamped, unsealed envelopes addressed with the names and addresses of those property owners are enclosed.202 Following are the specific grounds and allegations for our appeal, and evidence necessary to support and justify a decision other than as determined by the administrative review authority, in this case the Director of Community Development.Earlier this year, the City Commission gave thoughtful consideration to Costco's expansion plans, however Mayor Andrus, Deputy Mayor Mehl and the other City Commissioners were not afforded the same opportunity to consider WinCo's new store in close proximity to that Costco and the impacts related to such a large commercial establishment. Such a significant decision should not be relegated to the Director of Community Development, rather should have been heard by the City Commission in an open public forum in the same manner as Costco. We agree with the City's Growth Policy, the Bozeman Community Plan, that "Our sense of place comes from both the natural and built environment." Both the Costco expansion and the WinCo project are large scale commercial developments that will have indelible impacts on Bozeman's character, sense of place and unique identity, in addition to traffic and other impacts.The project WinCo is not consistent with the City's Growth Policy for the following reasons. "Bozeman is committed to maintaining its quality environment and community character so that it may be enjoyed for many years to come." Bozeman Community Plan, page iii. Future physical development should correspond with the seven key principles described in the Plan, including maintaining a sense of place. Large scale, corporate stores do not maintain Bozeman's sense of place, unique identity, nor its quality environment. Such stores do undermine our community's character. Adding yet another big box store to the north 19th corridor does not contribute to Bozeman's small town feel rather makes this part of Bozeman look like anywhere America. The residential neighborhoods in the northwestern quadrant of the City deserve the same thoughtful planning as the southside of town.The City's Growth Policy expressly recognizes that "present day debates on sprawl, impact fees, sustainable development, and smart growth policies have, to a great extent, been influenced by the ongoing maturation of the North 19th corridor" and "the long-term implications of this and other related developments are only now being realized and will likely have a profound impact on Bozeman in the coming century." That was true in 2009, when the Growth Policy was adopted, and even more true now. With the significance of development of the North 19th corridor acknowledged by the Growth Policy, the WinCo project should have been given more than a staff level rubberstamp. While we appreciate staff-level expertise, the long-term implications and cumulative impacts associated with adding another large-scale commercial retail establishment to an already oversaturated commercial corridor is a decision that the City Commissioners should have considered.Consistent with the objectives of the Growth Policy, the neighborhoods to the west of North 19th and Max Avenue should have neighborhood Commercial Centers that meet203 demands for goods and services, and they deserve such Centers that are pedestrian oriented and a focal point for those surrounding neighborhoods rather than a continuation of the seemingly ad hoc, piecemeal approvals of non-pedestrian oriented commercial strips along the North 19th Commercial Corridor. Installing a roundabout contributes to an already non-pedestrian oriented environment.We request this appeal to allow the City Commission to review the WinCo project to ensure that it is consistent with our above concerns and the following objectives and goals of the Growth Policy, among others:o Objective G-l.l: ensure growth is planned and developed in an orderly and publicly open manner that maintains Bozeman as a functional, pleasing, and social community.o Objective G-1.2: Ensure that adequate public facilities, services, andinfrastructure are available and/or financially guaranteed in accordance with facility or strategic plans prior to, or concurrent with, development, o 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, o Objective G-1.4: Ensure that Bozeman grows in a sustainable manner with consideration for climate change, health and safety, food production, housing, employment opportunities, natural hazard mitigation, and natural resource conservation.o Goal C-l: Human Scale and Compatibility — Create a community composed of neighborhoods designed for the human scale and compatibility in which the streets and buildings are properly sized within their context, services and amenities are convenient, visually pleasing, and properly integrated. Sustainability, one of the goals of the City's Growth Policy, was considered an important missing component of the proposed Costco expansion by Mayor Andrus, among possibly other Commissioners. One of the many goals of the Growth Policy is specifically to "Ensure adequate review of individual and cumulative environmental and aesthetic effects of development to preserve the viewsheds, natural functions, and beauty which are a fundamental element of Bozeman's character. Design and development in a quantifiably sustainable manner are desirable." Based on our review of the site plan application and related documents, we fail to see how WinCo has addressed sustainability and the cumulative environmental and aesthetic effects. Aesthetics are important even in this largely commercial area of town, perhaps even more so due to the intensity of the commercial development of North 19th and our community's character as described previously.Continuing with sustainability concerns, the Growth Policy's objectives "encourage and support sustainability in new construction" and "Generation of renewable energy including solar and wind power as an accessory use is encouraged with proper design and compatibility to adjacent uses." The lack of sustainability in Costco's proposed204 expansion was pointed out by the City Commission. It does not appear sustainability was even addressed by the WinCo project application. Now is the time to give effect to the sustainability provisions of the Growth Policy and require WinCo to incorporate solar, geothermal, wind power and other energy conservation and efficiency measures in its new construction project.In addition to failing to preserve Bozeman's community character and sense of place, and otherwise demonstrate compliance with the City's growth policy, the application does not meet the technical requirements of the Municipal Code. We have not yet had the opportunity to have our engineer consider the application in detail, but based on our review, the site plan review does not adequately address the following.1) The welfare of the citizens of Bozeman is not preserved and protected. Corporate discount stores undermine locally owned businesses, the homegrown business community as described in the Growth Policy, in particular groceries such as Heebs and Town & Country, which do not have the same buying power as a corporate discount chain.2) Public convenience and safety have not been adequately addressed with respect to the impacted streets and associated traffic impacts, and the WinCo will negatively impact Cattail Street in the same way or greater than Costco has impacted Catron Street. Installing a roundabout will result in safety issues and does not promote walking and bicycling.3) The site plan does not take into consideration the existing neighborhoods to the east in terms of compatibility and character. New development in the vicinity of all of Bozeman's neighborhoods should be considered, not just historic neighborhoods.4) The increasing number of big box stores in the commercial developments along 19th, as opposed small local businesses will adversely impact property values rather than maintain and enhances those values.5) For many of these same reasons, the proposed large-scale commercial development does not demonstrate compatibility with nor sensitivity to the adjacent neighborhoods, nor the immediate environment of the site. The tin panel sided building is not the quality construction, is not visually integrated with and does not provide a cohesive continuation of the neighboring commercial retail buildings.6) It is not clear that the applicant has provided a landscape plan that meets or exceeds the City's design and development guidelines, nor the visual buffers to parking, tree canopies over parking areas, screening from public streets, screening of off-street loading spaces and street frontage landscaping, in particular landscaping to soften the fagade of such a large commercial building and to screen blank wall surfaces.7) The WinCo Foods Front Perspective does not reflect a building that meets the block frontage requirements of the Code requiring transparency of 50% of the building frontage.205 8) With respect to the overall PUD design and existing context, the October 3, 2017 DRC Memo requires street frontage and storefront design of all potential buildings and outdoor, public space be utilized to enhance views to the mountains located to the northeast, east and south of the site and encourages more transparency for the WinCo Foods building, of particular importance to the west and south facades of the proposed 36,000 square foot building. The enhanced views and transparency have not been provided.9) The foregoing contributes to the lack of compatibility with and sensitivity to the surrounding area and the immediate environment of the site.10) According to the August 29, 2018 Final Memo from the Bozeman Planning Office, the applicant's traffic impact study indicates severe deterioration of traffic conditions during the peak-hours at the intersection of Max Avenue and Cattail Street. While a roundabout will apparently be installed when the store is constructed, we as aggrieved citizens we would like the opportunity, with our engineer, to review the traffic report to confirm that public safety and traffic impacts are adequately addressed by the proposed roundabout, taking into consideration pedestrian and bicycle access. The history of this area of North 19th has demonstrated cumulative impacts related to large scale commercial developments, traffic in particular. With the recent Costco expansion, the City Commission had the opportunity to hold Costco accountable and require mitigation of impacts that were not addressed with the initial approval of that large commercial store. That opportunity may not present itself for the WinCo store, so it is important that impacts are addressed with its initial approval. Now is the time to require this Commercial Center to be pedestrian oriented.11) We are also concern regarding the cumulative traffic, public safety and other impacts taking into consideration the development to the immediate west of the WinCo project along 27th Avenue, including the Springs at Bozeman, Swiss Detail, and Cattail Creek Lofts, and the existing neighborhoods, and whether and how were those were considered, in particular in light of the acute angle at which 27th Avenue intersects with Cattail Street.12) Also, regarding traffic and access, the August 29, 2018 Final Memo indicates the City access separation requirements on Cattail Street were not met, and apparently a "relaxation" was granted. We would like the opportunity, with our engineer, to review the development described at 11 and this relaxation to confirm that public safety is adequately addressed.13) It is not clear that drainage and stormwater infrastructure, drainage easements, the stormwater maintenance plan, and stormwater conveyance structures have been adequately addressed and/or updated to address outstanding issues according to the August 29, 2018 Final Memo.Finally, the Recommendation in the above-referenced August 29, 2018 Final Memo from the Bozeman Planning Office indicates "Staff has found the project does NOT comply with the206 requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code" and deemed the application inadequate for review. How then, less that one month later is the WinCo Food store given approval?Another objective of the City's Growth Policy is to "Recognize the cumulative effects of changes in land use and develop equitable means to evaluate, avoid, and/or respond to negative cumulative impacts. Recognize the value of well designed and implemented urban development in minimizing impacts from existing and future development." We as a community need to learn from history and the failure of the Costco approval to adequately address the cumulative adverse impacts that resulted from that approval, most recently addressed by the City's conditions of approval related to Costco's expansion plans. We are requesting the same thoughtful and public consideration of this WinCo proposal and the cumulative impacts that will result from this large-scale commercial development.We understand the City's Growth Policy is the long-range, comprehensive plan that should guide the development decisions that shape the physical, environmental, economic, and social character of our community. It and the Municipal Code requirements should be applied strictly to address the current and long-term implications of the WinCo project and other related developments in the vicinity of the North 19th corridor, which have had and will continue to have profound impacts on Bozeman. By this appeal, we the above-listed aggrieved persons respectfully request that the City Commission give substance to the words of the Bozeman's Growth Policy and proactively and creatively address issues of development and change instead of allowing the approval of yet another large-scale commercial development that is not consistent with the Growth Policy and requirements of Bozeman's Municipal Code.207 BOZEMAN"7 A1Community DevelopmentDEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONl : W- IT."'PROJECT IMAGEPROJECT INFORMATIONProject name: WINCO FOODS SITE PLAN LOT 12 GALLATIN CENTER SP Project type(s): s'1e P^anDescription- Devel°pment of vacant property for a WinCo Food Store and building padStreet address: 2755 Max Ave.Zip code: 59715Zoning- 62 Community Business DistrictGross lot area: 345,940 s.f. lot 1 148,869 s.f Lot 2Block frontage:Number of buildings:Type and Number of dwellings:Non-residential building size(s): 74,930 s.f. Lot 1 40,107 s.f. Lot 2Non-residential building height(s):(in stories)Number of parking spaces:Affordable housing (Y/N):Cash in lieu of parkland (Y/N):CITY USE ONLYSubmittal date: Planner:VICINITY MAPApplication file number:DRC required (Y/N):Revision Date:Development Review Application A1Page 1 of 3Revision Date: 5.16.18REQUIRED FORMS:Varies by project type, PLS208 Vicinity MapNorthwest corner of Cattail Street & Max AvenueBeing a portion of Lot 12. Final Plat of the Gallatin Center Subdivisions P.U.D., Phase 4, located in thenortheast one quarter of Section 35. Township 1 South. Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman.Gallatin County, Montana.U:❖ *• ' II »!•■ M : HQ4 -L- f IV‘i *«»S- > ‘3y z i' * ft-"'*' -**-rtILjsS,-rProposed SitefM* J:f kif=i ..aathfsc.**• .iL -•_I- - —1mv-Htoae?5&S•"Google1*.209 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION1. PROPERTY OWNERName- Randy Twist - Gallatin TR, LPFull address (with zip code): 2501 N- JoseV Lane' STE 12°, Carrollton, TX 75006phone: 972-389-1795pmaj|. randytwist@twistrealty.net2. APPLICANTName- Dan Zimmerman - TAIT & AssociatesFull address (with zip code): 707 N- 27th street. Boise ID 83702 Phone: 208-319-0772 pmaj|. dzimmerman@tait.com3. REPRESENTATIVEName- E>an Zimmerman - TAIT & AssociatesFull address (with zip code): 707 N- 27th Street, Boise ID 83702Phone: 208-319-0772pmaj|. dzimmerman@tait.com4. SPECIAL DISTRICTSOverlay District: □ Neighborhood Conservation 0 NoneUrbanRenewal District: □ Downtown □ North 7th Avenue □ Northeast □ North Park □ None5. CERTIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURESThis application must be signed by both the applicants) and the property owner(s) (if different) for all application types before the submittal will be accepted. The only exception to this is an informal review application that may be signed by the applicants) only.As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority. I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further, I agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representative's access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 38.34.050, BMC). I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge.Certification of Completion and Compliance - I understand that conditions of approval may be applied to the application and that I will comply with any conditions of approval or make necessary corrections to the application materials in order to comply with municipal code provisions.Statement of Intent to Construct According to the Final Plan - I acknowledge that construction not in compliance with the approved final plan may result in delays of occupancy or costs to correct noncompliance.continued on next pageDevelopment Review Application A1Page 2 of 3Revision Date: 5.16.18REQUIRED FORMS:Varies by project type, PLS210 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONApplicant Signatu Printed Name: Owner Signature: Printed Name: Owner Signature: Printed Name:•RMH-If signing as a corporation or LLC, please provide the title and position of the individual signing on behalf of the corporation/LLC. Attach separate sheets for additional owner signatures.6. APPLICATION TYPESCheck all that apply, use noted forms.FORM□ 1. Pre-application ConsultationNoned 2. Master Site PlanMSPd 3. Site PlanSPd 4. Subdivision pre-applicationPAd 5. Subdivision preliminary planPPd 6. Subdivision final planFPd 7. Subdivision exemptionSEd 8. Condominium ReviewCRd 9. PUD concept planPUDCd 10. PUD preliminary planPUDPd 11. PUD final planPUDFPd 12. Annexation and Initial ZoningANNXd 13. Administrative Interpretation AppealAIAd 14. Administrative Project Decision AppealAPAd 15. Commercial Non-residential COACCOAd 16. Historic NeighborhoodConservation Overlay COANCOACONTACT USAlfred M. Stiff Professional Building20 East Olive Street 59715 (FED EX and UPS Only)PO Box 1230Bozeman, MT 59771FORMd 17. Informal Review INFd 18. Zoning Deviation/Departure None□ 19. Zoning or Subdivision Variance Z/SVAR□ 20. Conditional Use Permit CUPCD 21. Special Temporary Use Permit STUPD 22. Special Use Permit SUPd 23. Regulated Activities in Wetlands WR□ 24. Zone Map Amendment (non-Annexation) ZMAd 25. UDC Text Amendment ZTA□ 26. Growth Policy Amendment GPA□ 27. Modification/Plan Amendment MODd 28. Extension of Approved Plan EXTd 29. Reasonable Accommodation RAd 30. Comprehensive Sign Plan CSP□ 31. Other:phone 406.582.2260 fax 406.582.2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.netDevelopment Review Application A1 Page 3 of 3Revision Date: 5.16.18REQUIRED FORMS:Varies by project type, PLS211 MTCommunity DevelopmentN1NOTICING MATERIALSNotice is required for certain projects in order for citizens to participate in decision making which affects their interests and provides opportunity to receive information pertinent to an application that would not otherwise be available to the decision maker.SITE PLAN, MASTER SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, DEVIATION, FIRST MINOR SUBDIVISON AND SIMILAR REQUIRED NOTICING MATERIALS G3 Completed and signed property adjoiners certificate form Nl.nn Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners within 200 feet of the projectsite, attached to this checklist.□□□□□□Stamped, unsealed, plain (no return address) #10 envelopes preaddressed with the names and addresses of the adjoining property owners.MAJOR AND SUBSEQUENT MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUIRED NOTICING MATERIALS Completed and signed property adjoiners certificate form Nl.Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners within 200 feet of the project site and not physically contiguous (touching a boundary) to the subdivision, attached to this checklist. Clearly label list ADJOINER NOT CONTIGUOUS.Stamped, unsealed, plain (no return address) #10 envelopes preaddressed with the names and addresses of the adjoining property owners.Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners physically contiguous (touching a boundary) including recorded purchasers under contract for deed to be sent certified mail attached to this checklist. Clearly label list CONTIGUOUS.Stamped, unsealed, plain (no return address) #10 envelopes preaddressed with the names and addresses of the physically contiguous property owners including recorded purchasers under contract for deed.□Two sets additional mailing labels with the names and addresses of the physically contiguous property owners including recorded purchasers under contract for deed attached.NOTICECurrent property owners of record can be found at the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder's Office in the Gallatin County Courthouse 311 West Main Street Bozeman, Montana.CERTIFICATIONl<_ ____, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, theattached name and addrdis list of aljadjoining property owners (including all condominium owners,within 200 feet of the property located at 2755 Max Avenue___________________________________________, is a trueand accurate list from the last declared Gallatin County tax records. I further understand that an2ccurate list may delay review of the project.CUMAIl\SignatureCONTACT USAlfred M. Stiff Professional Building20 East Olive Street 59715 (FED EX and UPS Only)PO Box 1230Bozeman, MT 59771phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.netNoticing MaterialsPage 1 of 1Revision Date 1-05-16Required Forms:NlRecommended Forms:Required Forms:212 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERSCONTIGUOUS:Record Owner:(GC4) Subdivision GC4 Lots: 12A and 11 Gallatin TR LP 2501 N JoseyLn, Ste. 120 Carrollton, TX 75006-1600Record Owner:Vaquero Properties LLC 3309 Sundance Trail Bozeman, MT 59715-9265Record Owner:Timothy Scheer 1001 Thomas Dr.Bozeman, MT 59718-9737Record Owner:Gallatin Center Limited Partnership PO Box 906Bozeman, MT 59771-0906 Record Owner:(GC3) Subdivision GC3 Lot: 10 POB Gallatin LP 2501 N Josey Ln, Ste. 120 Carrollton, TX 75006-1600Block 4 Lot 4 2Times7 CondominiumsRecord Owner:Sawyer Investments LLC PO Box 1336 Bozeman, MT 59771Units 2946 A, 2946 B, 2992 A, 2992 B:Great Northwest Construction Inc.1929 Bozeman Trail Rd.Bozeman, MT 59715-8034213 Units 2940 A:Stoneridge Properties LLC 1091 Stoneridge Dr.Bozeman, MT 59718-7042Units 2940 A:DJB Holding LLC PO Box 157 Boyd, MT 59013-0157Block 5 Lot 1 Red Leaf Condominiums Record Owner:Cooper Homes LLC 5800 Patterson Rd.Bozeman, MT 59718Building 2811 Unit 1:Craig Barney and Eva J Erickson PO Box 114Chinook, MT 59523-0114Unit 2:Amanda Innis2811 N. 27th Ave., Apt. 2Bozeman, MT 59718-7169Unit 3:David M. and Jane M. Yearous 207 N. Pheasant Dr.Bozeman, MT 59716-9612Unit 4:Paige Leddy POBox 10162 Bozeman, MT 59719-0162Unit 5:Melody A and Brad A Ylasie 2811 N. 27th Ave.Bozeman, MT 59718-7169214 Building 2827 Unit 6:Sidney B. and Virginia L. Findley 1112 Quail Cir.San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-6387Unit 7:Chantelle Mahan 2827 N 27th Ave., Apt 2 Bozeman, MT 59718-7174Unit 8:Glen and Kathleen Stewart 621 Stewart Dr.Fort Benton, MT 59442-8848Unit 9:Diane and Robert Hutton PO Box 94Wisdom, MT 59761-0094Unit 10:Roy C. and Sharilyn F. Beall (Trustees) Beall Family Living Trust 2827 N. 27th Ave., Apt 5 Bozeman, MT 59718-7174Building 2863 Unit 11:Matt and Amy Yovich 47 Saddle Spur Bozeman, MT 59715-8438Unit 12:Anna Victoria Hollewjn 2863 N. 27th Ave., Unit 2 Bozeman, MT 59718-7175Unit 13:Michele Maisey2863 N. 27th Ave., Apt 3Bozeman MT 59718-7175215 Unit 14:Samba A. Thiam 2863 N. 27th Ave. Unit 14 Bozeman, MT 59718-7175Building 2889 Unit 15:Jack R. and Karen A. Schunke 7650 S 19th Ave.Bozeman, MT 59718-8945Unit 16:Corey L. and Janette Krutzlfeldt Jones 4504 Horizon Pkyw.Miles City, MT 59301-5823Unit 17:Leslie Sue Harrison 2889 27th Ave., Apt 3 Bozeman, MT 59718-7112Unit 18:Lisa M. and Robert D. Sheehan 2889 27th Ave., Unit 4 Bozeman, MT 59718-7112Building 2845 Unit 19:Paolo Marchesi1627 W. Main St. #187Bozeman, MT 59715-4011Unit 20:Bret and Marlys Carpenter 102 Silver Dr.Livingston, MT 59457-3246Unit 21:Jennifer M. Ward2845 N. 27th Ave., Unit 359718-7182Unit 22:Jaymie Hauer2845 N. 27th Ave., Unit 22Bozeman MT 59718-7182216 NOT CONTIGUOUS:Record Owner:(GC4) SubDivision GC4 Lot: 9.1 POB Gallatin LP 2501 N Josey Ln, Ste. 120 Carrollton, TX 75006-1600Record Owner:Bob Ward & Sons Inc 3015 Paxson St.Missoula, MT 59801-8325Record Owner:Swissdetail Inc.7 Sweetgrass Ave.Bozeman, MT 597180-1800Record Owner:First Security Bank PO Box 910Bozeman, MT 59771-0910217 bozemanmtCity Attorney's OfficeGreg Sullivan, City Attorney Tim Cooper, Assistant City Attorney Karen Stambaugh, Assistant City Attorney Bekki McLean, Chief Prosecutor Kyla Murray, Prosecutor Edward Hirsch, Prosecutor Samantha Niesen, ProsecutorJecyn Bremer October 11, 2018Gallik, Bremer & Molloy 111 E Main St.Bozeman, MT 59715Subject: Administrative project decision appeal of the Winco Site Plan, Application No. 17585Ms. Bremer:Samara Yanny (on behalf of herself and Cameron Seiler, John Robert McGowen, Jr., Joel H. Dubar, Christian Jakkola, and Justin Gipson) submitted the subject appeal application to the City Clerk yesterday afternoon, October 10, 2018. The City is informed that you represent the applicant(s).At this time, the appeal application is not complete and has not been deemed filed as all the materials required by the Bozeman Municipal Code have not been submitted. Section 38.250.020.E, BMC states that a "complete appeal application must include, and must not be deemed filed until, all of the materials required by section 38.220.140 are submitted." Section 38.220.140 requires the following:A. All appeals of administrative project decisions must include:1. Name and address of the appellant;2. The legal description, street address, and project number of the property involved in the appeal;3. A description of the project that is the subject of the appeal;4. Evidence that the appellant is an aggrieved person as defined in section 38.700.020;5. Names and addresses of property owners and envelopes as required by section 38.220.040.D;6. Required appeal filing fee; and7. The specific grounds and allegations for the appeal, and evidence necessary to support and justify a decision other than as determined by the administrative review authority.Specifically, 38.220.140.A.4 requires an appellant to submit "evidence that the appellant is an aggrieved person..." The application does not contain any evidence or allege any facts the appellants are aggrieved persons. General conclusory statements that simply restate the definition of aggrieved person are not sufficient.In addition, at this time, the appeal is precluded pursuant to section 38.250.030.B which states,Failure to raise an issue during the provided public comment opportunity, in person or in writing, or the failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the administrative review authority an opportunity to respond to an issue, precludes an appeal based on that issue,® 121 North Rouse Avenue ® P-°- Box 1230Bozeman, MT 59771-1230® 406-582-2309 © 406-582-2302 www.bozeman.netTDD: 406-582-2301THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE218 unless the issue could not have been reasonably known by any party during the time of the public comment opportunity.The City has no record of any of the appellants submitting comments to the Department of Community Development during the public comment period. The appellants raised no issues during the provided public comment period, in person or in writing, thus precluding the appeal on all issues raised in the appeal. If this is inaccurate, the City would ask the appellants to provide a copy of the comment(s) submitted to the City during the public comment period. The appellants may also provide an explanation as to why the issues they have raised in the appeal application could not have been reasonably known by them during the time of the public comment opportunity.The deadline for submission of an appeal application for this site plan is October 12, 2018. If the deficiencies described in this letter are not cured by the deadline, the submitted appeal materials and appeal fee must be returned to the appellants. In that event, please advise how you wish the materials and the check to be returned.City Attorneycc: Marty Matsen219 TO: Greg Sullivan, City Attorney CC: Mayor Cyndy Andrus Deputy Mayor Chris Mehl Bozeman City Commissioners c/o Department of Community Development PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59715 FROM: Cameron Seiler Joel H. Dubar 1206 E. Curtiss St. 322 Blackhawk Lane Bozeman, MT 59715 Belgrade, MT 59714 Samara Yanny Christian Jakkola 734 23rd Ave #4 2006 W. Koch St. Bozeman, MT 59718 Bozeman, MT 59718 John Robert McGowen, Jr. Justin Gipson 108 8th Street 100 Mullan Hall Belgrade, MT 59714 Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Additional Information - Appeal of WinCo Site Plan, Application No. 17585, Project Address: Max Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 Project Location; Legal Description: Lot 12B & 12C Lot 12 PH1 Gallatin Center Sub. PH 4 We are in receipt of your letter of October 11, 2018 in response to our appeal of the WinCo Site Plan. As indicated in our initial appeal of Wednesday, October 10, 2018, we the appellants are aggrieved persons as defined in section 38.700.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bozeman, Montana. Specifically, we are persons who have specific, personal and legal interests in the final decision of an agency, board or commission, in this case the Director of Community Development and approval of the WinCo Foods store site plan, as distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of all members of the community. Our specific, personal and legal interests in and concerns with respect to the decision were those set forth in detail as the grounds for the appeal in the initial appeal we submitted. We add that we work or have worked in Bozeman, commute via North 19th, drive Cattail Street and Max Avenue and have a vested interest in the traffic consequences related to the proposed WinCo project. Those concerns were further described in our initial appeal. Four of us live in Bozeman, some us have invested our savings in our homes, and we have a vested interest in Bozeman’s character, sense of place and unique identity, quality environment and community character. Collectively, we have an interest in the WinCo project’s compliance with the 220 Municipal Code and Growth Policy, and the adequate review of individual and cumulative environmental and aesthetic effects of such a large-scale commercial development on the viewsheds, natural functions, and beauty which are fundamental to Bozeman’s character as recognized by the Growth Policy. We realized how fortunate we are to live in Bozeman and have an interest in protecting those characteristics. We expect compliance with the applicable regulations and that the cumulative environmental and aesthetic effects of the WinCo development are addressed, including, but not limited to traffic impacts, pedestrian considerations, sustainability, and aesthetics and viewsheds. With respect to the latter, we simply did not see the transparency reflected in the elevations for the proposed building as required by the Municipal Code. Aesthetics are even more important in this area of Bozeman due to the intensity of the commercial development of North 19th and the long-term impact of such development as acknowledged by the Growth Policy. The approval of the WinCo site plan did not effectively address the particular concerns and interests set forth in our initial appeal submittal, and as described above, and as a result we have been specifically and personally prejudiced by the decision of the Director of Community Development in approving the WinCo Foods store site plan and would be benefited by its reversal by the City Commission. With respect to public comment, Jecyn Bremer, Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C., was acting on our behalf when she requested information from the Planning office and submitted comments and questions with respect to the August 29, 2018 Final Memo from the Planning office with respect to the WinCo application and compliance with City Code requirements during the public comment period. Through those requests we were attempting to ascertain the issues and the applicant’s satisfaction of the applicable Code requirements. The recommendation of Staff in the Final Memo was that “Staff has found that the project does NOT comply with the requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code and is deeming the application inadequate for further review.” Given that Staff recommendation and finding of inadequacy, we found it surprising, to say the least, that the application was approved a month later. We fail to see how an approval would result with that type of recommendation, and with so many inadequacies and issues as pointed out in that Memo. We are further aggrieved by the requirements of the City’s appeal procedure, in particular the required appeal filing fee of $1550.00, which is excessive and places an unequal burden on certain sections of the population who cannot afford to challenge decisions made by City staff, administrators, boards or commissions. The less affluent among us have the same right to demand compliance with the City’s Growth Policy and Municipal Code and should not be prohibited from doing so based on the cost of filing such an appeal. Again, we are requesting compliance with the City’s Code and the Growth Policy, and the same thoughtful and public consideration of this WinCo project and the cumulative impacts on our community that will result from this large-scale commercial development in the North 19th corridor as was given to the recent Costco expansion proposal. 221 October 19, 2018 Joel H. Dubar 322 Blackhawk Lane Belgrade, MT 59714 Sent via regular mail to the above and via email to Travis Beckett (tbeckett2010@gmail.com) and Jecyn Bremer (jbremer@galliklawfirm.com). RE: Appeal of WinCo Site Plan, Application No. 17585 Dear Appellants: This letter is in response to and provides information for your appeal submitted on October 10, 2018. As explained below your appeal will proceed to action by the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, November 26, 2018. At the meeting, the City Commission must first determine whether an appellant has provided sufficient evidence whether an appellant is an aggrieved person as defined by 38.700.020, Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). In doing so, the Commission may: (i) determine an appellant is an aggrieved person and proceed to hear the merits of the appeal; (ii) find no appellants qualify as aggrieved persons ending the hearing upon such a finding; or (iii) find no appellants are aggrieved persons but notwithstanding such finding make a decision on the merits of the appeal preserving the issue of whether an appellant is an aggrieved person for any subsequent judicial review. Independent of the above, the City Commission may also determine whether the appeal is precluded for failure to raise issues during the public comment period for the administrative project decision as required by 38.250.030.B, BMC. In doing so, the Commission may: (i) determine the appeal is not precluded and proceed to hear the merits of the appeal; (ii) find the appeal is precluded ending the hearing upon such a finding; or (iii) find the appeal is precluded but notwithstanding such finding make a decision on the merits of the appeal preserving the issue of whether the appeal is precluded for any subsequent judicial review. In addition to the above, the procedure during the November 26, 2018 meeting will follow 38.250.030.I, BMC. Pursuant to 38.25.030.J, BMC the Commission may uphold, amend, or overturn the administrative project decision. 222 Page 2 of 2 You may submit additional information to the City Clerk up and until the close of public comment at the appeal. You may submit such in writing to Bozeman City Clerk, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 or by email to agenda@bozeman.net. The meeting will be held during the regular City Commission meeting on Monday, November 26, 2018 at 6:00 PM in the City Commission Room at Bozeman City Hall, 121 North Rouse Ave., Bozeman, MT. As required, the Department of Community Development will prepare a memorandum providing the administrative project decision materials and the appeal materials you have submitted. These materials will be made available to the City Commission along with materials for the November 26, 2018 meeting. The City will inform you at the time the materials are available online. Sincerely, Martin Matsen Director of Community Development CC: Cameron Seiler 1206 E Curtis St. Bozeman, MT 59715 Samara Yanny 734 23rd Ave. #4 Bozeman, MT 59718 John Robert McGowen, Jr. 108 8th Street Belgrade, MT 59714 Christian Jakkola 2006 West Koch St. Bozeman, MT 59718 Justin Gipson 100 Mullan Hall Bozeman, MT 59715 223 October 19, 2018 Gallatin TR LP c/o Madison Engineering LLC Attn: Chris G. Budeski, PE 895 Technology Blvd., Suite 203 Bozeman, MT 59715 Sent via email RE: Appeal of WinCo Site Plan, Application No. 17585 Dear Mr. Budeski: An appeal of the administrative project approval of the WinCo site plan was submitted on October 10, 2018. The appeal application is attached. As explained below the appeal will proceed to action by the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, November 26, 2018. At the meeting, the City Commission must first determine whether an appellant has provided sufficient evidence whether an appellant is an aggrieved person as defined by 38.700.020, Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). In doing so, the Commission may: (i) determine an appellant is an aggrieved person and proceed to hear the merits of the appeal; (ii) find no appellants qualify as aggrieved persons ending the hearing upon such a finding; or (iii) find no appellants are aggrieved persons but notwithstanding such finding make a decision on the merits of the appeal preserving the issue of whether an appellant is an aggrieved person for any subsequent judicial review. Independent of the above, the City Commission may also determine whether the appeal is precluded for failure to raise issues during the public comment period for the administrative project decision as required by 38.250.030.B, BMC. In doing so, the Commission may: (i) determine the appeal is not precluded and proceed to hear the merits of the appeal; (ii) find the appeal is precluded ending the hearing upon such a finding; or (iii) find the appeal is precluded but notwithstanding such finding make a decision on the merits of the appeal preserving the issue of whether the appeal is precluded for any subsequent judicial review. In addition to the above, the procedure during the November 26, 2018 meeting will follow 38.250.030.I, BMC. Pursuant to 38.250.030.J, BMC the Commission may uphold, amend, or overturn the administrative project decision. During the time of the appeal construction 224 Page 2 of 2 may not commence unless notified in writing to do so by the city commission. 38.250.030.K, BMC. You may submit additional information to the City Clerk up and until the close of public comment at the appeal. You may submit such in writing to Bozeman City Clerk, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 or by email to agenda@bozeman.net. The meeting will be held during the regular City Commission meeting on Monday, November 26, 2018 at 6:00 PM in the City Commission Room at Bozeman City Hall, 121 North Rouse Ave., Bozeman, MT. As required, the Department of Community Development will prepare a memorandum providing the administrative project decision materials and the appeal materials submitted. These materials will be made available to the City Commission along with materials for the November 26, 2018 meeting. The City will inform you at the time the materials are available online. Sincerely, Martin Matsen Director of Community Development Bozeman, MT 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 From:Web Admin To:Agenda Subject:FW: Feedback for City Of Bozeman Date:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:47:10 AM From: webadmin@bozeman.net <webadmin@bozeman.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 3:49 PM To: Web Admin <webadmin@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Feedback for City Of Bozeman You have received this feedback from Mark Story < mstory@mtopticom.net > for the following page: https://www.bozeman.net/government/community-development/contact-us I am writing to support the WINCO grocery store application , project number 17585. I have visited the WINCO store in Spokane several times and found them to be a terrific, employee owned store. I think the location applied for in Bozeman would be an excellent use of the site, particularly considering that if the WINCO project is not approved a subquent retail application would likely be received which may not provide the balance of businesses in the area that WINCO would. Mark Storymstory@mtopticom.net 236 237 238 239 240 LOT 15MAX AVENUE 60' R/W 35 BBBBBBCACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACALOT 15MAX AVENUE 60' R/W 35 WINCO FOODSLOT 12-C7.942 acresLOT 12-B3.417 acresNProject For: Winco Foods 2913 Max Avenue Bozeman, MTLandscapePlanL101SCALE: 1"=30'-0"11/30/17City SubmittalDate Issue3084 Thorpe RoadBelgrade, Montana 59714Ph 406.924.8038chad@redbarnmontana.com7/18/18Revised CitySubmittal241 242 243 244 245 UDC Adequacy WinCo Foods RE:WinCo Foods Application No: Application Type:Site Plan Project Address: Max Avenue, Bozeman MT 59715 To Whom it May Concern, Respectfully, CC: Carrollton TX 75006-1600 972 389-1795 randytwist@twistrealty.net Courtney Johnson, AIA, NCARB Senior Planner Gallatin TR LP 2501 North Josey, Suite 120 On January 4, 2018 the City Commission approved changes to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The changes are effective on March 31, 2018. Any application that does not received Adequacy, as defined by this chapter, prior to March 31, 2018 will be reviewed under the revised Chapter 38. 17585 The above-reference site plan application was received on: Sunday, December 17, 2017 While the application is still under review by Development Review Committee and we find that application does include all the required elements in order for the City to make a decision on the project. The application is now deemed adequate for continued review. Per Section 38.19.090 BMC a determination of adequacy does not restrict the city from requesting additional information and/or requiring code corrections prior to a recommendation of approval for the project. Following the resolution of the required code revisions, the project will be noticed and be scheduled for a final decision by the Director of Community Development. If you have any more questions, or if the Community Development Department can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 406-582-2289 or cejohnson@bozeman.net. chris@mad-eng.com Friday, March 30, 2018 Madison Engineering LLC Attn: Chris G Budeski, PE 895 Technology Blvd, Suite 203 Bozeman, Montana 59715 406 586-0262 Page 1 of 1246 Design Review Board Wednesday, April 11th 5:30 pm, City Hall, Commission Room A. 05:34:18 PM (00:03:47) Call meeting to order and Roll Call Present Were: Mark Hufstetler (Chair) Lessa Racow Brady Ernst Pete Costanti B. 05:34:31 PM (00:04:00) Changes to the Agenda C. 05:34:38 PM (00:04:07) Minutes for Approval: 1.10.18 Minutes o Audio Link 2.28.18 Minutes o Video Link 05:34:53 PM (00:04:22) MOTION to approve the minutes from the January 10th, 2018 and February 28th 2018 meetings: Lessa Racow 05:35:04 PM (00:04:33) MOTION SECONDED 05:35:08 PM (00:04:37) VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Carries D. 05:35:12 PM (00:04:41) 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. E. Action Items 1. 05:35:45 PM (00:05:14) 17584 West Winds SW Modification to PUD (Saunders) A PUD major amendment with three additional relaxations in association with a 72 lot residential subdivision. All relaxations are associated with a non-standard alley cross-section and lot access. This is the final segment of the West Winds PUD to be developed. Located NE of the intersection of Davis Lane and Oak Street and addressed as 3270 Breeze Lane, and 1345 and 1553 Windward Avenue. Application Materials Staff Report Streetscape Elevation Samples 247 05:36:03 PM (00:05:32) Planner Saunders provided a history of this development and a brief overview of the PUD being reviewed and the relaxations being requested. 05:41:40 PM (00:11:09) Applicant. Trevor McSpadden presented on behalf of the applicant before answering board member questions. 05:58:27 PM (00:27:56) Public Comment Opportunity 05:58:37 PM (00:28:06) Board members held a general discussion and each provided comments regarding the West Winds SW Modification to the PUD. 06:07:25 PM (00:36:54) MOTION for application 17584, West Winds SW Planned Unit Development Modification, to approve with conditions including relaxations to section 38.24.050, 38.24.080 and 38.24.090b: Lessa Racow 06:07:56 PM (00:37:25) MOTION SECONDED: Brady Ernst 06:08:02 PM (00:37:31) VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Carries Unanimously 2. 06:08:25 PM (00:37:54) 17585 WinCo Foods Site Plan (Johnson) The proposed development on Lots 12B & 12C at Gallatin Center will be completed in at least 3 phases. The initial phase will consist of the construction of the 75,000± sf WinCo Foods store and the entire front parking area and rear drive lane between the existing Staples lot and Cattail Street. The curbing along the front of the stores and curbing on the west side of the rear drive will also be completed with the first phase as well as the hardscape and landscaping in front of the WinCo Store and a concrete pedestrian connection across the front of the future stores. The remaining landscaping on the exterior perimeter will be completed with the first phase as well as the landscaping between the rear curb and existing stream corridor landscaping. Site lighting will be installed per City standards. All the street frontage sidewalks have been previously installed. A lot line adjustment will be completed once the site plan is tentatively approved for the WinCo Store. Application Materials (large PDF - please be patient while loading) DRC Memo Staff Report 06:08:39 PM (00:38:08) Planner Courtney Johnson introduced the applicants and provided a presentation summarizing the proposed project. Staff recommended approval. 06:15:08 PM (00:44:37) Jeff Good, Architect, spoke to the project and provided details regarding the design and materials of the structure. 06:19:00 PM (00:48:29) Board members asked questions of both staff and the project representatives regarding the project. 248 Public Comment Opportunity 06:39:19 PM (01:08:48) Eugene Graf, member of the development team, commented that he was grateful that WinCo Foods reached back out to the City and commented that he hoped that if the WinCo project finishes successfully that it will draw other retailers to the area to complete the development. 06:40:54 PM (01:10:23) Board members held an internal discussion and provided comments regarding the project. 07:01:29 PM (01:30:58) MOTION for action item 17585 WinCo Site Plan to approve the plan with any future staff recommendations and also taking into account comments presented by the DRB this evening: Lessa Racow 07:02:07 PM (01:31:36) MOTION SECONDED: Brady Ernst 07:02:13 PM (01:31:42) VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Carries G. FYI/Discussion H. 07:02:47 PM (01:32:16) Adjournment For more information please contact Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net This board generally meets the second and fourth Wednesday of the month at 5:30pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 406-582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). 249 Page 109 (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.32.070, 8-15-2005) Sec. 38.18.080. - Building height. A. Maximum building height in a casino overlay district shall be: 1. Roof pitches of less than 3:12: 32 feet. 2. Roof pitches of 3:12 or greater: 38 feet. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.32.080, 8-15-2005) ARTICLE 19. - PLAN REVIEW[7] Footnotes: --- (7) --- Editor's note— Ord. No. 1809, § 1, adopted July 11, 2011, amended art. 19 in its entirety, in effect repealing and reenacting said article to read as herein set out. The former art. 19, §§ 38.19.010—38.19.210, pertained to similar subject matter. For a complete derivation of the former art. 19, see the Code Comparative Table. State Law reference— Property development review, MCA 7-21-1001 et seq. Sec. 38.19.010. - Introduction. A. All non-subdivision development proposals within the city will be subject to plan review and approval except repair, maintenance, grading below the minimum defined limits of this chapter, and interior remodeling, or other items specifically exempted in this chapter. Depending on the complexity of development and status of proposed use in the applicable zoning district, either sketch plans, site plans, master site plans, or conditional use permits (referred to herein as a "plan") will be required as specified in this article. Although work may be exempt from zoning review it may require review for other permits before construction may begin. B. Special development proposals (e.g., PUDs, CUPs, variances, etc.) require other information to be submitted in conjunction with plans and are subject to requirements specific to the type of proposal. These additional submittal requirements and review procedures are outlined in section 38.19.030. C. When a development is proposed within a neighborhood conservation or entryway corridor overly district, or proposes signs which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, design review is required in conjunction with plan review per the authority in section 38.33.010. In such cases, additional submittal requirements and review procedures apply as outlined in section 38.41.090. D. Conditional uses. Certain uses, while generally not suitable in a particular zoning district, may, under certain circumstances, be acceptable. When such circumstances can be demonstrated by the applicant to exist, a conditional use permit may be granted by the review authority. Conditions may be applied to the issuance of the permit and periodic review may be required. No conditional use permit shall be granted for a use which is not specifically designated as a conditional use in this chapter. E. Approval shall be granted for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. F. This article is provided to meet the purposes of section 38.01.040 and all other relevant portions of this chapter. 250 Page 110 G. Applications subject to this article shall be reviewed under the authority established by article 34 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.020. - Classification of plans. A. All developments, as defined in article 42 of this chapter, within the city shall be subject to plan review procedures and criteria of this chapter and the applicable submittal requirements of article 41 of this chapter. For the purposes of this chapter, plans will be classified as either a site plan or a master site plan. 1. Exception. Those developments specified in section 38.19.070 and other development proposals when so specifically identified require only sketch plan review. B. A master site plan is a generalized development plan that establishes building envelopes and overall entitlements for complex, large-scale projects that will require multiple years to reach completion. Use of a master site plan is not required unless necessary to address phasing of a proposed development (see section 38.19.090.B.3) or if required as part of the residential emphasis mixed-use district or North 19th Avenue/West Oak Street entryway corridors. A master site plan involves one or more of the following: 1. One hundred or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or structures; 2. Fifty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial space, service commercial space or industrial space; 3. Multiple buildings located on multiple contiguous lots and/or contiguous city blocks; 4. Multiple owners; 5. Development phasing projected to extend beyond two years; or 6. Parking for more than 200 vehicles. C. Any planned unit development shall be reviewed according to the regulations in article 20 of this chapter, in addition to this article. D. Telecommunication facilities shall be reviewed according to the regulations in article 29 of this chapter, in addition to this article. E. Uses identified in article 22 of this chapter shall be reviewed according to the standards and regulations contained in article 22 of this chapter, in addition to this article. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1832, § 1, 6-18-2012) Sec. 38.19.030. - Special development proposals—Additional application requirements, review procedures and review criteria. A. Application requirements. Applications for special development proposals (e.g. PUD, CUP, flood plain development permits, variances, etc.) shall include: 1. The required information for plans described in section 38.41.080; 2. Any additional application information required for specific reviews as listed in the following articles of this chapter: a. Article 20, Planned Unit Development; b. Article 22, Standards for Specific Uses; 251 Page 111 c. Article 29, Telecommunications; d. Article 31, Bozeman Floodplain Regulations; and e. Article 35, Appeals, Deviations and Variance Procedures. B. Review procedures and review criteria. Additional review procedures and review criteria for specific development proposals are defined in the following sections and articles of this chapter: 1. Section 38.19.080, Certificate of appropriateness; 2. Section 38.19.110, Conditional use; 3. Article 20, Planned Unit Development; 4. Article 22, Standards for Specific Uses; 5. Article 29, Telecommunications; 6. Article 31, Floodplain Regulations; and 7. Article 35, Appeals, Deviations and Variance Procedures. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.040. - Review authority. A. The review authorities are established in 38.34.010 and as may be specified elsewhere in this chapter. B. The development review committee, design review board, administrative design review staff, and wetlands review board have the advisory authority established in article 33 of this chapter. C. Plan design review thresholds. When a development is subject to design review and meets one or more of the following thresholds the design review board shall have responsibility for conducting the design review: 1. Twenty or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or structures; 2. Thirty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial space, service commercial space or industrial space; 3. Twenty thousand or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or goods; 4. Parking for more than 90 vehicles; or 5. Large scale retail per 38.22.180. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1830, § 11, 9-24-2012) Sec. 38.19.050. - Application of plan review procedures. A. These procedures shall apply to all developments within the city unless explicitly exempted in this chapter. B. A plan must be approved by the review authority prior to the issuance of any building permit. C. No occupancy permits shall be issued for any development for which plan review is required until certification has been provided under section 38.39.030 demonstrating that all terms and conditions of plan approval have been complied with. D. Unless a deviation or variance is explicitly sought and granted in association with a plan, all standards of this chapter apply whether explicitly mentioned in the record of the review or not. An omission or oversight of a nonconformity with the standards of this chapter in the site plan shall not constitute approval of such nonconformance. Any nonconformance which was not the subject of an explicitly 252 Page 112 approved deviation or variance may be required to be cured at such time the city becomes aware of the nonconforming condition's existence. E. In the event that the volume of site development applications submitted for review exceeds the ability of the city to process them simultaneously, preference in order of scheduling will be given to those projects which provide the most affordable housing in excess of minimum requirements, as measured by the total number of affordable units. F. When a development subject to this article is located within an overlay district established by articles 16 or 17 of this chapter a certificate of appropriateness is required in addition to other required review procedures. G. Public notice of development proposals and approvals subject to this article shall be provided as required by article 40 of this chapter. H. Improvements depicted on an approved plan shall be installed subject to the requirements of article 39 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1944 , § 2, 4-25-2016) Sec. 38.19.060. - Special temporary use permit. A. Generally. Uses permitted subject to a special temporary use permit are those temporary uses which are required for the proper function of the community or are temporarily required in the process of establishing a permitted use, constructing a public facility or providing for response to an emergency. Such uses shall be so conducted that they will not be detrimental in any way to the surrounding properties or to the community. Uses permitted subject to a special temporary use permit may include: 1. Carnivals, circuses, special events of not over 72 consecutive hours; 2. Tent revival meetings; 3. Swap meets; or 4. Such other uses as may be deemed to be within the intent and purpose of this section. B. Exception: Functions held within a park and which are subject to a park user agreement are not required to obtain a special temporary use permit. C. Application and filing fee. Application for a special temporary use permit may be made by a property owner or his authorized agent. A copy of the fees are available at the planning department. Such application shall be filed with the planning director who shall charge and collect a filing fee for each such application, as provided in article 34 of this chapter. The planning director may also require any information deemed necessary to support the approval of a special temporary use permit, including site plans per this article. D. Decision. Approval or conditional approval shall be given only when in the judgment of the review authority such approval is within the intent and purposes of this article. E. Conditions. In approving such a permit, the approval shall be made subject to a time limit, not to exceed one year per approval, and other conditions deemed necessary to assure that there will be no adverse effect upon adjacent properties. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Regulation of parking; 2. Regulation of hours; 3. Regulation of noise; 4. Regulation of lights; 5. Requirement of financial security or other guarantees for cleanup or removal of structure or equipment; and/or 253 Page 113 6. Such other conditions deemed necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this section. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 18, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.19.070. - Sketch plan review. A. Sketch plan submittal requirements. 1. Certain independent development proposals (i.e., not in conjunction with other development) are required to submit only sketch plans which include the information specified in section 38.41.110. 2. Separate construction plans are necessary for building permits when the proposal requires such permits. Additional information is also necessary when the proposal requires the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness (see sections 38.19.080 and 38.41.090). 3. Examples of independent projects which qualify for sketch plan review are: individual single- household including manufactured homes on individual lots, two-household, three-household, and four-household residential units, each on individual lots and independent of other site development; accessory dwelling units in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts; fences; signs in compliance with the requirements of this chapter; regulated activities in areas with regulated wetlands not in conjunction with a land development proposal; grading of sites disturbing more than one-eighth but less than one-half acre, or movement of more than 30 but less than 100 cubic yards of material, or cut or fill of less than one cumulative foot, whichever is less; special temporary uses; reuse, change in use, or further development of sites per section 38.19.150, essential services Type II primarily underground with no above ground structures larger than 125 square feet; and accessory structures associated with these uses. Other similar projects may be determined by the planning director to require only sketch plan review. The planning director may determine submittal requirements in addition to those in section 38.41.110. Projects which do not require sketch plan review may still require review and permitting for nonzoning issues. B. Sketch plan review procedures. 1. No certificate of appropriateness required. Sketch plans for projects which do not require a certificate of appropriateness shall be submitted to the planning department for a determination of compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Once compliance is achieved, the application will be approved for construction or referred to the appropriate permitting authorities. In determining whether compliance is achieved the planning department shall consider the individual circumstances of the site when the development is subject to 38.19.150. 2. Certificate of appropriateness required. Sketch plans, including the material required by 38.41.090, and such additional information as may be required for projects which require a certificate of appropriateness as per 38.19.080 shall be submitted to the planning department, who shall review the proposal for compliance with this chapter, including compliance with the applicable overlay district requirements. Once compliance is achieved, the application will be approved for construction or referred to the appropriate permitting authorities. C. Sketch plan review criteria. Sketch plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter including overlay district requirements and the cessation of any current violations of this chapter, exclusive of any legal nonconforming conditions. Plan changes may be required. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 19, 9-10-2012; Ord. No. 1893, § 11, 8-11-2014 ) Sec. 38.19.080. - Certificates of appropriateness—Additional review procedures and review criteria. A. Sign proposals which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter. Independent sign proposals (i.e., not in conjunction with other development) which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, are required to submit full site plans. Additional site design information, 254 Page 114 in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the design objective plan, encompassing the property's location shall be provided. B. Review procedures and criteria for certificates of appropriateness. 1. Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued according to procedures and criteria specified in articles 16, 17, 20 and 33, in addition to this chapter. 2. Sign proposals which specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in article 28 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.090. - Plan review procedures. A. Step 1: Conceptual review/informal review. 1. Conceptual review (required): a. Purpose. Conceptual review is an opportunity for an applicant to discuss requirements, standards and procedures that apply to his or her development proposal. Major problems can be identified and solved during conceptual review before a formal application is made. Conceptual review applications are reviewed by the Development Review Committee and comments are provided in writing to the applicant following the review. The primary focus of conceptual review is to identify site specific challenges and/or constraints critical path elements which will affect review process or submittal requirements. b. Applicability. Conceptual review is required for development subject to 38.19.050. Conceptual review may be waived by the planning director for development proposals that would not derive substantial benefit from such review. c. Concept plan submittal. An applicant must submit the application materials required by the planning director as provided in the conceptual review checklist. d. Staff review and recommendation. Upon receipt of a concept plan, and after review of such plan by the DRC and a subsequent meeting with the applicant, the planning director shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding such plan, including appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the applicant prior to preparing the components of the formal development application. e. Formal application must address the comments provided with the conceptual review. B. Informal review (optional). 1. Purpose. Informal review is an opportunity for an applicant to discuss the requirements, standards, procedures, and potential modifications of standards or variances that may be necessary for a development project. While the conceptual review process is a general consideration of the development proposal, informal review provides an opportunity for the applicant to have the city consider the development proposal in greater detail prior to formal submittal of an application. Problems of both a major and minor nature can be identified during the informal review before a formal application is made. Informal review applications are reviewed by the DRC, DRB, recreation and parks advisory board, or other applicable advisory boards The city may invite other public or quasi-public agencies which may be impacted by the development to comment and/or attend the informal review meeting. These agencies may include the gas and electric utilities, state agencies, ditch companies, railroads, cable television service providers and other similar agencies. 2. Applicability. Although an informal review is not required, an applicant may request informal review for any development proposal. A request for informal review is made by filing an application with accompanying fee. 255 Page 115 3. Informal review submittal. In conjunction with an informal review, the applicant must submit all documents required in the informal review checklist. 4. Staff review and recommendation. Upon receipt of a complete informal review proposal, and after review of such proposal by the DRC or other applicable advisory board, the planning director shall furnish the applicant with written comments and recommendations regarding such proposal. In conjunction with the foregoing, the planning director shall provide the applicant with a list of critical issues which have been identified in the informal review and which must be resolved prior to or during the review process of the formal development application. The list of critical issues will provide applicants the opinion of the planning director regarding the development proposal, as that opinion is established based upon the facts presented during informal review. Formal application must address the comments provided with the informal review. C. Step 2: Development application submittal. 1. Development application forms. All development applications shall be in a form established by the planning director. 2. Fees. All fees established in the adopted fee schedule must be paid prior to the review authority commencing review of the application. D. Step 3: Review of applications. Acceptability and adequacy of application. 1. The planning department shall review the application for acceptability within five working days to determine if the application is does not omit any of the submittal elements required by this chapter. If the application does not contain all of the required elements, the application, review fee and a written explanation of what the application is missing shall be returned to the property owner or their representative. The five working day review period will be considered met if the letter is dated, signed and placed in the outgoing mail within the five-day review period. 2. After the application is deemed to contain the required elements and to be acceptable, it shall be reviewed for adequacy. A determination of adequacy means the application contains all of the required elements in sufficient detail and accuracy to enable the review authority to make a determination that the application either does or does not conform to the requirements of this chapter and any other applicable regulations under the jurisdiction of the city. The adequacy review period shall begin on the next working day after the date that the planning department determines the application to contain all the required elements and shall be completed within not more than 15 working days. The 15 working day review period will 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 property owner. a. In the event the missing information is not received by the city within 15 working days of notification to the property owner and applicant of inadequacy, all application materials and one-half of the review fee shall be returned to the property owner or their representative. Subsequent resubmittal shall require payment of a review fee as if it were a new application. b. A determination that an application is adequate does not restrict the city from requesting additional information during the site plan review process. 3. Should the property owner choose not to provide the required information after an application has been found unacceptable, nor to accept return of the application and accompanying fee, the application may be processed by the city with the recognition by the property owner that unacceptability is an adequate basis for denial of the application regardless of other merit of the application. 4. 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 be requested and granted. In order to be granted a waiver the applicant shall include with the submission of the preliminary plan 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 preliminary site 256 Page 116 plan is reviewed. All waivers must be identified not later than initial submittal of the preliminary site plan stage of review. 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. E. Plans shall be reviewed according to the procedures established by this chapter. Prior to a recommendation of approval by the DRC, the DRC shall make a determination that the application does conform to the requirements of this chapter. After review of the applicable submittal materials, and upon recommendation by the appropriate advisory bodies, the review authority shall act to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, subject to the appeal provisions of article 35 of this chapter. The basis for the review authority's action shall be whether the application, including any required conditions, complies with all the applicable standards and requirements of this chapter. 1. Plan. The review authority shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment upon development proposals. The duration of the initial comment period shall be as required by article 40 of this chapter and included in any notice. a. The review authority after receiving the recommendations of the advisory bodies and considering any public comment shall act to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application within ten working days of the close of the public comment period. The decision shall be in writing and shall include any special conditions which are to be applied to the development. (1) After formal notice of a project review has been given, interested parties may request in writing to receive a copy of the decision regarding an application. Persons making such a request shall provide an addressed envelope. 2. Plan with deviations or variances or conditional use permits. The review authority shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment upon a proposed plan. The notice shall be as required by article 40 of this chapter. a. The review authority, after receiving the recommendations of the advisory bodies and considering any public comment shall act to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application. The decision shall be in writing and shall include any special conditions which are to be applied to the development. 3. Phasing. The entitlement period for which a final plan is valid is specified in 38.19.120. a. Any development that includes phases or where construction of a building would extend past the final plan approval period must proceed under the master site plan application process with a first phase plan for those portions that can be constructed under the single phase final plan approval. The master site plan and first phase site plan may be reviewed concurrently as a single application. Each future project phase must submit a stand-alone site plan application following initial master site plan approval. b. Each phase of a plan must not include more buildings than will be constructed within a one-year timeframe. These subsequent site plan applications may be expedited through the review process if they are consistent with the master site plan. Independent fees will be assessed for each required application. c. A preliminary site plan application may be received where it is unclear whether the buildings or units can be constructed under building permits issued within one year of final site plan approval. In this case, the planning director may request proof of a construction financing commitment prior to accepting the application. Applications, where it is clear that the buildings or units cannot be constructed under building permits issued within one year of final site plan approval will be deemed unacceptable for review. Such applications must proceed pursuant to a master site plan with first phase site plan process. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 20, 9-10-2012; Ord. No. 1944 , § 3, 4-25-2016) 257 Page 117 Sec. 38.19.100. - Plan review criteria. A. In considering applications for plan approval under this chapter, the review authority and advisory bodies shall consider the following criteria. When considering the criteria for future phases of a master site plan, other than those for criteria 1—3, the evaluation shall be of a more generalized demonstration of compliance, recognizing that a subsequent site plan shall be submitted in the future which shall provide evidence of specific compliance. The level of detail submitted and the review conducted shall be equal with the level of entitlement being sought with the application. See article 41 of this chapter for required submittal materials. 1. Conformance to and consistency with the city's adopted growth policy. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations; 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations; 4. Relationship of plan elements to conditions both on and off the property, including: a. Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to architectural design, building mass and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration; b. Design and arrangement of the elements of the plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) so that activities are integrated with the organizational scheme of the community, neighborhood, and other approved development and produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive development; c. Design and arrangement of elements of the plan (e.g., buildings circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with the existing natural topography, natural water bodies and water courses, existing vegetation, and to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration; and d. If the proposed project is located within a locally designated historical district, or includes a locally designated landmark structure, the project is in conformance with the provisions of article 16 of this chapter; 5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress and circulation, including: a. Design of the pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems to assure that pedestrians and vehicles can move safely and easily both within the site and between properties and activities within the neighborhood area; b. Non-automotive transportation and circulation systems design features to enhance convenience and safety across parking lots and streets, including, but not limited to, paving patterns, grade differences, landscaping and lighting; c. Adequate connection and integration of the pedestrian and vehicular transportation systems to the systems in adjacent developments and general community; and d. Dedication of right-of-way or easements necessary for streets and similar transportation facilities; 7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation; 8. Open space, including: a. The enhancement of the natural environment; b. Precautions being taken to preserve existing wildlife habitats or natural wildlife feeding areas; 258 Page 118 c. If the development is adjacent to an existing or approved public park or public open space area, have provisions been made in the plan to avoid interfering with public access to and use of that area; d. Is any provided recreational area suitably located and accessible to the residential units it is intended to serve and is adequate screening provided to ensure privacy and quiet for neighboring residential uses; e. Open space shall be provided in accordance with article 27 of this chapter; f. Park land shall be provided in accordance with article 27 of this chapter; 9. Building location and height; 10. Setbacks; 11. Lighting; 12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities; 13. Site surface drainage and stormwater control; 14. Loading and unloading areas; 15. Grading; 16. Signage; 17. Screening; 18. Overlay district provisions; 19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties; and 20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirements of this chapter, whether the lots are either: a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; or b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the city is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. 21. Compliance with article 43 of chapter 38 of this Code; and 22. Phasing of development. B. If the review authority, after recommendation from the applicable advisory bodies, determines the proposed plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community, is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, and is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this chapter and the Bozeman growth policy, the review authority must approve the proposed plan and may require conditions and safeguards that must be met prior to final approval as deemed necessary. Notice of action shall be given in writing. C. Plan approval may be denied upon a determination the application does not meet the criteria of this section. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof. A denial of approval shall be in writing. D. Following approval of a master site plan, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, sequential individual site plans for specific areas within the master site plan. Each subsequent application for a site plan shall be consistent with the approved master site plan and subject to the review criteria set forth in subsection A, above. Evidence that the review criteria have been met through the master site plan review process may be incorporated by reference in order to eliminate duplication of review. 259 Page 119 (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1944 , § 4, 4-25-2016) Sec. 38.19.110. - Conditional use permit. A. The person applying for a conditional use permit shall fill out and submit to the planning department the appropriate form with the required fee. The request for a conditional use permit shall follow the procedures and application requirements of this article. B. In consideration of all conditional use permit applications, a public hearing shall be conducted by the review authority. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. If a rezoning is required prior to approval of a conditional use permit, the application for rezoning and the conditional use permit may be filed and acted upon simultaneously, however the conditional use permit shall not be effective until the rezoning has been implemented by ordinance. D. The review authority, in approving a conditional use permit, shall review the application against the review requirements of 38.19.100. E. In addition to the review criteria of 38.19.100, the review authority shall, in approving a conditional use permit, determine favorably as follows: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity; 2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof; 3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to: a. Regulation of use; b. Special yards, spaces and buffers; c. Special fences, solid fences and walls; d. Surfacing of parking areas; e. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds; f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress; g. Regulation of signs; h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds; i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors; j. Regulation of hours for certain activities; k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed; l. Duration of use; m. Requiring the dedication of access rights; and n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner. F. In addition to all other conditions, the following general requirements apply to every conditional use permit granted: 1. That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit procedure; and 260 Page 120 2. That all of the conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use, shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing, and shall be recorded as such with the county clerk and recorder's office by the property owner prior to the issuance of any building permits, final plan approval or commencement of the conditional use. G. Applications for conditional use permits may be approved, conditionally approved or denied by the review authority. If an application is denied, the denial shall constitute a determination that the applicant has not shown that the conditions required for approval exist. H. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the final action taken within seven working days of the action. If the conditional use permit has been granted the notification shall include any conditions, automatic termination date, period of review or other requirements. If the conditional use permit has been granted, the permit shall be issued upon the signature of the planning director after completion of all conditions and final plan. I. Termination/revocation of conditional use permit approval. 1. Conditional use permits are approved based on an analysis of current local circumstances and regulatory requirements. Over time these things may change and the use may no longer be appropriate to a location. A conditional use permit will be considered as terminated and of no further effect if: a. After having been commenced, the approved use is not actively conducted on the site for a period of two continuous calendar years; b. Final zoning approval to reuse the property for another principal or conditional use is granted; c. The use or development of the site is not begun within the time limits of the final site plan approval in 38.19.120. 2. A conditional use which has terminated may be reestablished on a site by either, the review and approval of a new conditional use permit application, or a determination by the planning director that the local circumstances and regulatory requirements are essentially the same as at the time of the original approval. A denial of renewal by the planning director may not be appealed. If the planning director determines that the conditional use permit may be renewed on a site then any conditions of approval of the original conditional use permit are also renewed. 3. If activity begins for which a conditional use permit has been given final approval, all activities must comply with any conditions of approval or code requirements. Should there be a failure to maintain compliance the city may revoke the approval through the procedures outlined in section 38.34.160. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 21, 9-10-2012; Ord. No. 1830, § 12, 9-24-2012; Ord. No. 1944 , § 5, 4-25-2016) Sec. 38.19.120. - Final plan. A. If the review authority is the city commission, no later than six months after the date of the commission's approval of the plan, the applicant shall submit to the planning department a final plan. The number of copies of the final plan to be submitted shall be established by the planning director. The final plan shall contain the materials required in sections 38.41.080 and 38.41.090 and whatever revisions to the preliminary site plan or master site plan are required to comply with any conditions of approval. Prior to the passage of six months, the applicant may seek an extension of not more than an additional six months from the planning director. B. In addition to the materials required in subsection A of this section, the applicant must submit a certification of completion and compliance stating that they understand any conditions of approval and the submitted final plans have complied with any conditions of approval or corrections to comply with code provisions. 261 Page 121 C. If a plan is fully compliant with all applicable standards the review authority may approve the final plan after the close of the public comment period. In addition to the materials required in subsections A and B of this section, the applicant must submit a statement of intent to construct according to the final plan. Such statement must acknowledge that construction not in compliance with the approved final plan may result in delays of occupancy or costs to correct noncompliance. D. Following approval of a final site plan, the approval of the final plan shall be effective for one year. Prior to the passage of one year, the applicant may seek an extension of not more than one additional year. In such instances, the planning director shall determine whether the relevant terms of this chapter and circumstances have significantly changed since the initial approval. If relevant terms of this chapter or circumstances have significantly changed, the extension of the approval may not be granted. E. Following approval of a final master site plan, approval of the final master site plan is effective for not less than three but not more than five years with the initial duration to be specified during the final action of the review authority. Owners of property subject to the master site plan may seek extensions to not exceed five years. Approval of an extension shall be. Approval shall be granted if the planning director determines the criteria of subsection F of this section are met. F. Any request for an extension must be in writing and be dated and signed by the owner of the undeveloped area or incomplete development for which the extension is sought. More than one extension may be requested for a particular development. Each request shall be considered on its individual merits. An extension of the development approval under this article does not extend other city or non-city agency approvals, e.g. for design of infrastructure extensions, necessary to complete the project. When evaluating an extension request, the city shall consider: 1. Changes to the development regulations since the original approval and whether the development as originally approved substantially complies with the new regulations; 2. Progress to date in completing the development as a whole and any phases; 3. Phasing of the development 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 development; 5. For extensions of approval greater than one year, the demonstrated ability of the developer to complete the development; 6. Overall maintenance of the site; and 7. Whether mitigation for impacts of the development identified during the preliminary plan review remain relevant, adequate, and applicable to the present circumstances of the development and community. G. Upon approval of the final plan by the planning director the applicant may obtain a building permit as provided for by article 34 of this chapter. 1. Subsequent site plan approvals are required to implement a master site plan, and approval of a master site plan only does not entitle an applicant to obtain any building permits. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1944 , § 6, 4-25-2016) Sec. 38.19.130. - Amendments to plans. A. It is the intent of this section to assure that issues of community concern are addressed during the redevelopment, reuse or change in use of existing facilities in the community. Specific areas of community concern include public safety, mitigation of off-site environmental impacts and site character in relation to surroundings. The following procedures for amendments to approved plans, reuse of existing facilities and further development of sites assure that these concerns are adequately and expeditiously addressed. 262 Page 122 B. Any amendment to or modification of a plan approved under the ordinance codified in this article (September 3, 1991 — Ordinance 1332) shall be submitted to the planning director for review and possible approval. Proposals for further development, reuse or change in use of sites developed pursuant to this chapter shall be reviewed as an amendment to an approved plan. All amendments shall be shown on a revised plan drawing. Amendments to approved plans shall be reviewed and may be approved by the planning director upon determining that the amended plan is in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan. If it is determined that the amended plan is not in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan, the application shall be resubmitted as a new application and shall be subject to all standards and plan review and approval provisions of this chapter. Substantial compliance may be shown by demonstrating that the amendments do not exceed the thresholds established in 38.19.140.C. C. Modifications or amendments to a master site plan at the time an extension of approval is sought may be proposed by either the applicant or the review authority, and shall be based on substantive current information that indicates that relevant circumstances have changed and that such circumstances support the proposed modifications. Such circumstances may include market analyses, economic conditions, changes in surrounding land uses, changes in ownership, etc. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1830, § 13, 9-24-2012) Sec. 38.19.140. - Reuse, change in use or further development of sites developed prior to the adoption date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. A. It is the policy of the city to work with owners of property during the reuse, change in use, or further development process to correct existing violations of the city's and other agency's regulations, to encourage reinvestment and renewal of existing developed sites, and to move existing sites toward compliance with current standards while recognizing the limitations that may exist in relation to an existing site. B. Sites legally developed prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter (September 3, 1991 — Ordinance 1332) shall be considered to have developed under an approved plan. Proposals for reuse, change in use or the further development of sites legally developed prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter may be approved by the review authority upon determining that no significant alteration of the previous use and site are proposed, and upon a determination that adequate access and site surface drainage are provided. All such proposals shall be shown on a plan drawing as required by 38.41.110. C. The criteria for determining that no significant alteration of the previous use and site will result from the proposed reuse, change in use or further development of a site shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. The proposed use is allowed under the same zoning district use classification as the previous use, however replacement of nonconforming uses must comply with the provisions of article 32 of this chapter; 2. Changes proposed for the site, singly or cumulatively, do not increase lot coverage by buildings, storage areas, parking areas or impervious surfaces and/or do not result in an increase in intensity of use as measured by parking requirements, traffic generation or other measurable off-site impacts; a. By more than 20 percent for developments not meeting one or more of the criteria of section 38.19.040.C; or b. By more than ten percent for developments meeting or exceeding one or more of the criteria of section 38.19.040.C; 3. The proposed use does not continue any unsafe or hazardous conditions previously existing on the site or associated with the proposed use of the property. 263 Page 123 D. If it is determined that the proposed reuse, change in use or further development of a site contains significant alterations to the previous use and/or site, the application shall be resubmitted as a new application and shall be subject to all plan review and approval provisions of this article. E. When proposals for reuse, change in use or further development of a site are located in the neighborhood conservation or entryway corridor overlay districts, review by ADR staff or the DRB may be required to determine whether resubmittal as a new application is necessary. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 22, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.19.150. - Improvements to existing developed sites independent of site plan review. The continued improvement of existing developed sites is desired to increase the level of compliance with the provisions of this chapter and to encourage maintenance and viability of the site. An applicant may propose improvements, not in association with a plan review, to increase conformity with the standards of this chapter for landscaping, lighting, parking or similar components of a site to occur over a defined period of time, not to exceed three years. Such improvements shall be depicted on a site plan drawn to scale and which shall be sufficiently detailed to clearly depict the current conditions, the intended end result of the proposed improvements and any phasing of work. Such improvements shall be reviewed by and approved at the discretion of the review authority which may require surety in accordance with the terms of article 39 of this chapter for work performed. A certificate of appropriateness may be required if the site is located within the entryway overlay district or the neighborhood conservation overlay district. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.160. - Building permits based upon approved sketch or site plans. Based upon the approved sketch or final plan and after any appeals have been resolved, a building permit for the site may be requested and may be granted pursuant to article 34 of this chapter. No building permit may be granted on the basis of an approved sketch or other plan whose approval has expired. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.170. - Appeals. Appeals of decisions rendered in conjunction with this article may be taken as set forth in article 35 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) ARTICLE 20. - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sec. 38.20.010. - Intent. A. It is the intent of the city through the use of the planned unit development (PUD) concept, to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. Specifically, with regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, it shall be the intent of this chapter to promote the city's pursuit of the following community objectives: 264