Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal 25769 Presentation_Geoffrey PooleReview Process Current code is the standard of review. Current standard requires: Compliance with all terms, elements, and documents of an approved PUD Review application against the PUD’s Approved Final Plan Final Master Plan Final Development Guidelines Issuance of permits only for those improvements shown on the PUD’s Approved Final Plan If there are conflicts, apply the more restrictive standard. Inadequacies of Review When there were conflicts between various applicable requirements of the Current Code, PUD, and 1992 Zoning, the review consistently applied the more lenient standard, violating BMC 38.10.050.A The standard of review is the Current Code. How can the 1992 Zoning be applicable? Which PUD Development Guidelines were not applied during review? If both are applicable, what should happen when the requirements conflict? Inadequacies of Review The review approves uses & improvements not indicated on the Approved Final Plan, violating BMC 38.440.030.A two buildings outdoor dining patio The City claims the Master Plan is a “concept.” What evidence refutes this position? What evidence demonstrates that the proposed uses on the Master Plan are binding? Inadequacies of Review The arrangement of buildings and parking has twice been deemed non-compliant with BMC 38.510.020 (Block Frontage Standards): 2020 concept review 2024 appeal to the City Commission 2024 2025 Layout non-compliant Layout deemed compliant Specifically, which Block Frontage Standards are violated by the proposed building layout? Motion Having reviewed and considered Appeal #25769 seeking to overturn the decision of the conditional approval of the Site Plan Application #25238, the record of review, the terms of the PUD’s Master Plan and Development Guidelines, staff and appellant presentations, public comment, and all information presented regarding Appeal 25769, I move to overturn the conditional approval and deny Site Plan Application #25238. Which Development Guidelines were not applied during review? If both are applicable, what should happen when the requirements conflict? What evidence demonstrates that the proposed uses on the Master Plan are binding? The standard of review is the Current Code. How can the 1992 standard be applicable? The City claims the Master Plan is a “concept.” What evidence refutes this position? Specifically, which Block Frontage Standards are violated by the proposed building layout? Which Development Guidelines were not applied during review? If both are applicable, what should happen when the requirements conflict? The standard of review is the Current Code How can the 1992 standard be applicable? 1992 Zoning Requirements 1) The Current requires enforcement of the terms of the PUD Approved Final Plan. Basis of Review The Approved Final Plan is the basis of review. Sec. 38.440.030.A “Building permits and other development approvals shall be issued on the basis of the approved final plan and any conditions of approval.” “No City administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan with the exception of [minor changes].” PUDs are binding on development Compliance with all elements and approved documents of a PUD is required. Sec. 38.440.50 The failure to comply with any of the terms, conditions of approval or limitations contained on the site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, other approved documents, or other element pertaining to a planned unit development which has received final approval from the city may subject the applicant or current landowner to the enforcement remedies contained in section 38.200.160. 1992 Zoning Requirements 1) The Current requires enforcement of the terms of the PUD Approved Final Plan. 2) The Development Guidelines include binding terms of the PUD’s Approved Final Plan. 2024 Appeal City held the position that the covenants were “private agreements” that need not be enforced. Appellants presented evidence that: Applicable code showed that the Development Guidelines were required & must be enforced Application Z-95125 embedded Development Guidelines in the covenants. Commission reaffirmed Development Guidelines PUD Enforcement is Required 1) The Current requires enforcement of the terms of the PUD Approved Final Plan. 2) The terms of the Approved Final Plan are the Master Plan and Development Guidelines 3) The PUD Development Guidelines requires enforcement of the terms of the 1992 code. “The Covenants detail how the Neighborhood Services Property within the Sundance Springs Subdivision are to be developed and maintained beyond the minimum requirements of the Bozeman Zoning Code which exists at the date of the execution of this document.” PUD Development Guidelines Which Development Guidelines were not applied during review? If both are applicable, what should happen when the requirements conflict? The standard of review is the Current Code. How can the 1992 standard be applicable? “The Current Code enforces the terms of the PUD. The PUD’s development guidelines requires consideration of the 1992 Zoning Requirements.” Which Development Guidelines were not applied during review? If both are applicable, what should happen when the requirements conflict? The standard of review is the Current Code How can the 1992 standard be applicable? Most Restrictive Standard When rules conflict, the more restrictive standard governs. Sec. 38.100.050.A (Current Code) "Wherever the requirements of this chapter are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully adopted rules or regulations, or wherever there is an internal conflict within this chapter, the most restrictive requirements, or those imposing the higher standards, will govern." Which Development Guidelines were not applied during review? If both are applicable, what should happen when the requirements conflict? The standard of review is the Current Code How can the 1992 standard be applicable? PUD Setback Requirements 1992 Zoning Requirements 1) Continuous screening vegetation; 8’ in width 2) 26’ parking aisle requirements Use of Adjacent Property City’s Position: Developer can place improvements on adjacent ownership to meet UDC requirements. 2024: Trail for east building to “front” 2026: Landscaping to meet code requirements Commission: 2024: Improvements on adjacent ownership can’t be used to meet requirements. 2026: ??? Which Development Guidelines were not applied during review? If both are applicable, what should happen when the requirements conflict? What evidence demonstrates that the proposed uses on the Master Plan are binding? The standard of review is the Current Code. How can the 1992 standard be applicable? The City claims the Master Plan is a “concept.” What evidence refutes this position? Specifically, which Block Frontage Standards are violated by the proposed building layout? PUD Approval Process Three Step Application Process: Step 1: Concept Plan Step 2: Preliminary Plan Step 3: Final Plan Timeline: 199? – Concept Review Completed 1996 – Preliminary Approval (conditional) 1998 – Final Approval Summary of Approval Process Concept Review Concept Sketch Current Conditions Proposed Land Use Prelim. Application Z-95125 (1996) Master Plan Development Guidelines Cond. of Appr. Integrate CoA into: Master Plan Development Guidelines Final Review Z-9812 (1998) Basis of Review The Approved Final Plan is the basis of review. Sec. 38.440.030.A “Building permits and other development approvals shall be issued on the basis of the approved final plan and any conditions of approval.” “No City administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan with the exception of [minor changes].” Summary of Approval Process Concept Review Concept Sketch Current Conditions Proposed Land Use Prelim. Application Z-95125 Master Plan Development Guidelines Cond. of Appr. Final Review Z-9812 Integrate CoA into: Master Plan Development Guidelines Approved Final PlanBasis of Review: PUDs are binding on development Compliance with all elements and approved documents of a PUD is required. Sec. 38.440.50 The failure to comply with any of the terms, conditions of approval or limitations contained on the site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, other approved documents, or other element pertaining to a planned unit development which has received final approval from the city may subject the applicant or current landowner to the enforcement remedies contained in section 38.200.160. Summary of Approval Process Concept Review Concept Sketch Current Conditions Proposed Land Use Prelim. Application Z-95125 Master Plan Development Guidelines Cond. of Appr. Final Review Z-9812 Integrate CoA into: Master Plan Development Guidelines Approved Final PlanBasis of Review: Compliance with all terms and documents is required. 2024 Commission Memo Summary of Approval Process Concept Review Concept Sketch Current Conditions Proposed Land Use Prelim. Application Z-95125 Master Plan Development Guidelines Cond. of Appr. Final Review Z-9812 Integrate CoA into: Master Plan Development Guidelines Approved Final PlanBasis of Review: Compliance with all terms and documents is required. Basis of Review The PUD’s Approved Final Plan is the basis of review. Sec. 38.440.030.A “Building permits and other development approvals shall be issued on the basis of the approved final plan and any conditions of approval.” “No City administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan with the exception of [minor changes].” PUDs are binding on development Compliance with all elements and approved documents of a PUD is required. Sec. 38.440.50 The failure to comply with any of the terms, conditions of approval or limitations contained on the site plan, landscape plan, building elevations, other approved documents, or other element pertaining to a planned unit development which has received final approval from the city may subject the applicant or current landowner to the enforcement remedies contained in section 38.200.160. The Bozeman City Commission found that the proposed Zoning Planned Unit Development for application Z-95125 … could comply with [all requirements] ... if certain conditions are imposed on the project. The evidence that justifies the conditions is that the subdivision must comply the above-referenced documents.” Created by Commission Order Review Process Current code is the standard of review. Current standard requires: Compliance with all terms, elements, and documents of an approved PUD Review of the application against the PUD’s Approved Final Plan Final Master Plan Final Development Guidelines Issuance of permits only for those improvements shown on the PUD’s Approved Final Plan If there are conflicts, apply the more restrictive standard. What evidence demonstrates that the proposed uses on the Master Plan are binding? Questions so far? The City claims the Master Plan is a “concept.” What evidence refutes this position? 2026 Commission Memo 2024 Commission Memo PUD Approval Process Summary of Approval Process Concept Review Concept Sketch Current Conditions Proposed Land Use Prelim. Application Z-95125 Master Plan Development Guidelines Cond. of Appr. Final Review Z-9812 Integrate CoA into: Master Plan Development Guidelines 2024 Commission Memo ... What evidence demonstrates that the proposed uses on the Master Plan are binding? The City claims the Master Plan is a “concept.” What evidence refutes this position? “The Final Master Plan identified by the City is an document associated with an approved PUD. The clear language of the current standard mandates compliance with the terms. “Contrary to the assertion of the 2026 Commission Memo, the Master Plan in the Preliminary Application was required to be a “Detailed Site Plan.” 2026 Commission Memo “If [the PUD is] developed in accordance with the approved Master Plan and Development Guidelines...” “the City Commission must determine that the detail in the proposed Master Plan and Development Guidelines is sufficient...” “to support a finding that the phased PUD will comply with all requirements for PUD approval.” PUD Application Criteria 1995 Staff Report PUD Application Criteria 1995 Staff Report PUD Application Criteria 1995 Staff Report PUD Application Criteria 1995 Staff Report PUD Application Criteria 1995 Staff Report Summary of Approval Process Concept Review Concept Sketch Current Conditions Proposed Land Use Prelim. Application Z-95125 Master Plan Development Guidelines Cond. of Appr. Final Review Z-9812 Integrate CoA into: Master Plan Development Guidelines Condition of Approval #29 Summary of Approval Process Concept Review Concept Sketch Current Conditions Proposed Land Use Prelim. Application Z-95125 Master Plan Development Guidelines Cond. of Appr. Final Review Z-9812 Integrate CoA into: Master Plan Development Guidelines Approved Final PlanBasis of Review: Which Development Guidelines were not applied during review? If both are applicable, what should happen when the requirements conflict? What evidence demonstrates that the proposed uses on the Master Plan are binding? The standard of review is the Current Code. How can the 1992 standard be applicable? The City claims the Master Plan is a “concept.” What evidence refutes this position? Specifically, which Block Frontage Standards are violated by the proposed building layout? Block Frontange Standards (Current Code) F. Multiple frontage situations where a property and building(s) front onto multiple block frontages or internal frontage designations. 1. When a building or buildings is located such that it faces and is adjacent to multiple block frontages, the orientation of the front of the building must be sited and placed on the property in the following order of precedence: a. Streets (all types, see subsection F.2 below). b. Trail/Park. c. Special residential or internal roadway (parking areas/lots, block separation corridors). 3. All buildings must be placed and designed to present the front and primary facade to the block frontage or street block frontage that is highest in the order of precedence. Block Frontange Standards (Current Code) Block Frontange Standards (Current Code) Block Frontange Standards (Current Code) F. Multiple frontage situations where a property and building(s) front onto multiple block frontages or internal frontage designations. 1. When a building or buildings is located such that it faces and is adjacent to multiple block frontages, the orientation of the front of the building must be sited and placed on the property in the following order of precedence: a. Streets (all types, see subsection F.2 below). b. Trail/Park. c. Special residential or internal roadway (parking areas/lots, block separation corridors). 3. All buildings must be placed and designed to present the front and primary facade to the block frontage or street block frontage that is highest in the order of precedence. Block Frontange Standards (Current Code) Block Frontange Standards (Current Code) 2020 Concept Review 2024 Appeal Block Frontage Standards 2024 2025 Layout non-compliant Layout deemed compliant Burden of Proof The developer’s burden is to prove compliance. Sec. 38.100.080.A "It is the obligation of the person proposing the development to demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards and regulations." Legacy PUD’s (Current Code) Sec. 38.440.030. A. Issuance of building permits and other development approvals are based on the approved final plan and any conditions of approval. No city administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan with the exception of the following: 1) Minor changes to a planned unit development may be approved administratively and in writing, whereupon a permit may be issued. 2) Minor changes are defined as follows: a) Those developments that do not change the character of the development; c) An increase of less than five percent in the approved gross leasable floor areas of retail, service, office and/or industrial buildings; d) A change in building location or placement less than 20 percent of the building width without compromising requirements of the UDO; B. Changes greater than minor changes must be processed as a PDZ subject to 38.430. (Ord. No. 2104, § 21, 9-27-2022; Ord. No. 2155, § 26, 5-14-2024) Uses: 1995 Staff Report Commission’s 2024 Findings City’s Position (Commission Memo: Appeal 25769) Language of the Development Guidelines Existing Trail Parking Buildings 21 Existing Trail Block Frontage Standards Compliance with the Master Plan is Mandatory 1992 Zoning Code: Phased PUD Review Criteria (18.54.080.C) “DRB and DRC review and approval [of development under phased PUDs] shall assure compliance and consistency with said Master Plan and Development Guidelines.” Basis of Review The Approved Final Plan is the basis of review. Sec. 38.440.030.A “Building permits and other development approvals shall be issued on the basis of the approved final plan and any conditions of approval.” “No City administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan with the exception of [minor changes].”