HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-06 Planning Board Minutes.doc
MINUTES
THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
COMMISSION MEETING ROOM,
CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006
7:30 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Planning Board President JP Pomnichowski called meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Planning Board Members Present Staff Members Present
JP Pomnichowski Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning and
Dave Jarrett Community Development
Erik Henyon Lynette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Caren Roberty Jody Sanford, Senior Planner
Edward Sypinski Kelly Marple, Recording Secretary
Randy Carpenter
Brian Caldwell
Guests Present
Clint Litle, HKM Engineering
Jason Leep, PC Development
Ted Lang, Gallatin Valley Land Trust
Peg Potter, Resident, City of Bozeman
Dave Parker, Resident, City of Bozeman
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
President Pomnichowski stated that the meeting would begin with a public comment period for any items not on the agenda and asked for any public to come forward at this time. There
was no public comment.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 16th, JUNE 6TH, AND JUNE 20TH, 2006
President Pomnichowski amended the agenda to read June 20th instead of June 16th and asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes of June 20th, 2006. No corrections were presented;
minutes of June 20th will stand as written. President Pomnichowski then asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes of June 6th, no changes were offered, June 6th minutes
will stand as written. President Pomnichowski then asked for any corrections or additions to the minutes of May 16th, Edward Sypinski requested that the minutes of May 16th describe
himself, Steve Kirchhoff, and Caren Roberty as present at the meeting and not include Nicholas Lieb who is Zoning Commission only. The minutes were approved as corrected.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
Major Subdivision Prel. Plat Application #P-06025 – (West Winds, Phase III). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the property owner and applicant, Cascade Development,
Inc. and represented by HKM Engineering Inc., to allow the subdivision of 12.368 acres into
10 single household lots and 2 multi-household lots within the West Winds Planned Community. This property is legally described as NW 1/4 , Section 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M. Gallatin County,
Montana. (Windemaker)
Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the staff report and went over the phases which have approval. She stated that the only condition she would like to point out is meeting
the 10% RSL requirement on this property, and she pointed out that the applicant had originally showed single household lots only, and they need to look at multi-family for Lots 1 and
2, and that the lots need to be designated R4. President JP Pomnichowski then asked if there were questions for staff at this time. Brian Caldwell asked Ms. Windemaker to explain what
a Third Party Builder was as referenced in Condition 12. Ms. Windemaker clarified that it basically meant builders that are not under control of John Dunlap and Cascade Developments,
anyone that is not under the developer’s control. Dave Jarrett asked Ms. Windemaker why it was necessary to put a restriction on a Third Party Builder, to which she explained that there
was a problem with concurrent construction during Phase One which had escalated into something that was very uncomfortable for a lot of people, and that the DRC had asked for this condition
and the developers were agreeable. Ms. Windemaker further elucidated by saying that this condition was strictly on concurrent construction, which means only while construction is going
on and before all of the infrastructure is installed.
President Pomnichowski then asked if there were any further questions, hearing none she asked the applicant to please step forward. Clint Litle with HKM Engineering stepped forward
and stated that the DRC had been over the applications and applicant comfortable with recommended conditions including the concurrent construction and the affordable housing on the large
parcels. President JP Pomnichowski then asked for questions of applicant at this time, hearing none, she then asked if there were any members of the public present who would like to
make public comment on this application. Hearing none, Ms. Pomnichowski returned discussion to the board.
MOTION: President JP Pomnichowski entertained a motion at this time, Dave Jarrett recommended approval of Application #P-06025 with conditions, Steve Kirchhoff seconded the motion.
The motion to approve Application #P-06025 passed unanimously (seven in favor, none opposed).
Major Subdivision Prel. Plat Application #P-06028 – (The Knolls at Hillcrest). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the property owner, Bozeman Deaconness Health
Services, represented by PC Development, to allow the subdivision of 31.56 acres into 78 single household lots, 1 multi-household lot, and 1 Bed and Breakfast lot. This property is legally
described as South Portion of Tract 1, COS 2047.E1/2 Sec. 18, T.2S, R.6E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Sanford)
Senior Planner Jody Sanford went over the details of the application and showed location of the development on the concept plan. She added that the applicant is requesting a variance
in conjunction with this application not to construct a street to Josephine Lane to the westernmost property line because it is unclear if and when future properties would be constructed
and that building a dead-end street did not make sense to the applicant. She stated that staff is recommending approval subject to the 17 conditions listed in staff report, and that
she believes the applicant is in agreement with staff conditions. President JP Pomnichowski asked if there was a need for required frontage for Lots 15-38. Jody explained that the
way the code is written is in the code requirements, and is not in the conditions. Ms. Pomnichowski then stated that it was written in the staff report that block lengths were not to
exceed 400 feet in length, but that some of them do exceed that length, and would they need a relaxation for that. Ms. Sanford stated that they won’t have to request relaxation because
they will be able to meet conditions in their final plats. Dave Jarrett’s questioned Ms. Windemaker on what property the extension of Josephine Lane bounces into, Jodi described the
Burke property.
Dave Jarrett went on to say that 60 or so people don’t want Kenyon to be open, and asked who owns the property to the south where Kenyon will go into. Planner Jodi Sanford said that
it is dedicated public right of way, and that Chemicular owns the east side and Westland owns the other. Dave Jarrett expressed a dislike for the set up because the only access to a
series of the lots is through an alley. JP Pomnichowski asked for further questions of staff, hearing none she asked for the applicant to please come forward.
Jason Leep with PC Development then came forward and stated that they were entirely in line with density and land use, and that proposed lot sizes had already been discussed. Mr. Leep
then showed the set up of this development, gave some of the demographics of the residents who would be living here, and stated that all development is under control of Bozeman Deaconess
Health Services, including assisted and individual living facilities. He went on to say that it is age-restricted and will be limited to residents aged 55 and older, and that even though
this is a typical subdivision – it is geared toward retirement aged people, therefore will need more pedestrian-type facilities.
Mr. Leep then stated that they prefer not to build the Josephine extension, and that the engineering department has put on a condition that if they don’t build it, they still have to
pay for it, which they don’t want to do. It was determined that Mr. Leep was talking about condition number 19 on page 16. He went on to say that they would like to stop the road at
the back of the lots, and are also asking that the condition to guarantee the construction of it in the future be removed. Mr. Leep then stated that regarding the building height restrictions,
they are committed to one story structures, but because of the possibility of lofts being built over garages, they are proposing 28 feet from alley or street to the top of the roof.
He stated that walk-out basement type lots will be built where the topography calls for it. In regards to the Kenyon extension, they prefer it would not be there, and would like an
alternative access to be considered. He recommended that a different type of emergency vehicle access is granted in through another way, rather than putting in a full public street.
Mr. Leep said that they want to use a rollover curb so that curb cuts are not as complicated, and because they want to ensure that maintenance can be immediate, especially snow removal.
Dave Jarrett questioned the address usage, and if they would have to use alley addresses. Mr. Leep answered that they will use Josephine Lane addresses, and that the alleys are 30
foot with 20 foot of pavement, and outside of the 30 foot right of way there is a 20 foot setback to the garage, so there will be two parking spaces in addition to garage spaces. Mr.
Leep stated that there will be a street number out front and one on the garage if needed. Dave Jarrett then asked if there is an easement across the trail at Josephine, Mr. Leep stated
that he did not know.
Dave Jarrett then expressed a liking for the subdivision, but thinks Mr. Leep should build Kenyon to the property line. Caren Roberty observed that the apartments above the garages
may need to go 28 feet in height, but the drawings presented show 22 feet heights. Mr. Leep then presented pictures taken from Christie Fields which showed the location where this development
and stated that they have analyzed the view of this development. He went on to say that they have studied the architecture and the lofts areas will just be additional living/floor space
and the buildings will still appear to be one story. Mr. Leep added that they are building in the rafters rather than switch the building height because ‘one-story’ is kind of a vague
reference. Steve Kirchhoff asked if the DRC has had an opportunity to comment on the six foot difference in building height, to which Mr. Leep answered that they had not, but that he
does not foresee any problem with the height change. JP Pomnichowski asked about Section 10 of the application and if the applicant was going to make improvements at Highland and Main
Street. Mr. Leep answered that they were planning on making improvements, and that there is a sufficient right of way to add a left turn lane. President Pomnichowski made the observation
that she likes it that they are planning 31-foot alleys, and she likes where they moved the Bed & Breakfast. JP Pomnichowski asked if the view from a couple of the lots would be other
lots, to which Mr. Leep answered yes, but that they are analyzing the density and may end up dropping two or four lots so that this does not happen. Mr. Leep then presented a board
which showed a true scale profile of trails and ridgelines, he stated that it was 54 feet from trail to property line, there is 20 feet of setback line, and that the houses are 140 feet
from trail. He added that between the trail and houses
there will be a black metal fence which is an effective dog barrier without being a vision blocker.
JP Pomnichowski then OPENED THE MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. Ted Lange with Gallatin Valley Land Trust, 2807 Westridge Drive began by saying that he likes the design and the plan,
but does not want the trail cut at Kenyon and asked if the applicant would look at a way to make this project work without trail cutting. Mr. Lange said that he has been in communication
with the Burke family and that they structured it so that they could build there, but they have stated that they do not want to build there so they are actively working to come up with
other alternatives such as a land swap because it would be terrible for the trail system.
President JP Pomnichowski asked for any other public speakers. Peg Potter of 1715 Kenyon Drive stated that she was at the meeting on her own and also on behalf of the members of the
neighborhood she lives in who have signed a petition – which is part of the package which board members should have received. They are not opposed to Deaconess development and think
it is good for the community. In regards to the extension of Kenyon Drive, they are concerned because they live there and know what the roads are like not only on Kenyon, but also coming
off of Highland onto Kenyon, the turn from Highland onto Lomas, and Baxter. They find that this danger is personified on Kenyon and can be quite dangerous especially in winter. Ms.
Potter stated that Kenyon Drive was built over 20 years ago and she would like to know if Kenyon meets current-day standards. She stated that she would advocate some type of breakaway
gate and was told that the reason for the extension was safety. Ms. Potter then asked if it is connecting just for the sake of connectivity and because the 2020 plan calls for it.
Ms. Potter ended her statement by stating that when Highland continues to be built up over the next few years, Kenyon will be used as a shortcut and she and her neighborhood would appreciate
considerations that other alternatives be considered on Kenyon Drive.
President Pomnichowski asked for further comment from the public. Dave Parker of 1716 Kenyon Drive asked what changes to Highland Boulevard were planned besides a left turn lane. President
Pomnichowski stated that questions will be taken after public comment is made. Mr. Parker pointed out that the steep part of Kenyon as it exists now is facing south/southwest and gets
the maximum sun and melts first in winter, but the slope where the cul-de-sac is now facing due north, the road is very slick and difficult in winter. Mr. Parker asked how far up Kenyon
is the applicant planning to plow and if anything will be done with Oconnell. He stated that this development was originally supposed to be visually appealing, but with the road and
traffic going through, it was not visually appealing in his view. Mr. Parker pointed out that the Mayor had said to not mess with a community or an area that is working, and if you
can’t help it, then don’t hinder it. Mr. Parker then ended his statement by saying that many persons in this neighborhood do not support Kenyon going through and he would appreciate
the board’s consideration.
President JP Pomnichowski asked if anyone else would like to speak to this application, hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING and returned discussion to
the board. She then asked staff to please address the questions asked by the public. Jody Sanford stated that she would answer the trail easement question on the Burke tract, there
is a trail easement, but they are not perpetual, they are retractable. Planner Sanford said that in regards to the question about Kenyon Drive meeting engineering specifications, the
condition that Kenyon Drive connect was an engineering condition, so based on that she assumes that the condition does meet city standards. Dave Jarrett asked Planner Sanford if the
lots that were depicted on the Burke property come all the way down to South Church, to which Jody answered no they do not. Mr. Jarrett remarked that they would then be land-locked.
Chris Saunders said the lots were planned for a flat area by planners who do not know the area, and that this area is hilly, that’s why it wouldn’t work.
Mr. Leep then addressed the question regarding other proposed changes to Highland and stated that Highland will be widened to three lanes, will have a center turn lane, will have five
lanes for commercial uses, and the three lane section will go to Kagy.
JP Pomnichowski asked Planner Jody Sanford about the zoning and stated that lots 2 through 7 show that the zoning is BP and not R3, to which Jody answered that it was a mapping error
which has since been corrected.
President JP Pomnichowski returned discussion to the board asked if there were any general comments at this time, or if board members would like to address the conditions. None were
offered.
MOTION: Erik Henyon made a motion to strike Condition 2 and have it read a building height restriction of 28 feet. Dave Jarrett seconded the motion. JP Pomnichowski asked for discussion
on the motion.
JP Pomnichowski said it gave her pause because all the review done by all of the different bodies thus far has been done with the consideration of a 22 foot height, and without Parks
and Recreation’s consideration of the trails, she does not support the motion. Randy Carpenter proposed that they only discuss the lots impacting the view shed. Edward Sypinski agreed
that schematics have shown 22 feet thus far, therefore the applicant should stick to the 22-foot height restriction.
Caren Roberty would like Parks and Recreation or somebody look at it because they haven’t seen anything that shows what the view will be like from below. Steve Kirchhoff asked what
the topographical difference is and Mr. Leep showed him plans depicting the topography. Dave Jarrett stated that he agrees with Randy Carpenter that a variation in heights is important
and asked the applicant if they had considered this in their plans.
Brian Caldwell stated that Place Architecture is doing the designs of all of the buildings, and they do quality work wherever they go, therefore they should be allowed flexibility in
the design process.
JP Pomnichowski asked for further discussion on the motion. Hearing none, President Pomnichowski asked for a vote. Brian Caldwell, Dave Jarrett, and Eric Henyon voted yes on the motion;
Carol Roberty, Randy Carpenter, Steve Kirchhoff, JP Pomnichowski and Edward Sypinski were opposed. The motion did not pass with a 3 to 5 vote.
Brian Caldwell brought up the issue of applicant’s request for a variance not to build the extension, to which Planner Jody Sanford stated that instead of building a street which may
be potentially to nowhere, the city is allowing the applicant to put the money for the street in an escrow account, and if they don’t get variance, they must build the street or financially
guarantee it for the future. President Pomnichowski stated that all of the improvements for future access within this parcel are the applicant’s to do, and she added the applicant must
show a hardship to be granted a variance. Planner Sanford said that if the applicant gets the variance, they won’t build it the whole way, just to comfort station. JP Pomnichowski
asked how far the distance is that the applicant does not want to build, to which Mr. Leep answered 70 feet. Planner Sanford stated that the staff report and the subdivision review committee
recommend the granting of the variance because the street dead-ending into the park is not a good idea.
JP Pomnichowski asked if anyone had a motion, none was offered. Caren Roberty said that the plan in the book does not meet fair housing standards, and violates both federal and state
fair housing, and if applicant wants to meet with her regarding this, she will explain.
Randy Carpenter asked if variance meets economical hardship, and asked staff to elaborate on their definition of hardship. Chris Saunders responded by saying that they had swiped the
criteria right off of a statute – if granting the variance puts cost on the public, then variance is weighed, but not if private party is impacted.
President Pomnichowski expressed a liking for several of the changes the applicant had made. She then strongly encouraged applicant to drop interior lots 19 and 28, 14 and 20. President
Pomnichowski also stated that the private open space with public easement drives her crazy because eight months of the year it will be a snowfield and she would like to see it remain
a public park. She added that she thinks the plan is much improved, the alleys are a great width, and she agrees with all other conditions recommended by staff.
President Pomnichowski then asked for further comment. Chris Saunders stated that regarding 22 versus 28 feet, it sounds like there is a uniform agreement that a number in height should
be reached, a set number rather than the one story language. Erik Henyon agreed with Mr. Saunders. JP Pomnichowski asked for further comment.
MOTION: Steve Kirchhoff moved for approval of Major Subdivision The Knolls at Hillcrest with the conditions as outlined by staff, Dave Jarrett seconded the motion. JP Pomnichowski
asked for discussion on the motion. Steve Kirchhoff said that he thinks this is an improved plan and should move forward. Randy Carpenter thinks the plan is much improved and will
be a great neighborhood, but is not sure why they want a private park, he thinks it is one step away from a gated community and is concerned that they are setting a bad precedent. Dave
Jarrett stated that he likes the whole plan, but does not care for the inside plan of access and identification because it will be difficult to find addresses, he stated that he would
vote to recommend approval. Erik Henyon is in support of the application, would like to see some mixed architecture, and thinks the 28 feet restriction would accomplish that. Brian
Caldwell said that he would like to see the applicant’s designs because just talking about the designs was difficult. Caren Roberty would like to have an assurance that not all buildings
will end up 28 feet in height. President Pomnichowski said that they can send a comment to the commission. President Pomnichowski then asked for further discussion on the motion, hearing
none, the motion to approve Major Subdivision The Knolls at Hillcrest passed unanimously, with eight votes in favor and none opposed.
President Pomnichowski thanked the applicant. Steve Kirchhoff asked to make a supplemental statement that it is difficult to talk about this until we see a lot-by-lot plan. Planner
Jody Sanford responded that she will do a city commission memo highlighting his request.
Minor Subdivision Pre-Application #P-06029 – (Farmhouse Partners). A Minor Subdivision Pre- Application requested by the property owner and applicant, Farmhouse Partners, represented
by Engineering Inc., to allow the subdivision of 11.53 acres into 3 multi-household lots. This property is legally described as Tract 4A of Minor Subdivision No. 162C records of the
Clerk and Recorder, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger)
Staff Planner Brian Krueger went over the pre-application location and said that the two uses proposed are a cottage style development and proposed future use would be Gallatin Mental
Health. Planner Krueger said that applicant is looking at developing a small campus in the area, and where it shows there are possible parking issues, the applicant showed some reciprocal
parking. Planner Krueger went on to say that in regards to frontage improvement, engineering is proposing that they improve the south part of Haggerty. JP Pomnichowski asked for questions
of staff. Hearing no questions of staff, President Pomnichowski asked the applicant to please come forward. Tom Eastwood with Engineering Incorporated stepped forward and asked if
there were any questions of him at this time.
Steve Kirchhoff said that his questions about infrastructure would include access. Tom Eastwood answered that they are making sure there is not a detrimental impact on traffic. Dave
Jarrett asked if there are going to be accesses to the adjoining properties; he would like to see those. JP Pomnichowski asked for questions for the applicant. Erik Henyon said that
staff recommended a variance for the distance to intersections, and
asked which major intersection are they talking about, and if this is this a major intersection that you would need a spacing setback for. Tom Eastwood answered that it meant the major
intersection or arterial near this project, and Planner Brian Krueger said that this is this done for traffic flow and stated that the commission did not want extremely wide streets.
JP Pomnichowski asked for further questions of the applicant. Hearing none, President Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Hearing none, President Pomnichowski then
asked if there were further questions of the applicant, hearing none she then CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
President Pomnichowski then returned discussion to the board for recommendations or comment. Steve Kirchhoff said he is interested in seeing how this project connects, and thinks that
restricting the access to the mental health people is a bad idea. He stated that in the past congestion was a negative word, but it could also mean vitality and a hubbub area and would
like to see a traffic analyses. Dave Jarrett agreed with Mr. Kirchhoff and said that commercial people would like to have traffic move in a systematic and consistent way and at a speed
where they can get off the street and stop safely. Brian Caldwell said that this area looks to be engineered with another criteria and topography in mind, and he would like to see this
be more site specific and would also like to see them address access before subdividing. Randy Carpenter wonders how lot line would work if an integrated subdivision was created. Steve
Kirchhoff agreed with Brian Caldwell and Randy Carpenter with regards to improvements along Haggerty Lane. Erik said he agrees in regards to doing improvements required along Haggerty
Lane, regarding bicycles and volume of traffic. JP Pomnichowski stated that she supports a traffic study for this project. Regarding connectivity and integration, President Pomnichowski
stated that it is supposed to be part of the larger Bozeman Deaconess Hospital project, so why does mental health wants to be separate?
Dab Dabney of Foremost Partners, 2555 West College stepped forward. He explained that the hospital and Western Montana Mental Health said that they wanted a fairly minimal amount of
frontage on Haggerty, with expansion to the back of the lot. He added that in terms of circulation and connectivity, it is important that they are a self-contained entity because they
do not want traffic flowing through. Mr. Dabney said that in terms of driveways, they can probably rearrange lot lines so that they are close to the separation requirement, and splitting
driveways with the Comstock Apartments on Haggerty would be an option also. Mr. Dabney said that if he had to work with the hospitals, his process would be slowed down, and if he doesn’t
buy the land by November, the deal goes away and to please take that into consideration.
Dave Jarrett said that if they dealt with accesses better then future problems could be avoided. Mr. Dabney responded that he doesn’t want a lot of asphalt, then listed some positive
aspects of having narrow streets. Dave Jarrett asked Assistant Director Chris Saunders if they can get through all of this through by November. Director Saunders said that he thinks
they could if the applicant is willing to coordinate with the hospital. JP Pomnichowski stated that she would like to see some connectivity even with the difficult topography, and she
would rather have a street introduced into the design that continues on. Mr. Dabney asked if she would like to see a pass-through street that went through the cottages and elsewhere.
Randy Carpenter then asked if this was part of the Deaconness project, and if they have an inherent problem with connectivity. Mr. Dabney said he is a big proponent of trails, and
based on accommodating topography and connectivity he would like to see as many trails as possible. President JP Pomnichowski said she supports Mr. Dabney’s idea of enlarged access
to the mental health facility.
Mr. Dabney then stated that this was a valuable meeting for him because he realizes he does not want to see full-sized streets put in. JP Pomnichowski said the mix of office and residential
is good, and frontage improvements along Haggerty Lane would be a good idea. Dab Dabney said he would have to think about it because it is a big change for him. Steve Kirchhoff said
that the board would like to see connectivity, and for Mr. Dabney not to stop the project. Dave Jarrett said that in case that there are more projects with Mr. Dabney and the hospital
in the future, they want to work out the connectivity now to avoid problems. JP Pomnichowski thanked Mr. Dabney for bringing this project forward.
ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS
JP Pomnichowski then brought up the 2006 meeting date calendar and the by-laws, Page 3 Paragraph B. President Pomnichowski said that she sent everyone on the board an email regarding
this issue, and emphasized that their service is very valuable. She asked that if there is an event in which a member cannot make it to a meeting, to please make at least a two meeting
lead time to let her know. President Pomnichowski then asked members to please call if they are not going to make it to a meeting, and that their absence can only be excused through
herself or Dave Jarrett. President Pomnichowski once again stressed to the members that she understands their service is voluntary, and greatly appreciates their service. President
Pomnichowski then stated that there was an appreciation ceremony, and distributed certificates and commemorative pins to the members of the board. She added that she will be keeping
track of excused and unexcused absences in the future.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
President Pomnichowski stated that the county commission has authorized their use of the community room at the courthouse, and they will begin conducting meetings there, starting in
August. Because of the large number of projects this board reviews and the number of people touched, they have found that it is worthwhile for meetings to be televised on local access
television. President Pomnichowski said she will send an email detailing which nights the televising will occur, and to please watch the top of the agenda to see where the meetings
will occur.
Dave Jarrett stated for the record that he would like to encourage the UDO items to continue and to continually get those worked up and put together back through the process, it has
been over two years and it is a matter of getting it done and getting it out. Chris Saunders said that in regards to the staff report, Lanette Windemaker is doing the actual code drafting,
and has done about 25 of them with himself. Mr. Saunders added that the commission amended the code regarding workforce housing, and that there is a scheduled speaker on the workforce
housing project scheduled on August 15th. Mr. Saunders also said that the city has been working with a consultant that is doing a specific redevelopment plan on North 7th, and on August
1st he would like to do a joint meeting with this board to let them know what is happening.
President Pomnichowski asked everyone to watch the televised public meeting on the 15th. President Pomnichowski stated that the Gallatin County Planning Board has invited them to their
annual picnic, July 11th, 6:30 at the Lindley Center, and to please plan on attending. She added that they may be able to conduct a little business that will affect the board, and they
may talk about subcommittees that have been formed. President Pomnichowski stated for the record that new Recording Secretary Kelly Marple has done a phenomenal job with the minutes
and welcomed warmly welcomed Ms. Marple.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Bozeman City Planning Board, President JP Pomnichowski declared the meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
_________________________________ _________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, President & Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director
City of Bozeman Planning Board Planning and Community Development