HomeMy WebLinkAboutProvisional Adoption of Ordinance No. 1796, Engineering Text Amendments to Title 18, UDO .pdf
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Tim McHarg, Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Z-10304, Engineering Text Amendments to Title 18, Unified
Development Ordinance, BMC
MEETING DATE: Monday, December 6, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the findings of staff as presented in the staff report and
approve first reading of Ordinance 1796.
Suggested motion: “Having heard and considered public comment and all presented materials, I
hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report and as recommended by the Zoning
Commission Resolution Z-10304 and Planning Board Resolution P-10304 and move to approve
Ordinance 1796 enacting the text amendments requested in application Z-10304.”
BACKGROUND: The City prepares amendments to Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) from time to time as needed. The UDO applies to both zoning and subdivision review
processes. Therefore, amendments to the text are considered by both the Zoning Commission
and Planning Board as outlined in Chapter 18.68.
Several important items have been grouped into this single amending ordinance. All of the items
are related to engineering information or processes conducted during the review process. The
attached ordinance shows all of the edits as either underlined [additions] or struck through
[deletions] in the text. The Zoning Commission and Planning Board completed their review and
recommendation on November 3rd. The recommendation from both advisory boards was
favorable. Their minutes, resolutions, and supporting information are included with this packet.
This set of amendments does not complete all of the amendments considered desirable by Staff.
Additional amendments will be brought to the Commission for consideration as opportunity for
research and text development permits.
FISCAL EFFECTS: No immediate fiscal affects are anticipated from these changes. The only
item directly affecting revenue to the City is water rights which already exists as Resolution
4095.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the ordinance as written.
2) Amend the text of the ordinance and then approve it.
3) Do not approve the ordinance at all.
147
CONTACT: Please feel free to call or email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net, 582-
2260, if you have questions prior to the meeting.
Attachments: Application
Staff Report
Draft Ordinance 1796
Minutes of Planning Board and Zoning Commission public hearing
Resolution of Planning Board
Resolution of Zoning Commission
Commission Resolution 4095
Report compiled on: November 23, 2010
148
PLANNING BOARD/ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
UDO TEXT AMENDMENT FILE NO. #Z-10304
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 1 of 9
Item: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Application #Z-10304, to
amend the text of the Unified Development Ordinance to amend Section
18.42.070.A Municipal Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Systems, to
clarify extensions of municipal infrastructure; Section 18.42.150.C Lighting,
to remove certain standards and relocate them to the City’s design and
specifications manual; add a new Section 18.42.180 Water Rights, clarifying
and documenting the process for payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights;
Section 18.44.060.D Street Improvement Standards to revise level of service
standards for vehicles; Section 18.44.110 Transportation Pathways to modify
procedures for bike lane designation; and Section 18.50.110 Recreation
Pathways. Modify various sections throughout Title 18 to update references
by name to external documents; Section 18.78.060.L to modify standards for
traffic studies. Amend additional sections which are relevant to the same
topics if a need to do so is identified during the public review process.
Applicant: Bozeman City Commission
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Representative: Department of Planning and Community Development
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Planning Board and Zoning Commission on Tuesday,
November 16, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Room, City Hall, 121
North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Before the Bozeman City
Commission on Monday, December 6, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission
Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning and Community
Development
Recommendation: Approval
Suggested Motion: “Having heard and considered public comment, I hereby adopt the findings
presented in the staff report and move to recommend approval of the text
amendments to Title 18, requested in application Z-10304.”
149
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 2 of 9
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed edits are applicable throughout the legal boundaries of the City of Bozeman.
PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Land use standards and procedures must be kept updated to accommodate changing community needs
and priorities, regulatory requirements, and changing knowledge. The City of Bozeman constantly
monitors its Unified Development Ordinance as it is applied to the community. Several changes have
been directed by the City Commission and others have been identified by the staff as related and
beneficial. The public review process for the draft amendment text allows evaluation of ideas and
refinement of specific text. Revisions may be made to the draft as the process continues.
Discussion on Specific Sections.
Section 18.42.070. The wording of this section applies to both subdivisions and zoning developments
since both may extend municipal infrastructure. The existing wording requires a subdivision procedure
for relief from the standard, even if the development is not subject to subdivision review. The default
requirement remains the same but the mechanism for relief is changed. The change does not prohibit a
request for a variance, however, it does match the procedure for the variance to the type of review being
undertaken.
Chapter 18.42.150. The Commission has directed staff to place the standards for street lighting within
the City’s design manual, rather than Title 18. The requirement to install street lights remains the same.
The change allows a simpler process to keep specifications current and places standards for
infrastructure in the street right-of-way in a consistent location.
Section 18.42.180. The City Commission has included the provision of water rights, or payment-in-lieu,
as a part of the annexation process for several decades. This is consistent with the requirements for
annexation to address a plan for the provision of services. As water is a scarce and legally constrained
material, the City must acquire water rights before diverting water into the water delivery system to
support new development. This changes puts into Title 18 the longstanding policy most recently updated
by Resolution 4095 of the City Commission. The new language puts the standards in with other
development standards so it is easier to find, clearly identifies responsible parties, and sets a ‘bright line’
for applicability. The threshold of an acre foot, which equals 325,851 gallons, is typically enough to
serve three homes.
Section 18.44.060.D This edit addresses the standard used to measure whether streets are functioning at
an acceptable level or if congestion is excessive. The proposed changes references to allow for the
natural change in document titles, establishes specific exemptions from the standard, and clarifies the
relationship of the standard between different classifications of streets. It is intended that this revision
will improve clarity in the review process and reduce repetitive applications for variances.
Section 18.78.060.L This edit modifies the distance required to be included in a traffic report with a
development application. The City’s major street network generally falls on a ½ mile grid of collectors
and arterials. The City has been working hard for twenty years to interconnect the major streets and
close gaps in the system. As a greater portion of the network is completed and more development occurs
within infill locations, it is appropriate to draw in the distance to the outer boundary of the study area.
Intersections have many forms of access control. As use patterns change it is necessary to evaluate
whether intersection controls also need to change. The amendment allows for this evaluation .
Other sections are revised to update document titles and references and make other changes as shown in
150
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 3 of 9
the attached draft text.
REVIEW CRITERIA – PLANNING BOARD
The Planning Board have criteria for their review established in statute which are in turn mirrored in
local ordinance. The analysis notes that review criteria are met with the term ‘yes’, are not met with the
term ‘no’, or are not materially affected with the term ‘neutral’. This report is a summary of the review
conducted by Staff in evaluating the material.
According to Section 18.68.020 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Bozeman Planning
board shall cause to be made an investigation of facts bearing on each UDO text amendment application
relevant to subdivision. The Planning board must review the information they consider necessary to
assure that the action of each UDO text amendment application is consistent with the intent and purpose
of the UDO. Specifically, the investigation must address the following criteria as required in Section
76-3-102 and 76-3-501, Montana Code Annotated. These are incorporated locally into Section
18.02.040.B&D, BMC.
The Planning Board is charged to offer a recommendation only on those criteria for subdivision which
are identified by number below.
Interpretation and application of Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance must take into account the
document as a whole. Therefore, the analysis is of the document as a whole as amended by the
suggested text revisions. If a substantial change is made then a particular point may be emphasized. To
prevent redundancy, when an earlier review criterion has addressed an issue a later review criterion
addressing the same issue may refer back to the prior answer.
Subdivision Purposes – Section 76-3-102 MCA.
1. Promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the subdivision of
land.
Yes. The proposed amendments are integrated with the remainder of Title 18 to ensure that
adequate infrastructure is provided in a timely manner to service development. The amendments
will clarify various procedures and standards, thereby improving the opportunity to understand
and equitably apply the standards and procedures of the title. The general welfare will be
improved by simplifying procedures and more clearly identifying the applicability of certain
standards.
2. Prevent the overcrowding of land.
Yes. The UDO establishes standards for parking, surface area coverage, and other performance
standards to ensure that building mass, height, and other features may be adequately met on any
given parcel of land. The proposed amendments are not expected to materially change the
standards addressing this issue. By providing for good review procedures for subdivisions and
subsequent site development the necessary infrastructure will be in place as needed to serve the
residents and users of those subdivisions.
3. Lessen congestion in the streets and highways.
Neutral. The UDO contains a variety of transportation improvement standards designed to ensure
the provision of adequate transportation facilities and the functionality of those facilities. The
UDO also encourages alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking and transit. The
151
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 4 of 9
revisions improve the predictability of the review process and the practicality of applying the
adopted standards. The two specified exceptions to the level of service (LOS) standard in
18.44.060 helps to ensure equitable application of the standard, clarifies when it applies and who
may approve an exception, and recognizes the changing circumstances of the City and its
transportation system.
4. Provide adequate light, air, water supply, sewage disposal, parks and recreation areas,
ingress and egress, and other public improvements.
Yes. The UDO contains a variety of transportation improvement standards designed to ensure the
provision of adequate public improvements and the functionality of those facilities. The
amendments do not materially alter these standards. Items 1 and 3 above further address these
issues.
5. Require development in harmony with the natural environment.
Neutral. The proposed amendments are not expected to materially affect this area of concern.
6. Protect the rights of property owners.
Yes. The UDO was crafted with the aim of balancing the rights of applicant property owners
with the need to protect the rights of other property owners and the health, safety and general
welfare of the community as a whole. This is reflected in the provisions of the ordinance
including, but not limited to, defined criteria and procedures for reviewing development
proposals.
7. Require uniform monumentation of land subdivisions and transferring interests in real
property by reference to a plat or certificate of survey.
Neutral. The UDO requires compliance with the uniform standards for monumentation and the
preparation of final plats as outlined in the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM). The
ARMs are prepared by the state agency with responsibility to administer a given Montana law.
The ARMs set forth how the responsible state agency will administer the law. No changes have
been proposed relating to this criterion.
Subdivision Purposes – Section 76-3-501 MCA. Requires local governments to adopt regulations
that reasonably provide for:
1. Orderly development within the jurisdictional area.
Neutral. The UDO has previously been reviewed and found to meet this criterion. The proposed
changes do not affect this area. Extensions of service and timely delivery of services remain as
requirements.
2. Coordination of roads within subdivided land with other roads, both existing and planned.
Yes. The UDO requires that the arrangement, type, extent, width, grade and location of all streets
be considered in relation to existing and planned streets. When a proposed development adjoins
undeveloped land, and access to the undeveloped land would reasonably pass through the new
development, the UDO requires that streets within the proposed development be arranged to
allow the suitable development of the adjoining undeveloped land. The UDO also requires that
developers arrange streets to provide for the continuation of streets between adjacent developed
152
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 5 of 9
properties when such continuation is necessary for the convenient movement of traffic, effective
provision of emergency services and efficient provision of utilities. The amendments include
reference to the most updated transportation plan which is the primary mechanism to coordinate
street layouts and standards.
3. Dedication of land for roadways and for public utility easements.
Neutral. The UDO requires that all streets either be dedicated rights-of-ways or be private streets
with a public access easement. The UDO requires the provision of utility easements for both
public and private utilities. No changes to this subject were made with these amendments.
4. Improvement of roads.
Neutral. The UDO contains standards for the arrangement, type, extent, width, grade, location,
design and construction of streets and roads. No material changes were made with these
amendments. The relocation of street lighting standards from Title 18 to the Design and
Specifications Manual will place construction standards in a uniform location facilitating
consistency. The amendments do not change the amount, location, or intensity of lighting. The
changes to LOS standards are primarily for clarification and reflect the essence of existing
practice.
5. Provision of adequate open spaces for travel, light, air and recreation.
Neutral. The standards for this subject are unaltered.
6. Adequate transportation, water and drainage.
Yes. The UDO contains standards for the provision of transportation, water and drainage
facilities. In addition, the UDO requires compliance with adopted transportation, water and
stormwater facility plans. See sections above for additional discussion.
7. Regulation of sanitary facilities, subject to section 76-3-511 MCA.
Neutral. The UDO contains standards for the provision of sewer facilities. In addition, the UDO
requires compliance with state requirements regarding sanitary facilities and with the adopted
sewer facility plan. No material changes are proposed with these amendments.
8. Avoidance or minimization of congestion.
Neutral. The UDO contains a variety of transportation improvement standards designed to ensure
the provision of adequate transportation facilities and the functionality of those facilities. The
UDO also encourages alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking and transit. The
substantive elements of these standards which relate to subdivisions are not proposed to be
altered. See criteria above for further discussion.
9. Avoidance of subdivision which would involve unnecessary environmental degradation and
the avoidance of danger or injury to health, safety, or welfare by reason of nature hazard
or the lack of water, drainage, access, transportation, or other public services or would
necessitate an excessive expenditure of public funds for the supply of such services.
Yes. The UDO contains a variety of requirements aimed at protecting public health, safety and
welfare from natural hazards, including: wetlands protection; watercourse setbacks; floodplain
protection; requirements to connect to City water and sewer service; prohibition of development
on steep slopes and ridgeline protection; and soil conservation provisions. These provisions also
153
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 6 of 9
minimize public costs. The UDO contains standards for the provision of transportation, water
and drainage facilities. In addition, the UDO requires compliance with relevant state
requirements as well as adopted transportation, water and stormwater facility plans. The
amendments improve integration of planning documents with development procedures.
REVIEW CRITERIA – ZONING COMMISSION
The Zoning Commission criteria for review are established in statute. The analysis below notes that
review criteria are met with the term ‘yes’; are not met with the term ‘no’; or are not materially affected
with the term ‘neutral’. This report is a summary of the Staff’s analysis.
Interpretation and application of the Unified Development Ordinance must take into account the
document as a whole. If a substantial change is made then a particular point may be emphasized. To
prevent redundancy, when an earlier review criterion has addressed an issue a later review criterion
addressing the same issue may refer back to the prior answer.
According to Section 18.68.020 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Bozeman Zoning
Commission shall cause to be made an investigation of facts bearing on each UDO text amendment
application relevant to zoning. The Zoning Commission must review the information they consider
necessary to assure that the action of each UDO text amendment application is consistent with the intent
and purpose of the UDO. Specifically, the investigation must address the following criteria as required
in Section 76-2-304, Montana Code Annotated. Locally these are incorporated into Section
18.02.040.C&D, BMC
The Zoning Commission is charged to offer a recommendation only on those criteria established by
Section 76-2-304, MCA which are identified by letter below.
Section 76-2-304, MCA Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. The amendments advance a variety of public policy goals as illustrated by this selection of
goals and objectives from the growth policy. Maintaining consistency with current transportation
planning and implementing standards will support development of a robust, functional, and diverse
transportation system. Transportation systems are essential in support of the land use pattern and
character envisioned in the growth policy. Adequate water supplies are also required in order to
support growth and development. The policy relating to water rights already exists through
Commission resolution 4095 and is being consolidated with other development standards.
Objective G-1.2: Ensure that adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure are available
and/or financially guaranteed in accordance with facility or strategic plans prior to, or concurrent
with, development.
Objective G-1.3: Require development to mitigate its impacts on our community as identified
and supported by evidence during development review, including economic, health,
environmental, and social impacts.
Objective G-2.1: Ensure that development requirements and standards are efficiently
implemented, fairly and consistently applied, effective, and proportionate to the concerns being
addressed.
154
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 7 of 9
Goal T-4: Pathways–Establish and maintain an integrated system of transportation and
recreational pathways, including streets, bicycle and pedestrian trails, neighborhood parks,
green belts and open space.
Rationale: The City works with many partners to develop and operate the transportation system
in the City. Coordinating among these partners creates a greater value from a complete and
functional system rather than disjointed pieces.
Objective T-4.1: Coordinate development of non-motorized transportation systems in
conjunction with motor vehicular transportation systems.
Objective T-4.2: Further develop and maintain an interconnected and convenient pedestrian and
bicycle network for commuting and recreation as discussed and described in the transportation
facility plan and in coordination with the design standards of the transportation facility plan and
the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan.
B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Neutral. The amendments related to transportation as presented primarily simplify review procedures
and clarify the application of existing standards. The standard for intersection improvements remains
as Level of Service “C”. The updated reference to the newly adopted transportation plan will help
ensure relevant standards and information about the transportation system is used in development
review.
C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
Neutral. The proposed amendments to not alter the on-site standards which address this criteria. The
emergency vehicles relying upon the transportation network should continue to have access. See
Criterion B above.
D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Neutral. The amendments do not materially alter standards which would affect this criterion. As
discussed under other criteria, the amendments will generally improve consistency and application
of adopted standards.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. None of the edits change setbacks, required area per dwelling or, allowed lot coverage. The
building codes and other standards remain in place and will ensure that adequate light and air is
provided.
F. Prevention of overcrowding of land.
Neutral. These amendments are not altering requirements for lot coverage or building density.
Objectively, overcrowding is a condition where the intensity of the use of land overwhelms the
ability of infrastructure and buildings to meet the needs of users. This functional problem is
addressed by ensuring the installation of water, sewer, transportation, and other services. The
proposed amendments do not materially alter the standards for provision of services.
G. Avoiding undue concentration of population.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not change standards for density of population. See also item
F above.
H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and
155
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 8 of 9
other public requirement.
Yes. See items A, D and F.
I. Conserving the value of buildings.
Yes. The edits facilitate provision of adequate services as well as improved review procedures.
These changes improve the general development climate within Bozeman. The changes also
facilitate redevelopment and upgrades to existing sites.
J. Character of the district.
Neutral. As noted above, these amendments are not limited to a particular district but are uniformly
applicable throughout the City’s jurisdictional area.
K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. See discussion under item J.
L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Yes. The proposed amendments are consistent with the overall policies of the City to encourage
infill and redevelopment as well as growth on the urban fringe. The amendments recognize the
limitations and practicalities of infill development and ability to incrementally increase development
in an area. Improving the link to the latest transportation planning documents helps to ensure that
development standards and information are relevant and useful.
M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not expand the development area of the City nor are likely to
materially change the growth pattern of the city. By ensuring proper standards for evaluation of
development impact and possible mitigation the amendments encourage growth to be compatible
with existing uses and needs.
STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
Planning Staff has reviewed this application for a Unified Development Ordinance text amendment
against the criteria set forth in statute and reflected in the Unified Development Ordinance. Staff’s
analysis finds that this application satisfies the required criteria. Based on the evaluation of said criteria
and findings by the Planning Staff, staff recommends APPROVAL of the requested amendment.
Pursuant to Sections 76-3-103, 76-3-501, and 76-2-307 Montana Codes Annotated, the Planning Board
and Zoning Commission shall review the Unified Development Ordinance text amendment application
to determine if the proposed amendments meet the requirements of the adopted Growth Policy, state
statute, and other adopted state and local ordinances. The Planning Board and Zoning Commission shall
act to recommend approval or denial of the Unified Development Ordinance text amendment. The
recommendations will be forwarded to the Bozeman City Commission for consideration at its public
hearing on December 6, 2010. The City Commission will make the final decision on the application.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment had been received when this report was prepared.
156
#Z-10304 UDO Text Amendment Staff Report Page 9 of 9
In the case of protest against these changes signed by the owners of 25% or more of either of the
area of the lots included in the proposed change; or those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a
proposed change, such amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-
thirds of the present and voting members of the City Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
Application
Draft of Ordinance 1796 with proposed amendments
157
Page 1 of 10
ORDINANCE NO. 1796
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, AMENDING SECTION 18.42.070.A MUNICIPAL WATER, SANITARY
SEWER AND STORM SEWER SYSTEMS, TO CLARIFY EXTENSIONS OF
MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE; SECTION 18.42.150.C LIGHTING, TO REMOVE
CERTAIN STANDARDS AND RELOCATE THEM TO THE CITY’S DESIGN AND
SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL; ADDING A NEW SECTION 18.42.180 WATER RIGHTS,
CLARIFYING AND DOCUMENTING THE PROCESS FOR PAYMENT OF CASH-IN-
LIEU OF WATER RIGHTS; SECTION 18.42.050 STREET AND ROAD RIGHT OF
WAY WIDTH AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS TO UPDATE REFERENCE TO
THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN; SECTION 18.44.060.D STREET IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS, TO REVISE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR VEHICLES;
SECTION 18.44.110 TRANSPORTATION PATHWAYS, TO MODIFY PROCEDURES
FOR BIKE LANE DESIGNATION AND UPDATE REFERENCES TO THE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN; SECTION 18.50.110.A TO UPDATE REFERENCE TO
THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN; AND SECTION 18.78.060.L TO CHANGE
REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA TO BE INCLUDED IN TRAFFIC STUDIES AND THE
AREA TO BE STUDIED.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance
which establishes common standards for both zoning and subdivision development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Unified Development Ordinance text amendment
application has been properly submitted, and reviewed, and all necessary public notice was given
for all public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public
hearing on November 16, 2010 to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the
request for a Unified Development Ordinance text amendment; and
WHEREAS, as shown in Zoning Commission Resolution Z-10304, the Bozeman
Zoning Commission recommended to the Bozeman City Commission that proposed the Unified
Development Ordinance text amendments be approved; and
158
Page 2 of 10
WHEREAS, as shown in Planning Board Resolution P-10304, the Bozeman Planning
Board recommended to the Bozeman City Commission that proposed the Unified Development
Ordinance text amendments be approved; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice, the City Commission held a public hearing on
December 6, 2010, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a text
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission reviewed and considered the relevant Unified
Development Ordinance text amendment criteria established by Sections 76-3-102, 76-3-501,
and 76-2-304, M.C.A., and found the proposed Unified Development Ordinance text amendment
to be in compliance with the purposes of the title as locally adopted in Section 18.02.040, BMC;
and
WHEREAS, at its public hearing, the City Commission found that the proposed
Unified Development Ordinance text amendment would be in compliance with Bozeman’s
adopted growth policy and applicable statutes and would be in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, upon a vote of ____ to ____, that:
Section 1
Section 18.42.070.A of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended as follows:
A. General. All municipal water supply, sanitary sewer and storm sewer system facilities
shall comply with the following requirements:
1. The developer shall install complete municipal water and sanitary sewer system
facilities, or a system allowed by §18.38.030.D, BMC, and may be required by
the City to install municipal storm sewer system facilities. These systems shall be
installed in accordance with the requirements of State Department of
Environmental Quality and the City of Bozeman, and shall conform with any
applicable facilities plan. The City of Bozeman’s requirements are contained in
the Design Standards and Specifications Policy and the City of Bozeman
Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, and by this
159
Page 3 of 10
reference these standards are incorporated into and made a part of these
regulations. The developer shall submit plans and specifications for the proposed
facilities to the City, and to the State Department of Environmental Quality, and
shall obtain their approvals prior to commencing construction of any municipal
water, sanitary sewer or storm sewer system facilities.
2. The cutting of any City street shall be done in compliance with the City’s street
cut policy.
3. When a proposed development adjoins undeveloped land, and municipal
infrastructure mains would reasonably pass through the new development to the
undeveloped land, municipal infrastructure mains shall be arranged to allow the
suitable development of the adjoining undeveloped land. Municipal infrastructure
mains within the proposed development shall be constructed to the boundary lines
of the tract to be developed, unless prevented by topography or other physical
conditions. An exception to this standard may be granted by the Director of Public
Service or their designee upon written request of the applicant if the applicant
demonstrates during the development review process that more efficient design
can be accomplished without jeopardizing the public’s health, safety and welfare,
the intent of this title, or the intent of the City’s growth policy.
Section 2
Section 18.42.150.C of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended as follows:
C. Street Lighting. Street lighting consists of street lighting and pathway intersection
lighting, and shall comply with the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications
Policy.
Section 3
Section 18.42.180 of the Unified Development Ordinance be created to read as follows:
18.42.180 WATER RIGHTS
Water rights or payment-in-lieu of water rights shall be provided with development reviewed as
a site plan, conditional use permit, planned unit development, or subdivision; or for annexations
less than 10 acres.
A. If water rights or payment-in-lieu have been provided previously, evidence of those rights
may be offered to demonstrate compliance with this section. If the expected demand for
water by the proposed development increases by more than 1 acre foot over that for
which water rights or payment-in-lieu of water rights were previously provided, water
rights or payment-in-lieu of water rights equal to the difference between prior and
expected demand shall be provided. Provision of water rights or payment-in-lieu may be
160
Page 4 of 10
deferred by phase for phased developments or for annexations when the phase or
annexation is in excess of 10 acres.
B. Determination of whether adequate water rights have been provided and whether a
proposed transfer of water rights to the City is suitable to meet the demand for water by a
proposed development shall be made by the Director of Public Service or their designee.
The Director of Public Service or their designee shall adopt standards for the calculation
of demand for water. The City Commission shall establish the cost of water rights by
resolution. The cost paid shall be that cost in effect on the date payment-in-lieu of water
rights is made to the City.
Section 4
Section 18.44.050 of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
18.44.050 STREET AND ROAD RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH AND CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS
A. All streets and roads providing access to, and within, the proposed development shall
meet the following standards:
1. Right-of-way width and construction standards contained in this title, the most
recently adopted long range transportation plan, the City of Bozeman Design
Standards and Specifications Policy, and the City of Bozeman Modifications to
Montana Public Works Standard Specifications shall apply.
2. Access streets and roads which are not on the City or County’s road maintenance
system shall be dedicated to the public, or shall have a public easement which
meets the criteria of this chapter.
Section 5
Section 18.44.060.D of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
D. Level of Service Standards. All arterial and collector streets and intersections with
arterial and collector streets shall operate at a minimum level of service “C” unless
specifically exempted by this subsection. Level of Service (LOS) values shall be
determined by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway
Capacity Manual. A development shall be approved only if the LOS requirements are met
in the design year; which shall be a minimum of fifteen years following the development
application review or construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are
required to maintain LOS. Intersections shall have a minimum acceptable LOS of “C” for
the intersection as a whole .
1. Exception: If an intersection within the area required to be studied by 18.78.060.L
does not meet LOS “C” and the intersection has been fully constructed to its
maximum lane and turning movement capacity; then an LOS of less than “C” is
acceptable.
161
Page 5 of 10
2. Exception: The Director of Public Service or their designee may accept an LOS of
less than “C” at a specific intersection if:
a. A variance to allow a lesser LOS was approved not more than 2 years
prior to the date an application for development being reviewed is
determined to be adequate for review;
b. The request was made in writing with the application; and
c. The circumstances are in the professional judgment of the Director of Public Service or
their designee substantially the same as when the variance was granted.
Section 6
Section 18.44.110 of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
18.44.110 TRANSPORTATION PATHWAYS
A. General. Developers shall install pathways in accordance with this title, the growth
policy, the most recently adopted long range transportation plan, any adopted Citywide
park plan, and any adopted individual Park Master Plan, and shall comply with City of
Bozeman design specifications. See also §§18.42.100, 18.50.070 and 18.50.110, BMC.
B. Pathway Categories. The DRC shall be responsible for determining whether a pathway is
a transportation pathway or a recreation pathway. For subdivision and planned unit
development proposals, this determination shall be made during the pre-application
process.
1. Transportation Pathways. Developers shall install transportation pathways, to
provide adequate multimodal transportation facilities within the development, as
part of the required development improvements. Transportation pathways shall
be ADA accessible, and include the following types of facilities:
a. Sidewalks;
b. On-street bike lanes and bike routes;
c. Boulevard trails; and
d. Class I trails;
(1) With the exception of trail corridors within required watercourse
setbacks, corridors for Class I trails shall be dedicated to the City.
The dedicated trail corridor shall be at least 25 feet in width to
ensure adequate room for the construction, maintenance and use of
the trail. Transportation trail corridors can not be used to satisfy
park land dedication requirements.
e. Pathways that connect community or neighborhood commercial nodes by
a reasonably direct route; or
f. Pathways that connect major residential, employment, educational, or
other service nodes by a reasonably direct route.
2. Recreation Pathways. For the definition of recreation pathways, please see
§18.50.110.B, BMC.
162
Page 6 of 10
C. Related Facilities. If pathways are proposed or required, stream crossings and other
similar improvements, where necessary, shall be installed. Bridge design and
construction shall comply with City specifications and standards, and shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for review and approval. Any necessary permits for bridges
shall be obtained by the developer from the appropriate agency prior to installation of the
stream crossings.
D. Trail Requirements. The class of the trail shall be determined by the Recreation and
Parks Advisory Board, and the trail shall be designed and constructed according to any
adopted park or recreation plan or other City specifications and standards. Trails and
bridges must meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications for recreational
facilities and maintain a natural appearance. Trail plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to installation.
E. Bikeways and Boulevard Trails. Wherever new streets are to be developed as a result of a
development proposal, or wherever existing streets or roads are required to be improved,
the developer may be required to incorporate striped bicycle lanes along the shoulder,
meeting current AASHTO standards, into the design and construction or improvement of
the streets or roads. The decision to install a boulevard trail instead of a bike lane shall
be based on the most recently adopted long range transportation plan. The City
Commission may consider exceptions based on the particular characteristics of a
transportation corridor and recommendations from the DRC and the Bozeman Area
Bicycle Advisory Board . Boulevard trails and bike lanes shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the most recently adopted long range transportation plan,
and any other applicable City specifications and standards.
F. Pathway Maintenance. Trails within and adjacent to the proposed development, as well
as off-street pathways (i.e., sidewalks and boulevard trails) along external development
streets, shall be maintained (including snow removal) in accordance with an approved
maintenance plan by the developer until 50 percent of the lots within the development
area sold. Thereafter the property owners association shall be responsible for
maintenance. The property owners association may establish an improvement district to
collect assessments to pay for the maintenance.
G. Pathway Easements. Where pathways cross private land or common open space, the
proper public access easements shall be provided. Public access easements for pathways
shall be at least 25 feet wide.
H. Trails in Required Watercourse Setbacks. Trail corridors within required watercourse
setbacks shall not be dedicated to the City, and such land may not be used to satisfy park
land dedication requirements. When publicly accessible trails are established within
required watercourse setbacks, public access easements at least 25 feet in width shall be
provided to ensure adequate room for the construction, maintenance and use of the trail.
I. Corridors for transportation pathways shall not be used to satisfy park land dedication
requirements.
Section 7
163
Page 7 of 10
Section 18.50.110.A of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
A. General. Developers shall install pathways in accordance with this title, the growth
policy, the most recently adopted long range transportation plan, any adopted Citywide
park plan, and any adopted individual Park Master Plan, and shall comply with City of
Bozeman design specifications.
Section 8
Section 18.78.060.L of the Unified Development Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
L. Streets, Roads and Alleys.
1. Description. Describe any proposed new public or private streets, roads or alley,
or substantial improvements of existing public or private streets, roads or alleys.
The developer shall demonstrate that the land to be subdivided has access onto a
legal street.
2. Access to Arterial. Discuss whether any of the individual lots or tracts have
access directly to arterial streets or roads, and if so, the reason access was not
provided by means of a street within the subdivision and how the access complies
with §18.44.090, BMC
3. Modification of Existing Streets, Roads or Alleys. Explain any proposed closure
or modification of existing streets, roads or alleys.
4. Dust. Describe provisions considered for dust control on alleys.
5. Pollution and Erosion. Explain how street, road and alley maintenance will be
provided to meet the Department of Environmental Quality guidelines for
prevention of water pollution and erosion.
6. Traffic Generation. Discuss how much daily traffic will be generated on existing
local and neighborhood streets, roads and alleys, when the subdivision is fully
developed, and provide the following information.
a. The report format shall be as follows:
(1) Trip generation, using the Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation Manual;
(2) Trip distribution;
(3) Traffic assignment;
(4) Capacity analysis;
(5) Evaluation; and
(6) Recommended access plan, including access points, modifications
and any mitigation techniques.
b. The report shall include the following information:
164
Page 8 of 10
(1) Land use and trip generation in the form of a table of each type of
land use, the number of units or square footage, as appropriate, the
trip rates used (daily and peak) and resulting trip generation.
(2) Traffic graphics, which show:
(a) AM peak hour site traffic;
(b) PM peak hour site traffic;
(c) AM peak hour total traffic;
(d) PM peak hour total traffic;
(e) Total daily traffic (with site generated traffic shown
separately).
(3) AM and PM capacity analysis with an AM and PM peak hour
capacity analysis provided for:
(a) All major drive accesses that intersect collector or arterial
streets or roads; and
(b) All arterial-arterial, collector-collector and arterial-collector
intersections within one-half mile of the site, or as required
by the City Engineer during the pre-application review,
concept plan review, or informal project review.
(4) For two-way stop controlled intersections, analysis of whether the
intersection would satisfy signalization warrants if the two-way
stop control was removed.
7. Capacity. Indicate the levels of service (before and after development) of existing
and proposed streets and roads, including appropriate intersections, to safely
handle any increased traffic. Describe any anticipated increased maintenance that
will be necessary due to increased traffic and who will pay the cost of
maintenance.
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathways, Lanes and Routes. Describe bicycle and
pedestrian pathways, lanes or routes to be developed with the development.
9. Traffic Calming. Detailed drawings of any proposed traffic calming installations,
including locations and turning radius templates.
Section 9
Severability.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this growth
policy which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the
provisions of this growth policy are declared to be severable.
165
Page 9 of 10
Section 10
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights of duties that matured, penalties and assessments
that were incurred or proceedings that began before the effective date of this resolution.
Section 11
The effective date of this ordinance is 30 days after passage on 2nd reading.
PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, on first reading, at a
regular session thereof held on the _________ day of December 2010.
Section 12
Codification Instruction.
The provisions of Sections 1 through 8 shall be codified as appropriate in Title 18, Unified
Development Ordinance, of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
______________________
JEFFREY K KRAUSS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________
STACY ULMEN
CITY CLERK
166
Page 10 of 10
PASSED, ADOPTED AND FINALLY APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, on second reading, at a regular session thereof held on the ________day of
_______________, 2010.
_______________________
JEFFREY K KRAUSS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________
STACY ULMEN
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
GREG SULLIVAN
CITY ATTORNEY
167
1
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
JOINT MEETING
PLANNING BOARD/ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Henyon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to
take attendance.
Zoning Commission Members Present:
Nathan Minnick
Nick Lieb
Ed Sypinski
JP Pomnichowski
Zoning Commission City Commission Liaison
Chris Mehl
Zoning Commission Members Absent:
Planning Board Members Present:
Trever McSpadden
Ed Sypinski
Chris Budeski
Bill Quinn
Eugene Graf,
Erik Henyon, President
Brian Caldwell, Vice President
Planning Board Members Absent:
Jodi Leone
Jeff Krauss
Staff Present:
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Jeff Rupp
Tracy Menuez
Brian LaMeres
David Magistrelli
168
2
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not
scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there was no general public comment forthcoming, President Henyon closed this portion
of the meeting.
ITEM 3. A. ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2010
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the Zoning
Commission minutes of October 19, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting
aye being Chairperson Pomnichowski, Mr. Sypinski, Vice Chairperson Minnick, and Mr. Lieb.
Those voting nay being none.
B. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 2010
MOTION: Vice President Caldwell moved, Mr. Graf seconded, to approve the Planning Board
minutes of November 3, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being
Vice President Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Graf
with President Henyon abstaining. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-10304 – (Engineering Standards) A
Zone Code Amendment requested by the applicant/representative, City of
Bozeman, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT, 59715, requesting to amend Chapter
18.42 Development Standards, including, but not limited to: Section 18.42.070
Municipal Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Systems, to clarify
extensions of municipal infrastructure; Section 18.42.150 Lighting, to remove
certain standards and relocate them to the City’s design and specifications
manual; add a new Section 18.42.180 Water Rights, clarifying and
documenting the process for payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights. Chapter
18.44, Transportation Facilities and Access, Section 18.44.060 Street
Improvement Standards to revise level of service standards for vehicles;
Section 18.44.110 Transportation Pathways to modify procedures for bike
lane designation; and Section 18.50.110 Recreation Pathways. Modify
various sections throughout Title 18 to update references by name to external
documents. Additional sections may be amended which are relevant to the same
topics if a need to do so is identified during the public review process. (Saunders)
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the public hearing
was to consider potential changes to Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, the Unified
Development Ordinance. He stated there had been substantive changes brought forward and
tidying modifications had also been proposed. He stated eight sections were proposed to be
amended with this application, all hinging around engineering provisions.
169
3
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
Describing the amendments, Assistant Director Saunders stated the code is now worded to
require a subdivision variance to allow a lesser standard of performance and the proposed would
allow the Director of Public Service to approve infrastructure design. He stated the relocation of
lighting standards would move the requirement from one City document to another; the Design
Specifications Manual. On water rights, he stated he had provided a copy of the current
Resolution #4095 to the Board. He noted Staff needed to apply the policy to zoning and
subdivision as well as annexation. He stated an update to a reference to the Transportation Plan
had also been included. He stated the revised wording for arterial and collector street level of
service standards had been included at City Commission direction and allows for exceptions to the
requirement. He noted the exceptions would be if an intersection had been fully developed, the
improvement would not be required and if there was another project within two years of the first
to which a variance had been granted and the circumstances were fundamentally the same the
property would be assessed.
Vice President Caldwell asked how slight changes in the degree and scale of an application would
be accounted for. Assistant Planning Director Saunders responded there were caveats in the
exemption; a two year approval timeframe or obviously small incremental changes. President
Caldwell stated he had noticed that in many of the proposed amendments the City Commission
had been replaced with the Director of Public Service and asked the reason behind the proposed
edits. Assistant Director Saunders responded there may be projects that it made no sense to make
the applicant wait to be heard by the Commission for approval when there was a reasonable site
constraint.
Assistant Director Saunders stated the transportation pathways had been proposed for amendment
to include updates to references as well as revisions to applicable chapters. He stated language
had been modified in the area for the traffic study from a one mile radius to a half mile radius and
to allow inclusion of a two way stop controlled intersection. He stated Staff had worked closely
with the Director of Public Service as well as the Engineering Department and they were
supportive of the amendments as presented. He stated the noticing had been formally done and
coordination with other advisory boards had been done. He stated the City Commission would be
the final review authority. He asked the Advisory Boards to make findings per the review criteria
for each of the Boards as set forth in the UDO.
President Henyon asked if PB and ZC motions should be separated. Assistant Director Saunders
responded the motions should be separated though the item could be discussed mutually. Mr.
Budeski suggested each Board’s motion be included after discussion.
President Henyon opened the item for public comment.
Mr. Budeski stated the amendments referenced the developer and there was no definition included
in the UDO. Assistant Planner Saunders responded the definition was the common English
definition of the word. Mr. Budeski asked if that could include a single homeowner. Planner
Saunders responded it could mean a single homeowner, but thresholds had been included to
differentiate those that fell into the requirement. Mr. Budeski asked how the half mile traffic
170
4
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
study requirement had come to be. Assistant Director Saunders responded the grid system for the
City had been established over long term development; as the number of connections had
increased, they were occurring on a half mile section with more alternate routes included.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if on page 3-13, #3, she did not see it specified that connections
from the City to adjacent land and asked if there was an agreement between the City and the
County. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a Facility Plan in place. The County
had the opportunity for input and an Interlocal Agreement was being worked on. Chairperson
Pomnichowski stated she was uncomfortable requiring things of lands outside of City jurisdiction.
Assistant Director Saunders responded the County had adopted policies and practices with
regard to the Facility Plan and had been a prudent way of caring for the public well being and
Staff had been working on relations with the County. Vice President Caldwell added that
municipal water and sewer services were subject to annexation and those requirements.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the water rights language included how amounts would be
calculated and asked where uses were identified. Assistant Director Saunders responded the
district uses were dictated by calculation through the Engineering Department and were based on
zoning and size. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated water rights were appurtenant to the land.
Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff followed State law to either transfer ownership from
themselves to the City or could make a payment in lieu; the process for subdivision specifically
says the rights had to be transferred to the landowner or severed. He stated that in the event
someone annexed larger parcel, in excess of ten aces, transfer of water rights is deferred until the
property was developed. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated a transfer of water right did not
change the water right; she was concerned the proposed language indicated a change in right for
the water right as though every water right was equal. She added there was no reference to
municipal use or change in use; if there was no reference to municipal use the right could be used
agriculturally. Assistant Director Saunders responded the analysis would need to include whether
the right would be usable before the City agreed to accept it; that’s why they accepted water
rights or payment in lieu if the water right was not usable. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why
the requirements were not referenced in that section and suggested the language be included in
the amendment. Vice President Caldwell responded the next section included a determination of
whether or not the water right would be adequate for the intended purposes. Chairperson
Pomnichowski asked for clarification of the process to grant the City water rights from a
developer. Assistant Director Saunders clarified the process for changing the use of the water
rights granted by a developer and added the DNRC would be the ultimate approval authority for
changes to amount of a right, point of diversion, or change in the use of the water. Chairperson
Pomnichowski stated that the proposed exceptions included for level of service of intersections
did not account for full construction of maximum turning lane capacity. Assistant Director
Saunders responded the Transportation Plan was the primary process for evaluation of the level of
service and funding would come from different sources, such as a developer or impact fees.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there was a requirement to meet the maximum turning
movement. Assistant Director Saunders responded if the level of service was found to be
inadequate, the next level was to define the problem and fix it if possible. If it was not possible to
fix the problem, monies were sought to provide for an improved level of service but the City was
not in the habit of making a single developer pay for those improvements. Chairperson
Pomnichowski stated the level of service standards as proposed seemed to apply to a development
171
5
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
instead of the entire City. Assistant Director Saunders responded the requirement applies City
wide but it evaluated as a development is reviewed. President Henyon asked what would happen
to a project if an intersection failed the study. Assistant Director Saunders responded the project
would move forward if there was nothing that could be done to improve the intersection.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if there was still a policy in the City to require additional
capacity improvements at an intersection. Assistant Director Saunders directed Chairperson
Pomnichowski to Section 18.44 of the UDO which addresses transportation. He added the City
had made it a policy to not connect total responsibility for infrastructure to one project though if
there were existing issues the site would need to be improved to the necessary infrastructure
specifications before proceeding. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked why the half mile distance
had been decided upon with regard to the traffic study and asked if the amendment would still
comply with the Growth Policy. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff did not think the
proposed amendment would be in disagreement with the Growth Policy as it was a larger view;
the spacing for major commercial nodes facilitated longer range travel, but the Growth Policy did
not attempt to predict which intersections would be serviced by traffic improvements.
Mr. Sypinski stated there were applicable projects that were the jurisdictions of both the PB and
ZC and suggested both entities should discuss the item.
Mr. Mehl stated the City Commission would benefit from the discussion of both boards.
Mr. Sypinski stated the “center” location indicated in the Growth Policy was more to service
those specific locations.
President Henyon stated he was concerned with the level of service language as it did not address
failing intersections as it indicated significant infrastructure improvement costs would be incurred
by the next developer; he suggested the City should not burden the developer on existing failing
intersections. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City did not think a single developer
should have to pay for the improvements either; the City had paid for the intersection
improvements as Kagy & 11th with the use of impact fees. President Henyon asked if specific
language had been included regarding impact fee credits. Assistant Director Saunders responded
the language had been included in Title 3 of the Municipal Code.
President Henyon called again for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, he closed the
public comment portion of the hearing.
Mr. Sypinski stated he found the proposal to meet the review criteria as set forth in the UDO.
MOTION: Vice President Minnick moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to adopt Staff findings and
forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Zone Code Amendment
Application #Z-10304.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she found the application to be in general compliance with the
Growth Policy, motorized transportation was compliant, and secured safety. She stated she did
not find the proposal promoted public health/safety/welfare due to the proposed water rights
172
6
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
language and added she also had concerns that facilitating provisions for schools etc. had not been
met due to the water right language (she added criteria K was affected by the water rights as
well). She stated she found the application not to meet the review criteria as set forth. She
suggested the language could be improved.
The motion carried 3-1. Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Vice Chairperson Minnick, and
Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being Chairperson Pomnichowski.
The Zoning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m.
MOTION: Mr. Budeski moved, Vice President Caldwell seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the city Commission for Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-
10304 with Staff conditions.
Mr. Budeski stated he had reviewed the criteria from the UDO and had found the proposal to be
in general conformance with the review criteria as set forth in the UDO. Mr. McSpadden stated
he found the proposal also met the nine review criteria from Section 76-3-501 M.C.A.
President Henyon stated Chairperson Pomnichowski had good points regarding the water right
language though he was comfortable with the language as presented.
The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Henyon, Vice President Caldwell,
Mr. Quinn, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being
none.
173
UDO Engineering Text Amendments
Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION #P-10304
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION THAT WOULD AMEND THE TEXT OF THE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 18.42.070.A
MUNICIPAL WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER SYSTEMS, TO
CLARIFY EXTENSIONS OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE; SECTION 18.42.150.C
LIGHTING, TO REMOVE CERTAIN STANDARDS AND RELOCATE THEM TO THE
CITY’S DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL; ADD A NEW SECTION 18.42.180
WATER RIGHTS, CLARIFYING AND DOCUMENTING THE PROCESS FOR
PAYMENT OF CASH-IN-LIEU OF WATER RIGHTS; SECTION 18.44.060.D STREET
IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS TO REVISE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR
VEHICLES; SECTION 18.44.110 TRANSPORTATION PATHWAYS TO MODIFY
PROCEDURES FOR BIKE LANE DESIGNATION; AND SECTION 18.50.110
RECREATION PATHWAYS. MODIFY VARIOUS SECTIONS THROUGHOUT TITLE
18 TO UPDATE REFERENCES BY NAME TO EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS; SECTION
18.78.060.L TO MODIFY STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map and
subdivision regulations through its Unified Development Ordinance pursuant to Sections 76-2-
301, 76-2-302, and 76-3-501 M.C.A. to implement its growth policy; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-3-503, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend regulations
pertaining to subdivisions if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-3-606, M.C.A. states that the subdivision regulations must be
made in accordance with the growth policy and; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-1-107, M.C.A. states that the governing body shall seek the
advice of the Planning Board in matters pertaining to approval of subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by the Bozeman City
Commission; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth
the procedures and review criteria for amendments affecting Title 18, Unified Development
Ordinance; and
174
UDO Engineering Text Amendments
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.02 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth
the purposes of subdivision regulations which serve as review criteria for regulation
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission applied for a Unified Development
Ordinance text amendment, pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, to modify multiple sections of the Unified Development Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment request has been properly submitted, reviewed
and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A. and other applicable law; and
WHEREAS, after proper and sufficient public notice was given the City of Bozeman
Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a joint public hearing on November 16, 2010, to
formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed text amendments; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public submitted written or oral testimony on the
proposed text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed
amendments; and
WHEREAS, after considering staff’s recommendation and discussion amongst Planning
Board and Zoning Commission members, the Planning Board found that the application
complied with the review criteria applicable to subdivisions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Planning Board
officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission that the amendments be approved with
minor changes on a unanimous vote of 7 to 0.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2010, Resolution #P-10304
_____________________________ ____________________________
Tim McHarg, Director Eric Henyon, President
Dept. of Planning & Community Development Bozeman Planning Board
175
RESOLUTION #Z-10304
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION THAT WOULD AMEND THE TEXT OF THE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 18.42.070.A
MUNICIPAL WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER SYSTEMS, TO
CLARIFY EXTENSIONS OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE; SECTION 18.42.150.C
LIGHTING, TO REMOVE CERTAIN STANDARDS AND RELOCATE THEM TO THE
CITY’S DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL; ADD A NEW SECTION 18.42.180
WATER RIGHTS, CLARIFYING AND DOCUMENTING THE PROCESS FOR
PAYMENT OF CASH-IN-LIEU OF WATER RIGHTS; SECTION 18.44.060.D STREET
IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS TO REVISE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR
VEHICLES; SECTION 18.44.110 TRANSPORTATION PATHWAYS TO MODIFY
PROCEDURES FOR BIKE LANE DESIGNATION; AND SECTION 18.50.110
RECREATION PATHWAYS. MODIFY VARIOUS SECTIONS THROUGHOUT TITLE
18 TO UPDATE REFERENCES BY NAME TO EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS; SECTION
18.78.060.L TO MODIFY STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map and
subdivision regulations through its Unified Development Ordinance pursuant to Sections 76-2-
301, 76-2-302, and 76-3-501 M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning
regulations if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct
a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning regulation
amendment requests; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by Resolution of
the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth
the procedures and review criteria for amendments to the text of Title 18, Unified Development
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission applied for a Unified Development
Ordinance text amendment, pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, to modify multiple sections of the Unified Development Ordinance; and
176
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment request has been properly submitted, reviewed
and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint
public hearing on November 16, 2010, to formally receive and review all written and oral
testimony on the proposed text amendment; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public submitted written or oral testimony on the
proposed text amendment and one public agency submitted written comments; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Commission and Planning Board discussed the offered
comments and Staff’s suggested response and the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, after considering staff’s recommendation and discussion amongst Zoning
Commission and Planning Board members, the Zoning Commission found that the application
complied with the Review Criteria;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission that on a vote of 3 to 1 the City
Commission adopt the recommended amendments.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2010, Resolution #Z-10304
_____________________________ ____________________________
Tim McHarg, Director JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson
Dept. of Planning & Community Development Bozeman Zoning Commission
177
fi11thecifcneter7Icestabiea1narceerultrecturcaanvexaseticucccIrcansccrrctttamrstauaat178
1JLf11114ailcfmacreAterJensisrr1carrnraprruubzirrorTeaterrstoauraaateriarrretcssarrdieaticitcaatnarrsnrsrroeFdvTneitatinsiireetasrresrruireurtaatcrtrrrerigraterrteanrr1aaectnarriatefeeterfeeeusetacireerritcarfarnraeetate1aaaterscacieetaletiesszaeste1nreslzabereeetetanuaenneesarshalleuattiecnsseederacreteserarersessellelaIaallar41e179
180
181
182