HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevised ZC-PB-111610 Min1
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
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT
2
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
{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.
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, the UDO, to another;
the Design Specifications Manual. Regarding 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 based on the UDO definition of “development”. 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 study requirement had come to be.
Assistant Director Saunders responded the grid system for the City had been established over
4
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
long term development; as the number of connections had increased, they were occurring on a
half mile spacing 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 and agreements 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 a 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 particular use of the water right; she was
concerned the proposed language indicated a change in the use of the right for the water right as
though every water right was equal from, for example, agricultural to municipal use. She added
there was no reference to municipal use or change in use; if there was no reference change
application to municipal use the right could be used agriculturally only in its current use.
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 step 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
5
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
Pomnichowski stated the level of service standards as proposed seemed to apply to a
development 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, not traffic impacts.
President Henyon stated he was concerned with the level of service language because 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 and brought the discussion back to the Board and
Commission for a motion.
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
6
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
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
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.
ITEM 5. AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS (Menuez)
Mr. Budeski stated the discussion could have an impact on a project he was submitting in the
future and asked if the Board was comfortable with him being part of the discussion. President
Caldwell suggested Mr. Budeski speak specifically to the conflict of interest. Mr. Quinn
suggested that for purposes of discussion, it would be valuable to have Mr. Budeski’s
perspective though he would expect him to excuse himself if any final decisions were made. The
Board agreed that there was no conflict.
Planning Director Tim McHarg stated there were three representatives from the CAHAB present
and asked how the Board would like to proceed. Mr. Sypinski suggested other boards had been
invited to join the meeting and encouraged those in attendance to approach the dais. Director
McHarg directed the Board to the ordinance overview. He stated there were two applicable
projects subject to the provisions of the ordinance; subdivision including residential lots and site
plans including residential condos with gross project areas greater than 5 acres. He stated there
were five options for compliance if a waiver was included and stated provision of on-site lots
was the preferred method. He stated the developer could also choose to provide off-site lots or
units; existing units could be deed restricted and sold based on the requirements of the ordinance
as well. He stated an individualized program could also be proposed to be approved by the City
7
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
Commission and could be based on a particular pro-forma. He stated the fee in lieu option was
the least preferred for compliance and would require 300% of the cost of a lot. He stated the
ordinance outlined the pricing and unit mix and the pricing was based upon unit sizes. He
directed the Board to how the units broke down into the number of bedrooms, the type of unit,
and whether the unit is attached or detached. He stated the maximum lot pricing is stipulated in
the ordinance at $12.50 per square foot for 2010. He stated the units would need to functionally
equivalent and could be clustered, but could not be located all in one section of the development.
He stated that in the order of fairness, incentives had been provided such as parkland reduction,
reduced lot sizes, density bonuses, impact fee deferrals or waivers, low interest construction
loans through the City Revolving Loan Fund, etc.
Director McHarg noted the requirements for the delivery of the lots by the developer. He stated
the Building Permit would have to be drawn within a three year period of the purchase of the lot.
He stated the deed restriction would be removed after 10 years of single ownership. He stated he
had requested some sales data from the Gallatin Association of Realtors and they had broken
down the sales comparables for him and aggregated them; he added the data would be useful for
comparison purposes and if it was skewed, it would likely be to the high side. He stated he had
requested data regarding market trends and the current market condition for all six categories of
units in the ordinance. He stated that the key was the difference between the cost of a median
sales price for a housing unit and the maximum sales price as determined by the ordinance. He
stated it became increasingly difficult for buyers to accept the deed restriction and limitations on
their appreciation when the discount is less than 25% of the cost. He asked if people would
accept the deed restricted unit or would they leverage themselves for a market priced unit. He
stated there was a more dramatic affect seen on the attached units. President Henyon asked if
there was any indication on how salaries had changed. Director McHarg responded he did not
have the specific AMI data. Ms. Menuez added the AMI had gone up only minutely since 2008.
Director McHarg stated the ordinance had been intended to address things from the supply side
and the demand had decreased because of the recession; he suggested an increase in demand
could reverse and stabilize if money was employed in existing programs to take advantage of
existing affordable units. He stated his primary concern was that Staff would have a long way to
go to implement the ordinance; Staff was not available to push out a program of this nature. He
stated he did not think the discounts were sufficient to provide the incentive for people to accept
deed restrictions. He stated the offsets the City is providing will not be recaptured; if the City
was offering offsets, there should be a recapture system in place.
Director McHarg suggested two options; adjusting the way fee in lieu payments were calculated
to fund 2nd mortgage and down payment assistance programs already up and running or donation
of the lots to Habitat for Humanity or similar local groups. He asked the Board if the ordinance
should be put on hiatus until there is updated data could be obtained; he suggested any hiatus be
evaluated by a working group to achieve greater flexibility, responsiveness to market conditions,
and to improve the efficiency of administration of the program.
Mr. LaMeres asked if the fee in lieu had been successful in Colorado. Director McHarg
responded the fee in lieu had been successful and clarified how those calculations had been
made. Mr. LaMeres asked if the same trend had been evident in Durango; was there an
abundance of supply. Director McHarg responded there had been a similar trend and an
8
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
abundant supply of attached product; he added they had anticipated the market would slow down
so flexibility had been designed into the ordinance. He stated the fee in lieu was fair because it
was instantaneously reactive to the market. Mr. Budeski stated the difference here was that the
developer only had to provide the lots; the cost of market rate lots was lower than the ordinance
price for lots in the City. Mr. LaMeres asked if the City could limp along with the current
ordinance. Director McHarg responded the lots would not sell and would require the developer
to hold the lots until the 12 month time frame had lapsed. Mr. LaMeres stated he was supportive
of cash in lieu as proposed by Staff. Mr. LaMeres stated it would be harder to bring back the
ordinance if it was placed on hiatus.
Mr. Budeski stated he would like to hear input on the three options proposed.
Vice President Caldwell asked how Durango had addressed mixed use developments. Director
McHarg stated that the 16% inclusionary requirement applied to all projects with more than four
residential units. He stated he did not see how the Workforce Housing ordinance would have
worked and suggested a simple calculation that was tied to the unit could be implemented.
Mr. Budeski stated the intent of the ordinance was to provide affordable housing and the free
market had provided it. Director McHarg responded the intent was to get people into the
affordable housing units.
Mr. Magistrelli stated affordable housing could be viewed differently by different people and the
costs as existed were not affordable for those that Habitat for Humanity helped. He stated he had
researched the ordinance and had been excited that there would be land for Habitat, but was
discouraged when the lots cost so much. He suggested keeping in mind that 80 or 90 percent of
AMI would be possible, but 30-40 percent AMI was not conceivable.
Mr. Quinn stated Habitat had been unable to build in Bozeman when he had served on the board;
if someone couldn’t qualify before, they couldn’t qualify now. He stated he liked the idea of
tying it into a fee and suggested stimulating demand for those lots would help the City.
Ms. Menuez stated the ordinance had been instituted during a time when there were no
subdivisions coming into the City. She stated the contribution would be significant to the City of
Bozeman; the ordinance would have to have a direct tie to the community and the missing link
was the financing. She stated it was tough for people to get financing and they would be able to
use the money to meet the financing requirements.
President Caldwell stated that if the 80% AMI, and regardless of the market, the desire was to
have the affordable housing always below the median by 25% below the average price. Director
McHarg responded his concern was a deed restriction and price cap that would deter potential
buyers; the buyer would wait and avoid the deed restriction.
Mr. Graf stated he thought people of all levels of ability to pay needed housing. He stated he
thought the ordinance had been acceptable to the development industry and to the Commission
for the aspect of reduced parkland. He stated he did not think it appropriate for the City to be a
private developer.
9
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
Director McHarg stated the ordinance did not specifically address land donation or price points
significantly less than those included in the current ordinance. He suggested more flexibility in
the ordinance.
Ms. Menuez stated there had been no discussion of removing the current incentives as Mr. Graf
had suggested. She stated CAHAB had not written the current ordinance and the Board had felt
the ordinance fell short in the rental housing aspect as well as the flexibility of the ordinance.
Mr. Budeski asked for solutions on how to move forward. Director McHarg stated he would
prefer that, in lieu of dealing with individual developments, the language be included on a policy
basis and be retooled; he suggested a hiatus on the ordinance until such a time as the language
could be modified. He encouraged the refocusing of the ordinance based on the current market
conditions and the removal of the disincentives for cash in lieu. Mr. Budeski asked what could
be done in the time it would take for the ordinance to be reworked. Vice President Caldwell
suggested the ordinance be left in place while amendments were made. Mr. Budeski stated it
would be nice to be able to give the developer a clear idea of what would happen while the
ordinance was being revised. Ms. Menuez responded a working group from CAHAB would be
put together with a goal of January 31, 2011 and she thought it would be realistic. She stated the
Board would recommend that until the revisions were adopted, the ordinance remain in effect.
Mr. Graf stated if the City wanted the program to work effectively and quickly, 12 months was
not a long time frame in the current market.
Mr. Budeski asked CAHAB’s thoughts on the revisions. Ms. Menuez responded she thought
CAHAB’s suggestions would be similar to Director McHarg’s recommendations. Mr. Budeski
responded developers did not have a lot of available money for cash in lieu. Ms. Menuez stated
she thought the City of Bozeman could do just as well as the City of Durango had done in
implementation of their affordable housing program. Director McHarg responded that the
program was no good if it couldn’t be implemented and suggested the revisions would address
some of the outstanding issues; his perspective was that the deed restriction option should be
removed from the language to allow for both sides of the equation to be compliant.
President Henyon stated he thought it would be important for the Board to review the proposed
revisions to the inclusionary ordinance; he stated he thought it was up to the buyers and not the
City to engineer changes in the market.
Mr. Graf stated he would like to see the new ordinance put on hiatus until the revisions were
made.
President Henyon stated he had indicated to the City Commission that the ordinance would not
produce one unit of housing and he had been accurate; higher wages and better education would
better serve the community.
Vice President Caldwell stated he was concerned with the proposed timeline for the revisions
and asked if there was an estimate of how much the fee in lieu amount would be. Director
McHarg stated he could potentially accept the challenge of providing draft revisions by January
10
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
31, 2011; he added this was one of six or seven things the Board was working on currently and if
it was the highest priority item he would prioritize as such.
Mr. Budeski stated he did not think the affordable housing was a high priority as there were not
many subdivisions being submitted for review.
Mr. Sypinski stated he concurred with Mr. Budeski that this was not a top priority.
Mr. Graf stated the current Commission’s priority to make Bozeman a more business friendly
community called for the hiatus of the ordinance until such a time as the recommendations from
CAHAB became incorporated into a revised ordinance.
MOTION: Mr. Graf moved, Mr. Budeski seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City
Commission to place the ordinance on hiatus until revisions to the ordinance are adopted by the
City Commission.
Mr. Sypinski stated there was no development at this time so he did not see the need to put the
ordinance on hiatus.
Mr. Budeski stated the deed restricted lots would not sell and an applicant could come in with an
individual plan for CAHAB to review; to put the ordinance on hold to allow CAHAB, the
Planning Board, and City Commission to review the language should be considered.
Vice President Caldwell stated a hiatus would need to be proposed in a way to revert back to the
existing language if no revisions were forthcoming so the City wouldn’t be without the
ordinance entirely.
Vice President Caldwell suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to require the hiatus for
12 months. Mr. Graf accepted the friendly amendment.
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Graf moved, Mr. Budeski seconded, to include the language “for a
period of 12 months or” in the original motion.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Graf moved, Mr. Budeski seconded, to forward a recommendation to
the City Commission to place the ordinance on hiatus for a period of 12 months or until revisions
to the ordinance are adopted by the City Commission
Mr. Quinn stated he thought it was not so much social engineering as social awareness that there
were people who were not at the top of the food chain and suggested allowances be made for
those people’s inclusion. He stated he did not think the ordinance did not need a hiatus, but did
need revised.
Mr. Budeski stated the City would lose the parkland and write a deed restriction to manage the
program; if the ordinance was put on hold for 12 months, the City would get full parkland and an
unused deed restriction would not have to be written.
11
Planning Board/Zoning Commission Minutes – November 16, 2010
Mr. McSpadden stated he was supportive of the motion but not for the same reasons as had been
expressed. He stated there was an incentive for the developer to leave the ordinance as is; he
stated the policy did not seem to be appropriate for the market conditions.
President Henyon stated that as a business owner, if something wasn’t working he was charged
with removing or correcting the problem. He stated he agreed with the suggested hiatus.
Director McHarg added there was a subdivision that had proposed full compliance with the
provision of the ordinance had been submitted within the last two months.
The motion carried 4-2. Those voting aye being President Henyon, Vice President Caldwell,
Mr. McSpadden, and Mr. Graf with Mr. Budeski abstaining. Those voting nay being Mr.
Sypinski, and Mr. Quinn.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
The joint meeting of the Zoning Commission and Planning Board was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
_______________________________________ _______________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
__________________________________
Erik Henyon, President
Planning Board
City of Bozeman