HomeMy WebLinkAboutA3. Reclaim Review Lark Hotel
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner
Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Consideration of Reclaiming Review Authority of Applications for
Development located at 136 West Main Street; Application 15-583.
MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action (Quasi Judicial)
RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
MOTION: Pursuant to Section 38.34.010.B(2), I move to reclaim original review authority and
schedule a public hearing for The Lark Hotel Addition Preliminary Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application on ____________ _____, 2016; Application 15-583.
(Month) (Day)
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY: Application for Preliminary Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness for The Lark Hotel Addition was submitted on December 21, 2015. Supplemental information and documentation was provided on January 6, 2016. On January 11,
2016 the application was deemed acceptable for initial review and scheduled before the
Development Review Committee on January 20, 27, and February 10, 2016.
On January 15, 2016 the Applicant submitted a request that the City Commission reclaim review
authority for the aforementioned project (attached). The request to reclaim is the applicant’s choice. Staff has not identified any item of particular concern at this time that necessitates City
Commission review of the application.
The Director of Community Development, as allowed by Section 38.34.010.B, BMC, has
requested that the Design Review Board (DRB) provide comment on the proposed hotel to assist
in determining the level of compliance of the proposed building with the downtown design guidelines and the site plan review criteria set forth in Section 38.19.100.A.4, BMC. In addition,
developments with 30,000 square feet or more of office space, retail commercial space, service
commercial space or industrial space require DRB review. Phase I and II of the Lark Hotel
exceed this threshold, Section 38.19.040.C, BMC.
Pursuant to Section 38.34.010.B(1), BMC the Director of Community Development is the review authority for Preliminary Site Plans and Certificate of Appropriateness that do not include
variances or deviation in excess of 20 percent. The proposed development does not require
variances or deviations.
150
Pursuant to Section 38.34.010.B(2), BMC the City Commission may reclaim review authority by
a simple majority vote. The section is attached for your reference. Criteria: The municipal code
has established no criteria for reclaiming review authority but leaves entirely to the
Commission’s discretion the decision to reclaim or not reclaim an application.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None at this time.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Reclaim original review authority as authorized in Section 38.34.010.B.2, BMC and
schedule a date for action; or
2. Leave application 15-583 for review by the Director of Community Development with the Director’s administrative action subject to appeal per Section 38.35.030, BMC. An
appeal of administrative action would go to the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Not determined at this time.
Attachments: Section 38.34.010, BMC
Applicant Request
Report compiled on: January 20, 2016
151
The Lark Review Authority Attachment; Section 38.34.010, BMC.
Sec. 38.34.010. - Review authority. A. The city commission has the right to review and require revisions to all development
proposals subject to this chapter, and delegates that authority in certain circumstances as set
forth below. The purpose of this review is to prevent demonstrable adverse impacts of the
development upon public safety, health or general welfare, or to provide for its mitigation;
to protect public investments in roads, drainage facilities, sewage facilities, water facilities, and other facilities; to conserve the value of adjoining buildings and/or property; to protect
the character of the city; to protect the right of use of property; advance the purposes and
standards of this chapter and the adopted growth policy; and to ensure that the applicable
regulations of the city are upheld.
1. The city commission retains to itself under all circumstances the review of the following:
a. Subdivisions which do not qualify as a subdivision exemption per article 5 of this
chapter;
b. Amendments to the text of this chapter or amendment to the zoning map;
c. Determination to accept cash-in-lieu of park land dedications, except in the B-3 zone district;
d. Extensions of subdivision preliminary plat approvals for periods greater than two
years;
e. Planned unit development preliminary plans and major amendments to planned unit
developments;
f. Conduct public hearing for applications under 76-2-402, MCA;
g. Appeals from administrative interpretations and final project review decisions;
h. Approval of park master plans;
i. Large scale retail per section 38.22.180; and
j. Exceptions to installation of bikeways and boulevard trails per 38.24.110.E.
B. The planning director shall, upon recommendation from the DRC, DRB, ADR, WRB or
other advisory body as may be applicable approve, approve with conditions or deny all
applications subject to this chapter except those listed below, Decisions of the planning
director are subject to the appeal provisions of article 35 of this chapter.
1. Projects excluded from planning director review:
a. Those applications specifically reserved to another approval authority as stated in
this section;
b. Development of city property which does not conform to all standards of this
chapter;
c. Conduct public hearing for applications under 76-2-402 MCA;
152
d. Any application involving variances from this chapter;
e. Subdivision preliminary and final plats not meeting the requirements for a
subdivision exemption per article 5;
f. Conditional use permits;
g. Preliminary plans and major amendments to planned unit developments;
h. Large scale retail per section 38.22.180;
i. Exceptions to design standards for transportation pathways per section
38.24.110.E;
j. Applications, except within the B-3 zoning district, which propose the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland per section 38.27.030;
k. Approval of park master plans,
l. Designation of historic or culturally significant signs;
m. Applications with deviations except that the planning director is the review
authority for applications which have:
(1) Two or fewer deviations, which deviations may not request a more than 20
percent change in the standard for which the deviation is sought; and
(2) Which are not otherwise prohibited to the planning director for their review;
n. Amendments to the text or the zoning map per articles 36 and 37;
o. Extensions to subdivision review for periods exceeding two years; and
p. Appeals from final administrative action on interpretations or project final
decisions;
2. Exception. The city commission may, by an affirmative, simple majority, vote of its
members at a regularly scheduled meeting reclaim to itself the final approval of a
development normally subject to the approval of the planning director. The vote shall occur prior to the action of the planning director.
153
33 North Black
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-587-3628
brian@thinktankaia.com
RE: Lark Addition - file # 15-583 – Request to City Commission for Review Authority
TO: Carson Taylor, Mayor of Bozeman, City of Bozeman
Cynthia Andrus Commissioner, City of Bozeman
Chris Mehl Commissioner, City of Bozeman
I-Ho Pomeroy Commissioner, City of Bozeman
Jeff Krauss Commissioner, City of Bozeman
CC: City Clerk's office Suite 201, City Hall
P.O. Box 1230
121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Mt. 59771
(406) 582-2320
FROM: Thinktank Design Group Inc.
Erik R Nelson, AIA; Ma. Architecture; BA. Environmental Design
Brian T Caldwell, AIA , Ma. Architecture; BA. Environmental Design
Date: 01/15/2016
To Whom it may concern,
The site plan and certificate of appropriateness application file 15-583 for the Lark
Addition is seeking to redevelop the vacant property on the corner of Grand and West
Main Street . Given changes in the review processes, we respectful appeal to your
review authority for our application.
The planning director would like additional review at the design review board for this
project. While not meeting the thresholds for review with the design review board, the
directors rationale for this additional review is based on the importance our project has
for the future of downtown and the community as a whole. As stated in our application,
we welcome the review from the design review board.
154
2
In addition to the design review board, we feel the City commission should also be
involved with this important project for the future of our community. We concur with
the director and would be honored to have the public involved in the review of this
project.
Requesting that the Commission “reclaim” review of a site plan is a three (3) part
process. The Applicant submits a written request directly to the Commission that they
reclaim review authority for a specific project (15-583). Following the request, the
Commission will vote on whether or not to place the item on an agenda. If the
Commission moves to reclaim review authority, a suitable time on an agenda will be
made. The third step is holding the public hearing to review the application.
We believe the directors change in the established process will add additional time and
delay for the approval for this project. Our request for City Commission review
authority will provide a predictable review period and allow the community a clear
understanding of the conditions placed on this proposal.
Time is of the essence and we respectfully request the earliest time to meet before your
commission. We are hopeful time is available for your February 22nd public hearing.
This will coincide with the review schedule with the DRC and the additional review by
the design review board.
Sincerely,
Brian Caldwell- Thinktank Design Group, Inc.-
155