HomeMy WebLinkAboutA4. Text Amdmnt WetlandsPage 1 of 7
15-320, Staff Report for Administrative Text Amendments Addressing the
Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review Provisions
Public Hearing Dates:
Zoning Commission and Planning Board joint public meeting Tuesday, April 5, 2016
City Commission public hearing Monday, April 11, 2016
Project Description: A text amendment to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to
revise provisions relating to the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review procedures.
Project Location: Applicable throughout the entire corporate limit of Bozeman as it exist
now and as it evolves through annexation over time, and applies to all properties.
Recommendation: Approval
Recommended Motions:
Wetlands Review Board ZCA. Having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, recommendation of the Zoning Commission, and all the information
presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320
and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1945 the WRB text amendment.
Plan Review ZCA. Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, recommendation of the Zoning Commission, and all the information presented,
I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move
to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1944 the Plan Review text amendment.
Report Date: April 6, 2016
Staff Contact: Tom Rogers, AICP; Senior Planner
Agenda Item Type: Action (Legislative)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
None identified at this time.
Project Summary
These text amendment are a part of the City of Bozeman Unified Development Code (UDC)
update, phase one. Two separate ordinances are provided to separate the two code revisions
for discussion and adoption.
The City continually strives to improve its review process to achieve greater efficiencies in
limited resources and improve efficacy and transparency of governmental actions. The Plan
385
15-320, Staff Report for the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review Text Amendment
Page 2 of 7
Review amendment furthers that effort by codifying more efficient processes to streamline
application review.
The City Commission voted to remove the duties of the Wetlands Review Board. Ordinance
1945 implements that action.
Additional background information can be found in Appendix B.
Zoning Commission
The Zoning Commission held a public workshop on March 22, 2016 and a public hearing on
April 5, 2016. All public testimony received will be provided to the Commission when
available. The Zoning Commission public hearing has not been completed as of the date
production of this report. A video of the public hearing will be provided.
Alternatives
Alternatives for Commission action are:
1) Adopt the amendments as proposed by Staff,
2) Adopt the amendments with revisions,
3) Do not adopt the amendments and leave the language as it exists.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Unresolved Issues ....................................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1
Zoning Commission .................................................................................................................... 2
Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2
Section 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ................................................... 3
Section 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................ 3
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ................................................................................. 3
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ................................................................. 5
APPENDIX A –Affected ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY provisions .................................. 5
appendix B – detailed project description and background ............................................................ 6
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ........................................................... 6
Appendix D - Owner Information and Reviewing Staff ................................................................. 7
386
15-320, Staff Report for the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review Text Amendment
Page 3 of 7
Fiscal effects ................................................................................................................................... 7
ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Project Name: Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review Text Amendment
File: 15-320
Having considered the criteria established for a municipal code amendment, the Community
Development Staff recommends the approval of the text amendments.
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public work session on March 22,
2016 to consider the proposed amendments. No public comment relating to these
amendments were heard.
The Zoning Commission and Planning Board will hold a joint public hearing on the proposed
amendments on April 5, 2016.
The City Commission will hold a public work session on the text March 28, 2016 and a
public hearing on the amendments and provisional adoption of Ordinances 1944 and 1945 on
April 11, 2016.
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following:
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. An underlying principle of the Bozeman Community Plan is to ensure that all
regulatory and non-regulatory implementation actions undertaken by the City to achieve the
goals and objectives of this plan are effective, fair, and are reviewed for consistency with this
plan on a regular basis.
Objective G-2.1 states that development requirements and standards are efficiently
implemented, fairly and consistently applied, effective, and proportionate to the concerns
being addressed. The intent of both ordinances is to improve City processes in a fair,
equitable and transparent manner to insure consistency.
387
15-320, Staff Report for the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review Text Amendment
Page 4 of 7
This plan provides overarching policy direction for all City actions. Therefore, all actions
taken to implement this plan must be reviewed to ensure compliance.
Further under this goal, the Plan includes Objective G-2.4, which states: “Develop a balanced
system of regulatory requirements, programs, and incentives to ensure that development
within the Planning Area is in compliance with the Bozeman Community Plan.” Improving
review processes for development within he City will support balanced regulatory review of
development proposals.
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers.
Yes. The proposed amendments do not change the breadth of tools available to the City in
identifying and mitigating risk from land use and development.
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. The proposed amendments do not change the requirements for provision of water or
sewer systems, provision of emergency response capability, or similar existing standards.
The proposed procedural amendments do not eliminate any required standards currently
adopted by the City.
Rationale: The regulatory provisions established through the City’s municipal code under
Chapter 38, Unified Development Code (UDC), BMC, will adequately address the issues of
health and general welfare. Further development of any particular property may also require
review and approval by the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Quality, City
Engineer's Office, Director of Public Works, Development Review Committee, and Design
Review Board.
D. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks
and other public requirements.
Neutral. The proposed text amendments will not affect publicly required transportation,
water, sewerage, schools, parks and other systems if and when development occurs.
Established procedures will provide for mitigation of impacts as they occur.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. The proposed text amendments will not affect reasonable provisions of adequate
light and air. The text amendments are designed to improve review processes and create
efficiencies in achieving the over goals of the City.
F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Neutral. No changes to transportation standards are proposed.
G. Promotion of compatible urban growth.
Yes. The proposed text amendments will promote compatible urban growth improving
review processes. These improvements will allow greater focus on adopted criteria of
388
15-320, Staff Report for the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review Text Amendment
Page 5 of 7
evaluation for development. In addition, the efficiencies achieved through these revisions
could be used to financially support to be invested in site development.
H. Character of the district.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to the character of the
established zoning districts. Any development may be subject to the provisions being
amended if required. The actions and processes involved do not directly impact character of
a district; rather they create a framework to review development proposals.
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to land uses. The more
intensive uses are still reserved for appropriate zoning districts.
J. Conserving the value of buildings.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to building requirements
or standards.
K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to the zoning districts.
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE
OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF EITHER THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE
AMENDMENT AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT
INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME
EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT
AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
PROVISIONS
Zoning Designation and Land Uses:
These amendments eliminate the required review of project that fall under the jurisdiction of the
Wetlands Review Board (WRB) and generally improve the review process for plan review.
The City Commission eliminated the WRB duties and Ordinance No. 1945 implements this
decision. The City reserves the ability to consult with similarly qualified individuals when it
deems necessary to insure full compliance with adopted regulations.
389
15-320, Staff Report for the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review Text Amendment
Page 6 of 7
The amendments to the plan review process reflect contemporary review process that eliminates
redundancy, time, and creates a more predicable process for the community. The amendments
have been field tested and been found to be effective in eliminating superfluous review and
decreasing review time by the City.
These amendments are a part of the Unified Development Code Update.
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
BACKGROUND
Project Description
The purpose of this project is to review and update as needed the Unified Development Code
(UDC) for the City of Bozeman in two related steps. With the adoption of the City’s
Community Plan in 2009, the existence of numerous adopted neighborhood and special area
plans, and rapid growth (infill and edge), the City recognizes the need to update its land
development regulations and standards. Bozeman initially adopted zoning in 1934.
Bozeman’s current UDC structure which includes zoning, subdivision, and infrastructure
standards was established in 2004. Many older elements and standards were carried forward
in 2004. The present text therefore does not always reflect best zoning, planning and
infrastructure practices. Incremental modifications and updates are ongoing resulting in a
less efficient code to administer, unnecessary complexity, leading to questionable
effectiveness in implementing the land use and design recommendations in Bozeman’s
adopted plans. Large areas of Bozeman’s older neighborhoods are nonconforming. This has
led to frequent variance requests and incremental amendments to the UDC. The older areas
of town have experienced substantial reinvestment in the past 20 years and there is a growing
interest in increased development in the historic core of the community. The additional
intensity of use has created conflicts between new and existing users
The City seeks to revise the development code in a two-step process. Phase one is focused
on the North Seventh Avenue corridor and urban renewal/tax increment district (TIF). Phase
two expands the focus to the entire City.
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Table 38.40.040, BMC lists notice requirements for all types of applications.
390
15-320, Staff Report for the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review Text Amendment
Page 7 of 7
The notice was submitted Thursday, March 17, 2016 for publication as a legal ad on Sunday,
March 20 and 27, 2016. Notice of the public workshops and hearings were posted City’s
website.
Notice was provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to the Zoning Commission
on Tuesday, April 5, 2016 and City Commission public hearing on Monday, April 11, 2016.
Notice of all workshops and hearings were mailed to all property owners and businesses
within the boundaries of the proposed district and within 500 feet of the exterior boundary of
the district on Friday, March 18, 2016 via first class US mail.
As this Text Amendment applies to the entire corporate limits of Bozeman as it exists now
and evolves over time through annexation, and it applies to all properties, there is no
requirement for posting specific properties.
No public comment has been received as of the writing of this report.
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Applicant: City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771
Representative: Department of Community Development
Report By: Tom Rogers, AICP; Senior Planner
FISCAL EFFECTS
No fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this text
amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
391
Page 1 of 20
ORDINANCE NO. 1945
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA AMENDING ARTICLE 2.05, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BY
REVISING SECTION 2.05.2900 TO ALTER HOW THE WETLANDS REVIEW BOARD
IS CREATED AND DISSOLVED, SECTION 2.05.2910 TO REVISE TERMS, SECTION
2.05.2920 TO REVISE WETLAND REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURES; AND CHAPTER
38, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, BMC BY REVISING SECTION 38.20.040
TO REVISE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE
WETLAND REVIEW BOARD, SECTION 38.30.040 TO REMOVE REFERENCE TO
THE BOZEMAN AREA WETLANDS MAP, SECTION 38.30.060 TO REMOVE
REFERENCES TO THE WETLAND REVIEW BOARD AND CLARIFY PERMISSIBLE
ACTIVITIES, SECTION 38.30.080 TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO WETLAND
REVIEW BOARD, SECTION 38.30.090 TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO WETLAND
REVIEW BOARD, SECTION 38.33.010 TO REVISE REFERENCES, AND SECTION
38.34.010 TO REMOVE REFERNCES TO SPECIFIC ADVISORY BODIES.
WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and
Montana law to adopt land development and use standards to protect public health, safety and
welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of Section 76-2-304, MCA ; and
WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman has determined that an alternative structure for
review of applications related to wetlands is beneficial; and
WHEREAS, It is necessary for ordinance to support daily practice of development
review;
392
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 2 of 20
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
Section 1
Legislative Findings:
1. The City has been unable to obtain the necessary number of qualified persons to serve as
members of the Wetland Review Board.
2. The City must be able to effectively apply the adopted standards related to wetlands.
3. An alternative option to meet the responsibilities of the Wetland Review Board is to
contract for necessary professional services to perform the required review.
4. It is appropriate to retain the structure of the Wetland Review Board as a portion of the
municipal code so that it may be reconstituted at a future time when deemed appropriate
by the City Commission.
5. Some minor clarifications in the language regarding wetlands are prudent to accomplish
in association with revisions to the Wetland Review Board.
Section 2
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 2.05.2900 to read
as follows:
Sec. 2.05.2900. - Established—Powers and duties.
A. The city commission may establish by resolution a wetlands review board (WRB). The
WRB is established to review wetland related submittal materials, prepare functional
assessments of regulated wetlands that may be impacted by proposed regulated activities, evaluate the impacts proposed regulated activities may have on delineated wetlands and to
provide wetlands protection, mitigation and/or enhancement recommendations regarding
such proposals review authority established by 38.34.010, subject to the provisions of
chapter 38.
B. If established, the WRB shall act as an advisory body to the review authority for proposals that include alteration of wetlands including sketch and site plans, conditional use permits,
planned unit developments, subdivisions, divisions of land and other actions as requested by
the city review authority.
C. The city commission may by resolution dissolve a previously constituted WRB and in doing
so assign all authority and responsibility of the WRB and any pending applications to the review authority.
393
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 3 of 20
Section 3
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 2.05.2910 to read
as follows:
Sec. 2.05.2910. - Composition.
A. If established, the The WRB shall consist of six members appointed to staggered terms of. An appointment to a term of service on the WRB is for two years. Members shall be degreed
in their respective disciplines and/or otherwise licensed or certified by their respective
professional authorities. Members shall have experience in at least one of the following
wetland and/or stream specializations: ecology, soils, botany, and/or hydrology.
B. In selecting the members, the city commission shall give preference to residents of the city. However, where a qualified resident is not available to serve, the city commission may
appoint a member who practices professionally, owns property or owns a business within
the city.
Section 4
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 2.05.2920 to read
as follows:
Sec. 2.05.2920. - Procedures.
If established, the The WRB will be convened as necessary determined by the planning
director to review proposals that involve regulated activities and that may impact regulated
wetlands based on the provisions contained in article 30 of chapter 38. To implement this
purpose, certain procedures shall be adopted to include, but not be limited to, scheduling
meetings as needed to be attended by members of the WRB. Written meeting reviews
setting forth decisions and findings shall be made. These records shall be preserved as part
of the official proceedings for each development proposal. Lastly, t The WRB shall
generally follow "Robert's Rules of Order" and may prepare and adopt supplemental
procedural rules, upon the approval of the city commission, that will ensure the
accomplishment of the stated purpose and promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the
wetland review process.
Section 5
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.20.040 to read
as follows:
394
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 4 of 20
Sec. 38.20.040. - Planned unit development review procedures and criteria.
A. When a subdivision is proposed in conjunction with a zoning planned unit development, the subdivision review shall be coordinated with the zoning review. All steps listed in this section shall apply whether the application is for a subdivision or zoning PUD, and reference
to plan includes plat unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Approval of a planned
unit development shall consist of three procedural steps: preapplication, preliminary plan
and final plan. All subdivision PUDs shall also meet all standards for plats.
1. Preapplication review.
a. A preapplication review is mandatory for all planned unit development proposals.
b. A preapplication shall be submitted for review and discussion with the DRC, DRB,
and if applicable the WRB and planning staff of the applicant's proposal and any
requirements, standards or policies that may apply. This step represents an opportunity to identify any major problems that may exist and identify solutions to those problems before formal application.
c. Preapplication review procedures. Preapplication review meetings will be held by
the DRC and, DRB and WRB (if applicable) and will provide guidance for planned
unit development applications. The general outline of the planned unit development proposal, presented as graphic sketch plans, shall be submitted by the applicant to the planning department at least ten days prior to the meeting of the review bodies.
The outline shall be reviewed by the DRC and, DRB and WRB (if applicable).
Thereafter, the planning department shall furnish the applicant with written
comments regarding such submittal, including appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the applicant prior to preparing the components of the planned unit development preliminary plan application.
2. Preliminary plan review. Sufficient information shall be submitted to permit review of
the land use relationships, densities and the type, size and location of the principal
design elements of the planned unit development by the advisory bodies and review authority. For a planned unit development that will be developed in phases, the developer must submit either a preliminary plan for all phases, or else submit a
preliminary plan for the initial phase or phases and development guidelines for all
subsequent phases. Submittal requirements are in addition to those required for site plan
and conditional use permit review.
a. Application process. Upon completion of preapplication review and receipt of the planning department's comments on the preapplication, an application for
preliminary plan approval may be filed with the planning department.
b. Public hearings and meetings. Notice of public hearings and/or public meetings for
any preliminary plan application shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter.
c. Review criteria. In order to approve an application for a planned unit development
the city commission shall determine that the application is in conformance with all
395
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 5 of 20
applicable standards, objectives and criteria of this chapter unless an appropriate
deviation is granted.
d. Recommendations. The DRC and, DRB and WRB (if applicable) shall recommend the approval, conditional approval or denial of the preliminary plan to the review
authority and shall include in such recommendation the basis upon which such
recommendation was determined.
e. Preliminary plan approval. The city commission, after conducting a public hearing, may approve, disapprove or approve with conditions the proposed planned unit development. The city commission shall issue a written record of their decision to
discuss and weigh the review criteria and standards applicable to the PUD.
3. Final plan review and approval. The final plan must be in compliance with the approved
preliminary plan and/or development guidelines except as provided for in subsection 3.d of this section, and shall be reviewed DRC and ADR staff and approved by the review authority.
a. Application process. Upon approval or conditional approval of a preliminary plan
and the completion of any conditions imposed in connection with that approval, an
application for final plan approval may be submitted.
b. Review criteria; compliance with preliminary plan. For approval to be granted, the final plan shall be in compliance with the approved preliminary plan. This shall
mean that all conditions imposed by the city commission as part of its approval of
the preliminary plan have been met and:
(1) The final plan does not change the general use or character of the development;
(2) The final plan does not increase the amount of improved gross leasable nonresidential floor space by more than five percent, does not increase the
number of residential dwelling units by more than five percent and does not
exceed the amount of any density bonus approved with the preliminary plan;
(3) The final plan does not decrease the open space and/or affordable housing provided;
(4) The final plan does not contain changes that do not conform to the
requirements of this chapter, excluding properly granted deviations, the
applicable objectives and criteria of 38.20.100, or other objectives or criteria of
this chapter. The final plan shall not contain any changes which would allowed increased deviation/relaxation of the requirements of this chapter; and
(5) The final plat, if applicable, does not create any additional lots which were not
reviewed as part of the preliminary plan submittal.
c. Final plan approval. The final plan may be approved if it conforms to the approved
preliminary plan in the manner described above. Prior to final plan approval, the review authority may request a recommendation from the DRC, ADR staff, DRB,
WRB or other entity regarding any part of a proposed final plan. If a final plat is
396
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 6 of 20
part of the final plan submittal, the review authority per 38.34.010 shall have
responsibility to approve the final plat.
(1) Final plats associated with a PUD shall be subject to the requirements of 38.03.060 and 38.41.070.
d. Amendments to final plan. Building permits and other development approvals shall
be issued on the basis of the approved final plan and any conditions of approval.
No city administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan with the exception of the following:
(1) Minor changes.
(a) Minor changes to a planned unit development may be approved
administratively and in writing whereupon a permit may be issued. Such changes may be authorized without additional public notice at the discretion of the review authority. This provision shall not prohibit the
review authority from requesting a recommendation from the DRB, DRC,
ADR staff, WRB or other entity.
(b) Minor changes shall be defined as follows:
(i) Those developments that do not change the character of the development;
(ii) An increase of less than five percent in the approved number of
residential dwelling units;
(iii) An increase of less than five percent in the approved gross leasable floor areas of retail, service, office and/or industrial buildings;
(iv) A change in building location or placement less than 20 percent of the
building width without compromising requirements of the UDO;
(v) An increase in the number of lots less than two percent without
increasing the density by more than five percent. This is applicable only to zoning PUD plans, not subdivision PUD plats;
(vi) The final plan shall not contain any changes which would allow
increased deviation/relaxation of the requirements of this chapter;
and/or
(vii) The final plat, if applicable, does not create any additional lots which were not reviewed as part of the preliminary plan submittal.
(c) When a planned unit development has been prepared in sufficient detail to
address the concerns of article 19 of this chapter including but not limited
to general building envelopes, design character of buildings, and
landscaping for some or all of the parcels within its boundaries the final site development plans may be reviewed as an amendment to the PUD
397
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 7 of 20
final plan. The intention to use this provision must be part of the initial
submittal and review of the PUD.
(2) Major changes.
(a) Major changes to a planned unit development must follow the same
planned unit development review and public notice and comment process
required for approval of preliminary plans. The final plan shall not contain
any changes which would allow increased deviation/relaxation of the requirements of this chapter without being individually noticed and reviewed for the proposed change.
(b) Major changes shall be defined as follows:
(i) A change in the character of the development;
(ii) An increase of greater than five percent in the approved number of residential dwelling units;
(iii) An increase of greater than five percent in the approved gross leasable
floor areas of retail, service, office and/or industrial buildings;
(iv) A reduction in the approved open space and/or affordable housing
units provided;
(v) A change in the location and placement of buildings; and/or
(vi) An increase in the number of lots above what was approved through
the preliminary plan review. This is applicable only to zoning PUD
plans, not subdivision PUD plats. The final plat, if applicable, may
not create any additional lots which were not reviewed as part of the preliminary plan submittal.
Section 6
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.30.040 to read
as follows:
Sec. 38.30.040. - Wetlands review board powers and duties.
A. If established, the WRB shall have the powers and duties established in 2.05.2900 when a
WRB has been established per 2.05.2900.
Section 7
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.30.050 to read
as follows:
Sec. 38.30.050. - Wetlands mapping determinations.
398
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 8 of 20
A. The Bozeman Area Wetlands Map shall be adopted by resolution and shall, in addition to
the submittal materials of section 38.41.130, be used to implement this article.
AB. The Bozeman Area Wetlands Map may be amended by resolution by means of the performance of a wetland boundary determination. Wetland boundary determinations shall
be performed in accordance with the procedures specified in the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (January 1987).
B. An electronic and printed document CD-ROM containing the wetland boundary determination and raw survey data (if applicable) shall be provided per Article 38.41.for use in amending the Bozeman Area Wetland Map. The data shall be reported in UTM Zone 12
coordinates and NAD83 datum.
C. Prior to annexation, wetland boundary determinations and functional assessments shall be
prepared for all wetlands on the property to be annexed.
Section 8
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.30.060, to
read as follows:
Sec. 38.30.060. - Regulated activities.
A. No person shall conduct any of the following regulated activities within a regulated wetland
area, as described in 38.30.030, without first having the proposed activity reviewed by the
WRB and approved by the review authorities authority established in article 34 as appropriate. Any activity in a regulated area which reduces the size of a wetland or reduces the degree to which a wetland performs any function is subject to the requirements of this
article. Such activities including include but are not limited to:
1. Placement of any material, including without limitation any soil, sand, gravel, mineral,
aggregate, organic material or water;
2. Construction, installation or placement of any obstruction or the erection of a building, trail, boardwalk or other structure;
3. Removal, excavation or dredging of solid material of any kind, including without
limitation any soil, sand, gravel, mineral, aggregate or organic material;
4. Removal of any existing vegetation or any activity which will cause any loss of vegetation in a wetland;
5. Alteration of the water level or water table by any means, including without limitation
draining, ditching, trenching, impounding or pumping; and
6. Disturbance of existing surface drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, flow
patterns, or flood retention characteristics by any means, including without limitation grading and alteration of existing topography.
B. The following activities are permissible in a wetland area, without review by the WRB and
prior approval by the city review authority, if the such activities activity does not reduce the
399
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 9 of 20
size of a wetland or significantly reduce the degree to which a wetland performs any
function. Such activity must be and in compliance with any other applicable state or federal law. Activities permissible without prior approval include:
1. Maintenance of an existing and lawful public or private road, structure or facility,
including but not limited to drainage facilities, water conveyance structures, dams,
fences or trails, or any facility used to provide transportation, electric, gas, water,
telephone, telecommunications or other services provided that these activities do not materially change or enlarge any road, structure or facility;
2. Maintenance of an existing farm or stock pond, water conveyance structure irrigation
ditch, agricultural fence or drainage system;
3. Weed control consistent with a Noxious Weed Management and Revegetation Plan
approved by the county weed control district;
4. Continuation of existing agricultural practices such as the cultivation and harvesting of hay or pasturing of livestock, or change of agricultural practices which has no greater
impact on wetland function;
5. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish and other wildlife;
6. Outdoor recreational activities, such as fishing, bird watching, hiking, rafting and swimming which do not harm or disturb the wetland;
7. The harvesting of wild crops;
8. Education and scientific research;
9. Minor improvements and landscape maintenance outside a wetland but within a
required previously established wetland buffer but outside the boundaries of a delineated wetland, including but not limited to the pruning of trees, mowing of grass, and removal of dead vegetation and debris; and
10. Activities in a wetland previously approved pursuant a wetland permit set forth in
section 38.30.090, including but not limited to removal of debris and maintenance of
vegetation and wildlife habitat.
Section 9
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.30.070, to
read as follows:
Sec. 38.30.070. - Application requirements and procedures for regulated activities in regulated
wetland areas.
A. Review. All proposals for regulated activities in regulated wetlands areas shall be reviewed
by the review authority WRB. The applicant shall prepare a functional assessment for all
reviewed regulated wetlands areas. Based on the prepared functional assessment and other submittal materials, the review authority may request the WRB, if established, shall forward
400
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 10 of 20
a recommendation of approval, conditional approval or denial to the review authority as
established in article 34.
B. Approval Decision. All proposals for regulated activities in regulated wetland areas shall be reviewed and approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the city review authority in
accordance with articles 3, 4, 19 and 20 of this chapter prior to commencement of the
regulated activity.
1. If a regulated activity is proposed for a regulated wetland area, but the regulated activity is not proposed in conjunction with a land development proposal, the applicant shall submit a sketch plan application for review and recommendation decision by the review
authority WRB, and review and approval by the review authority as established in
article 34.
C. Submittal materials. The information required in 38.41.130 shall be submitted for all regulated activities proposed for regulated wetland areas.
D. Noticing. The review of regulated activities proposed for regulated wetland areas shall
comply with the noticing requirements of article 40 of this chapter.
Section 10
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.30.080, to
read as follows:
Sec. 38.30.080. - Review standards.
A. The city review authority may approve, conditionally approve or deny a regulated activity in a regulated wetland area based on a recommendation from the WRB, and if:
1. The applicant has demonstrated that all adverse impacts on a wetland have been
avoided; or
2. The applicant has demonstrated that any adverse impact on a wetland has been minimized; the activity will result in minimal impact or impairment to any wetland function and the activity will not result in an adverse modification of habitats for, or
jeopardize the continued existence of, the following:
a. Plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and/or
b. Plant, animal or other wildlife species listed as a species of concern, species of potential concern, or species on review by the state department of fish, wildlife and
parks and the state natural heritage program; or
3. The applicant has demonstrated that the project is in the public interest, having
considered and documented:
a. The extent of the public need for the proposed regulated activity;
b. The functions and values as determined by a state accepted method of functional
assessment of the wetland that may be affected by the proposed regulated activity;
401
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 11 of 20
c. The extent and permanence of the adverse effects of the regulated activity on the
wetland and any associated watercourse;
d. The cumulative adverse effects of past activities on the wetland; and
e. The uniqueness or scarcity of the wetland that may be affected.
Section 11
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.30.090 to read
as follows:
Sec. 38.30.090. - Wetland permit conditions.
A. The review authority WRB may recommend conditions of approval for proposed regulated activities, and the city may conditionally approve proposed regulated activities, subject to the following conditions:
1. Requiring the provision of a wetland buffer of a size appropriate for the particular
proposed activity and the particular regulated wetland area;
2. Requiring that structures be appropriately supported and elevated and otherwise protected against natural hazards;
3. Modifying waste disposal and water supply facilities;
4. Requiring deed restrictions or covenants regarding the future use and subdivision of
lands, including but not limited to the preservation of undeveloped areas as open space
and restrictions on vegetation removal;
5. Restricting the use of an area, which may be greater than the regulated wetland area;
6. Requiring erosion control and stormwater management measures;
7. Clustering structures or development;
8. Restricting fill, deposit of soil and other activities which may be detrimental to a
wetland;
9. Modifying the project design to ensure continued water supply to the regulated wetland; and
10. Requiring or restricting maintenance of a regulated wetland area for the purpose of
maintaining wetland functions.
11. A yearly mitigation monitoring report to be submitted to the review authority WRB on a yearly basis, with the due date to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
12. A deed restriction to be filed with the county clerk stating the measures that will be
taken to protect all water resources, mitigation, and buffer areas in perpetuity.
13. That all reasonable effort has been made to limit indirect impacts to vegetation, faunal
interspersion and connectivity, and hydrological connectivity in the site design (e.g., any structures, boardwalks, viewing platforms, or bridges, which are constructed within
402
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 12 of 20
wetlands will have at least a two-foot space between the bottom chord of the structure
and the wetland surface elevation to limit shading impacts and allow wetland vegetation to persist).
14. The review authority WRB may recommend conditions to mitigate for locally-regulated
(wetlands not connected to a water of the U.S.) infringement upon watercourses,
buffers, or negative indirect or direct effects on the functionality of wetlands,
watercourses or buffers.
Section 12
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.33.010 to read
as follows:
Sec. 38.33.010. - Purpose of DRC, DRB, ADR, WRB, and BOA.
A. Purpose. The development review committee (DRC), design review board (DRB),
administrative design review staff (ADR) and wetlands review board (WRB), if established,
have been established to coordinate, expedite and ensure fair and equitable implementation
of this chapter. The objective, to be implemented through their procedures and deliberations,
shall be to encourage development quality that will enhance both the natural and built environments, with consideration to present and future property values, and to carry out the
purposes of this chapter. All bodies authorized or referenced under this article may call upon
any city staff or other persons with technical expertise, and may testify before any board,
commission or other body upon the subjects for which they have responsibility.
1. DRC. The DRC is established to evaluate all proposals subject to the provisions of this chapter. The DRC is the body charged with reviewing items relating to public health
and safety. The DRC shall act as an advisory body to the review authority established
by 38.34.010 for site plans, conditional use permits, planned unit developments,
divisions of land, zone map amendments, annexations and other actions as requested by
review authority.
2. DRB. The DRB has the duties and responsibilities established by 2.05.3000.
3. ADR. The ADR staff is established as the review body for aesthetic considerations of
smaller and less complex proposals which are less likely to produce significant
community impact and to provide recommendations regarding such proposals to the
review authority established by 38.34.010, subject to the provisions of this chapter.
a. The ADR staff shall act as an advisory body to the review authority regarding
reuse/further development permits within overlay districts; and
b. The ADR staff shall act as an advisory body to the review authority regarding all
sketch plans and site plans not meeting one or more of the thresholds 38.19.040.B,
for conditional use permits for accessory dwelling units, conditional use permits where no additional building area will be created, and nonPUD divisions of land;
c. The ADR may develop, and after adoption by the city commission, apply specific
guidelines related to such concerns as architectural appearance, landscape design
and signage for the construction and/or alteration of structures, sites or areas; and
403
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 13 of 20
d. The ADR may review applicable development proposal applications for zoning
amendments, or applications for moving, demolition or any other kind of permit that may affect properties located within entryway corridors.
4. WRB. The WRB, if established, has the duties and responsibilities established by
2.05.2900 when a WRB has been established.
5. BOA. The BOA, if established, has the duties and responsibilities established by
2.05.2810 when a BOA has been established.
B. Development review committee procedures established. To implement this purpose, certain procedures shall be adopted to include, but not be limited to, a regularly scheduled weekly
or biweekly meeting attended by representatives of each of the city departments charged
with development review. Each department shall have the ability and authority to require the
DRC to make a recommendation of denial when in their view the project cannot meet the requirements and review criteria of this chapter and acceptable conditions do not exist to cure the identified failings of the project. Written meeting reviews, in the form of staff
reports or summary reviews prepared by the planning department, shall be made setting
forth the DRC's recommendation to the review authorities established in article 34 and
reasons for requiring such conditions as may be deemed necessary by the DRC. These records shall be preserved as part of the official file for each development proposal. Lastly, the DRC shall generally follow "Robert's Rules of Order" and may prepare and adopt
supplemental procedural rules that will ensure the accomplishment of the stated purpose and
promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the developmental review process.
1. The DRC shall at a minimum be composed of the following personnel: city engineer, fire marshal, the streets superintendent, the sanitation superintendent, the water/sewer superintendent, the planning director and the building official. When necessary, other
members of the committee may include: the director of public safety, the superintendent
of facilities and public lands, the superintendent of recreation, the city manager, with
other individuals to be included as necessary at the planning director's request.
2. When applicable, the DRC may solicit the input of noncity agencies and persons
including, but not limited to, the county subdivision review officer, the county
sanitarian, the county road superintendent, and state or federal agencies, with other
individuals to be included as necessary.
C. Design review board procedures established. The DRB will be convened as necessary and shall follow procedures as set forth in 2.05.3020.
D. Administrative design review staff procedures established. To implement the purposes of
this chapter, procedures shall be adopted for the administrative evaluation of a proposal
without public notice or comment, unless a deviation from the underlying zoning is
requested. After a proposal has been evaluated by the ADR staff, they shall issue a written decision that shall include findings and may include a notice of required corrections. The
ADR staff may call a conference with the applicant to determine design alternatives, or the
applicant may call a conference with the ADR staff for the same purpose. Any such
conference shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposal.
404
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 14 of 20
1. ADR staff shall consist of two planning department staff members. One member shall
be degreed or otherwise licensed or certified by such member's respective professional authorities in an environmental design discipline such as architecture, landscape architecture or urban design. The second member shall be the planning director who
may or may not be degreed in architecture. In the event that necessary ADR staff is not
available, the DRB may act to provide design review services.
E. Waiver of design review. In the event that neither the DRB nor the ADR staff are able to complete a quorum or have the necessary personnel to conduct the reviews otherwise required by this chapter, the requirement for review by DRB or ADR is waived. Nothing in
this section shall constitute a waiver of the required review criteria established in articles 16,
17, 20, and 30 of this chapter.
F. Wetlands review board procedures. The WRB will be convened as necessary and shall follow procedures as set forth in 2.05.2920 when a WRB has been established.
G. Board of adjustment procedures established. The BOA will be convened as necessary and
shall follow procedures as set forth in 2.05.2830 when a BOA has been established.
Section 13
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.34.010 to read
as follows:
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;
405
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 15 of 20
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 advisory bodies 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;
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;
406
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 16 of 20
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.
C. When a board of adjustment has been appointed per section 2.05.2800, the board of adjustment shall, upon recommendation from the DRC, DRB, ADR, WRB or other advisory
body as may be applicable advisory bodies approve, approve with conditions or deny those
applications specifically delegated to it by the city commission. Decisions of the BOA are
subject to the appeal provisions of article 35 of this chapter.
1. Exception. The city commission may, by an affirmative vote of three of its members at a regularly scheduled meeting reclaim to itself the final approval of a development
normally subject to the approval of the board of adjustment. The vote shall occur prior
to the action of the board of adjustment.
D. The city engineer shall review and upon recommendation from the DRC, DRB, ADR or WRB or other advisory body applicable advisory bodies as needed approve, approve with conditions or deny the following site elements and processes:
1. Site access and storm water for reuse and further development per section 38.19.140.B;
2. Location of storm water facilities within neighborhood centers per 38.23.020;
3. Allow the placement of private utility easements within public rights-of-way owned or controlled by the city.
4. The maximum length of dead end water mains per 38.23.070;
5. The maximum length of service lines per 38.23.070;
6. Exceptions to storm water controls per 38.23.080;
7. All modifications or proposed standards in 38.24.010 except 38.24.010.A.1;
8. Approve plans and specifications for public infrastructure and infrastructure to be
granted to the public per 38.24.060.A and B.1-3;
9. Allow alternate curb return radii per 38.24.090.C.2.e;
10. Approve locations and modifications to drive accesses to public streets per 38.24.090.G
and H;
11. Approve street improvement standards per 38.24.060;
12. Backing into alleys, parking stall aisle and driveway design for surfacing and curbing
per 38.25.020.D, F and J;
13. Protection of landscaped area per 38.26.050.H;
14. All actions required of the flood plain administrator per article 31;
407
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 17 of 20
15. Approve modifications in required completion time for subdivision improvements per
38.39.030.B.1;
16. Permit the use of a financial guarantee for paving of streets per 38.39.060.B;
17. Allow waiver of required information per 38.41.080.A.2.i(3).
18. Require preparation of a traffic impact analysis and determine its contents per
38.41.120.A.2.c(5).
19. Establish specifications for paving of streets and parking areas; and
20. Designate street classifications for collectors and arterials not shown in the long range transportation plan.
21. Allow alternate parking angles for surface and structured parking stall configurations
listed in Table 38.25.020. All other numeric standards apply.
E. The director of public service shall review and upon recommendation from the DRC, DRB, ADR or WRB or other advisory body applicable advisory bodies as needed approve, approve with conditions or deny the following development elements and processes:
1. A waiver of the requirement to extend water, sewer, and streets to the perimeter of
property being developed per section 38.23.070;
2. Water rights as authorized in 38.23.180;
3. Exceptions to the level of service standards established in 38.24.060.B.4.
F. The director of parks and recreation shall determine the classification of trails per
38.27.110.D.
G. As detailed in article 33 of this chapter, the city commission authorizes the DRC, DRB,
WRB, or ADR staff, and other advisory bodies as applicable, to review and to make recommendations to the review authority regarding development proposals.
H. The city commission or its designated representatives may require the applicant to design
the proposed development to reasonably minimize potentially significant adverse impacts
identified through the review required by these regulations. The city commission or its
designated representatives may not unreasonably restrict a landowner's ability to develop land, but it is recognized that in some instances the unmitigated impacts of a proposed
development may be unacceptable and will preclude approval of the development as
submitted. Recognizing that the standards of this chapter are minimum requirements and the
public health, safety, and general welfare may be best served by exceeding those minimums,
the city commission or planning director may require as a condition of approval, additional landscaping, screening, timing requirements, setbacks or other mitigation exceeding the
minimums of this chapter.
408
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 18 of 20
Section 14
Repealer.
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances
of the City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 15
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. All other
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 16
Severability.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect
the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman
Municipal Code as a whole.
Section 17
Codification.
This Ordinance shall be codified as indicated in Sections 2 – 13.
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
409
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 19 of 20
PROVISIONALLY ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, on first reading at a regular session held on the __________ day of ___________
2016.
____________________________________
CARSON TAYLOR Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC City Clerk
410
Ordinance No. 1945, Revisions to Procedures for Wetlands Review Board
Page 20 of 20
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the ___ of
____________________, 2016. The effective date of this ordinance is _____, __________,
2016.
_________________________________
CARSON TAYLOR
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney
411
Page 1 of 17
ORDINANCE NO. 1944
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA AMENDING CHAPTER 38, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE,
BMC BY REVISING SECTION 38.19.050 TO REVISE STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE
OF A BUILDING PERMIT, SECTION 38.19.090 TO REVISE PLAN REVIEW
PROCEDURES, SECTION 38.19.100 TO REVISE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA,
SECTION 38.19.110 TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS, SECTION 38.19.120 TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL OF
A FINAL PLAN, SECTION 38.33.010 TO REVISE PROCEDURES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, TO DELETE SECTION 38.33.020
GENERAL PROCEDURES NOTICE AND TIMING.
WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and
Montana law to adopt land development and use standards to protect public health, safety and
welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of Section 76-2-304, MCA ; and
WHEREAS, The process by which applications are reviewed is a matter of substantial
public concern; and
WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman constantly strives to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of it development review process;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
412
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 2 of 17
Section 1
Legislative Findings:
1. The City relies upon the site development review procedures within Chapter 38, BMC to
enable the development of the City in a manner which avoids conflicts between land
uses, enables public notice of and comment on development which may affect residents
and land owners, and provide predictability in government actions.
2. The proposed revisions improve the site development review procedures for both
applicants and the City.
3. Early consultation during the development preparation process reduces
misunderstandings, increases plan conformance, reduces required revisions with
associated costs to applicants, and provides a more transparent review process by
reducing plan revisions after submittal of applications.
Section 2
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Section 38.19.050 I to read
as follows with all other portions of the section remaining unchanged:
Sec. 38.19.050. - Application of plan review procedures.
B. The preliminary plan shall be submitted and approved, and final plan approval received, A
plan must be approved by the review authority prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Section 3
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.19.090 to read
as follows:
Sec. 38.19.090. - Plan review procedures.
A. Step 1: Conceptual Review/Informal Review
1. Conceptual Review (Required):
a. Purpose. Conceptual review is an opportunity for an applicant to discuss requirements,
standards and procedures that apply to his or her development proposal. Major
problems can be identified and solved during conceptual review before a formal
application is made. Conceptual review applications are reviewed by the Development
Review Committee and comments are provided in writing to the applicant following the
413
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 3 of 17
review. The primary focus of conceptual review is to identify site specific challenges
and/or constraints critical path elements which will affect review process or submittal
requirements.
b. Applicability. Conceptual review is required for development subject to 38.19.050.
Conceptual review may be waived by the planning director for development proposals
that would not derive substantial benefit from such review.
c. Concept Plan Submittal. An applicant must submit the application materials required by
the planning director as provided in the conceptual review checklist.
d. Staff Review and Recommendation. Upon receipt of a concept plan, and after review of
such plan by the DRC and a subsequent meeting with the applicant, the planning
director shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding such plan,
including appropriate recommendations to inform and assist the applicant prior to
preparing the components of the formal development application.
e. Formal application must address the comments provided with the conceptual review.
B. Informal Review (Optional):
1. Purpose. Informal review is an opportunity for an applicant to discuss the requirements,
standards, procedures, and potential modifications of standards or variances that may be
necessary for a development project. While the conceptual review process is a general
consideration of the development proposal, informal review provides an opportunity for
the applicant to have the city consider the development proposal in greater detail prior
to formal submittal of an application. Problems of both a major and minor nature can be
identified during the informal review before a formal application is made.
Informal review applications are reviewed by the DRC, DRB, recreation and parks
advisory board, or other applicable advisory boards The city may invite other public or
quasi-public agencies which may be impacted by the development to comment and/or
attend the informal review meeting. These agencies may include the gas and electric
utilities, state agencies, ditch companies, railroads, cable television service providers
and other similar agencies.
2. Applicability. Although an informal review is not required, an applicant may request
informal review for any development proposal. A request for informal review is made
by filing an application with accompanying fee.
3. Informal Review Submittal. In conjunction with an informal review, the applicant must
submit all documents required in the informal review checklist.
4. Staff Review and Recommendation. Upon receipt of a complete informal review
proposal, and after review of such proposal by the DRC or other applicable advisory
board, the planning director shall furnish the applicant with written comments and
recommendations regarding such proposal. In conjunction with the foregoing, the
414
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 4 of 17
planning director shall provide the applicant with a list of critical issues which have
been identified in the informal review and which must be resolved prior to or during the
review process of the formal development application. The list of critical issues will
provide applicants the opinion of the planning director regarding the development
proposal, as that opinion is established based upon the facts presented during informal
review. Formal application must address the comments provided with the informal
review.
C. Step 2 Development Application Submittal
1. Development Application Forms. All development applications shall be in a form established by the planning director.
2. Fees. All fees established in the adopted fee schedule must be paid prior to the review
authority commencing review of the application.
D. Step 3 Review of Applications.
Acceptability and adequacy of application.
1. The planning department shall review the application for acceptability within five
working days to determine if the application is does not omit any of the submittal
elements required by this chapter. If the application does not contain all of the required elements, the application, review fee and a written explanation of what the application is missing shall be returned to the property owner or their representative. The five
working day review period will be considered met if the letter is dated, signed and
placed in the outgoing mail within the five-day review period.
2. After the application is deemed to contain the required elements and to be acceptable, it shall be reviewed for adequacy. A determination of adequacy means the application contains all of the required elements in sufficient detail and accuracy to enable the
applicable review agency review authority to make a determination that the application
either does or does not conform to the requirements of this chapter and any other
applicable regulations under the jurisdiction of the City of Bozeman city. The review for adequacy shall be conducted by the appropriate agency with expertise in the subject matter. The adequacy review period shall begin on the next working day after the date
that the planning department determines the application to contain all the required
elements and shall be completed within not more than 15 working days. The 15
working day review period will be considered met if the letter is dated, signed and placed in the outgoing mail within the 15 working day review period. If the application is inadequate, a written explanation of why the application is inadequate will be
returned to the property owner. Upon a determination of adequacy the review of the
development will be scheduled.
a. In the event the missing information is not received by the city within 15 working days of notification to the property owner and applicant of inadequacy, all
415
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 5 of 17
application materials and one-half of the review fee shall be returned to the
property owner or their representative. Subsequent resubmittal shall require payment of a review fee as if it were a new application.
b. A determination that an application is adequate does not restrict the city from
requesting additional information during the site plan review process.
3. Should the property owner choose not to provide the required information after an
application has been found unacceptable, nor to accept return of the application and accompanying fee, the application may be processed by the city with the recognition by the property owner that unacceptability is an adequate basis for denial of the application
regardless of other merit of the application.
4. The DRC may grant reasonable waivers from submittal of application materials
required by these regulations where it is found that these regulations allow a waiver to be requested and granted. In order to be granted a waiver the applicant shall include with the submission of the preliminary plan a written statement describing the requested
waiver and the reasons upon which the request is based. The final approval body shall
then consider each waiver at the time the preliminary site plan is reviewed. All waivers
must be identified not later than initial submittal of the preliminary site plan stage of review.
If in the opinion of the final approval authority the waived materials are necessary for
proper review of the development, the materials shall be provided before review is
completed.
E B. Plans shall be reviewed by the review bodies established by article 33 of this chapter and according to the procedures established by this chapter. Prior to a recommendation of approval by the DRC, the DRC shall make a determination that the application does
conform to the requirements of this chapter. After review of the applicable submittal
materials required by article 41 of this chapter, and upon recommendation by the appropriate
advisory bodies, the review authority shall act to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, subject to the appeal provisions of article 35 of this chapter. The basis for
the review authority's action shall be whether the application, including any required
conditions, complies with all the applicable standards and requirements of this chapter,
including section 38.01.050.
1. Plan. The review authority shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment upon development proposals. The duration of the initial comment period shall be as required
by article 40 of this chapter and included in any notice. required by article 39 of this
chapter. The comment period shall be from the date of the first consideration of the
complete preliminary plan and supplementary materials by the DRC until 5:00 pm on
the third working day after DRC and other review bodies as may be appropriate have taken action regarding the proposal.
a. The review authority after receiving the recommendations of the advisory bodies
and considering any public comment shall act to approve, approve with conditions
or deny an application within ten working days of the close of the public comment
416
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 6 of 17
period. The decision shall be in writing and shall include any special conditions
which are to be applied to the development.
(1) After formal notice of a project review has been given, interested parties may request in writing to receive a copy of the decision regarding an application.
Persons making such a request shall provide an addressed envelope for use in
delivering their copy of the decision.
2. Plan with deviations or variances or conditional use permits. The review authority shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment upon a proposed plan. The notice shall be as required by article 40 of this chapter.
a. The review authority, after receiving the recommendations of the advisory bodies
and considering any public comment shall act to approve, approve with conditions
or deny an application. The decision shall be in writing and shall include any special conditions which are to be applied to the development.
3. Phasing. The entitlement period for which a final plan is valid is specified in section
38.19.120. Preliminary single phase plan applications will only be accepted for
development that can occur under building permits issued within this final plan
approval period.
a. Any development that includes phases or where construction of a buildings that would extend past the final plan approval period shall must proceed under the
master site plan application process with a first phase plan for those portions that
can be constructed under the single phase final plan approval. The master site plan
and first phase site plan may be reviewed concurrently as a single application. Each future project phase must submit a stand-alone site plan application following initial master site plan approval.
b. Each phase of a plan must not include more buildings than will be constructed
within a one-year timeframe. These subsequent site plan applications may be
expedited through the review process if they are consistent with the master site plan. Independent fees will be assessed for each required application.
c. A preliminary site plan application may be received where it is unclear whether the
buildings or units can be constructed under building permits issued within one year
of final site plan approval. In this case, the planning director may request proof of a
construction financing commitment prior to accepting the application for review. Applications, where it is clear that the buildings or units cannot be constructed
under building permits issued within one year of final site plan approval will be
deemed unacceptable for review. Such applications must and directed to proceed
through pursuant to a master site plan with first phase site plan process.
Section 4
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.19.100 to read
as follows:
417
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 7 of 17
Sec. 38.19.100. - Plan review criteria.
A. In considering applications for plan approval under this chapter, the review authority and advisory bodies shall consider the following criteria. When considering the criteria for future phases of a master site plan, other than those for criteria 1—3, the evaluation shall be of a
more generalized demonstration of compliance, recognizing that a subsequent site plan shall
be submitted in the future which shall provide evidence of specific compliance. The level of
detail submitted and the review conducted shall be equal with the level of entitlement being sought with the application. See article 41 of this chapter for required submittal materials.
1. Conformance to and consistency with the city's adopted growth policy.
2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations;
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations;
4. Relationship of plan elements to conditions both on and off the property, including:
a. Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to
architectural design, building mass and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping,
historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration;
b. Design and arrangement of the elements of the plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) so that activities are integrated with the organizational scheme of the community, neighborhood, and other approved
development and produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive
development;
c. Design and arrangement of elements of the plan (e.g., buildings circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with the existing natural topography, natural water bodies and water courses, existing vegetation, and to contribute to the
overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration; and
d. If the proposed project is located within a locally designated historical district, or
includes a locally designated landmark structure, the project is in conformance with the provisions of article 16 of this chapter;
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking
conditions;
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress and circulation, including:
a. Design of the pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems to assure that pedestrians and vehicles can move safely and easily both within the site and between properties and activities within the neighborhood area;
b. Non-automotive transportation and circulation systems design features to enhance
convenience and safety across parking lots and streets, including, but not limited to,
paving patterns, grade differences, landscaping and lighting;
c. Adequate connection and integration of the pedestrian and vehicular transportation systems to the systems in adjacent developments and general community; and
418
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 8 of 17
d. Dedication of right-of-way or easements necessary for streets and similar
transportation facilities;
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural
vegetation;
8. Open space, including:
a. The enhancement of the natural environment;
b. Precautions being taken to preserve existing wildlife habitats or natural wildlife feeding areas;
c. If the development is adjacent to an existing or approved public park or public open
space area, have provisions been made in the plan to avoid interfering with public
access to and use of that area;
d. Is any provided recreational area suitably located and accessible to the residential units it is intended to serve and is adequate screening provided to ensure privacy
and quiet for neighboring residential uses;
e. Open space shall be provided in accordance with article 27 of this chapter;
f. Park land shall be provided in accordance with article 27 of this chapter;
9. Building location and height;
10. Setbacks;
11. Lighting;
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities;
13. Site surface drainage and stormwater control;
14. Loading and unloading areas;
15. Grading;
16. Signage;
17. Screening;
18. Overlay district provisions;
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties; and
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other
means of addressing requirements of this chapter, whether the lots are either:
a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved
configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; or
419
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 9 of 17
b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the
city is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming.
21. Compliance with article 43 8 of chapter 38 10 of this Code; and
22. Phasing of development.
B. If the review authority, after recommendation from the applicable advisory bodies, shall
determines that the proposed plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community, is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, and is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this chapter and the Bozeman growth policy, the review
authority must approve the proposed plan and may require conditions and safeguards that
must be met prior to final approval shall be granted, and such conditions and safeguards may
be imposed as deemed necessary. Notice of action shall be given in writing.
C. Plan approval may be denied upon a determination the application does not meet the criteria of this section. that the conditions required for approval do not exist. Persons objecting to
the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof. A denial of approval shall
be in writing.
D. Following approval of a master site plan, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, sequential individual site plans for specific areas within the master site plan. Each subsequent application for a site plan shall be consistent with the approved master site
plan and subject to the review criteria set forth in subsection A, above. Evidence that the
review criteria have been met through the master site plan review process may be
incorporated by reference in order to eliminate duplication of review.
Section 5
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.19.110
38.08.020 to read as follows:
Sec. 38.19.110. - Conditional use permit.
A. The person applying for a conditional use permit shall fill out and submit to the planning
department the appropriate form with the required fee. The request for a conditional use
permit shall follow the procedures and application requirements of this article.
B. In consideration of all conditional use permit applications, a public hearing shall be conducted by the review authority. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided in
accordance with article 40 of this chapter.
C. If a rezoning is required prior to approval of a conditional use permit, the application for
rezoning and the conditional use permit may be filed and acted upon simultaneously, however the conditional use permit shall not be effective until the rezoning has been implemented by ordinance.
D. The review authority, in approving a conditional use permit, shall review the application
against the review requirements of section 38.19.100.
420
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 10 of 17
E. In addition to the review criteria of section 38.19.100, the review authority shall, in
approving a conditional use permit, determine favorably as follows:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are
adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity;
2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property.
Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof;
3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not
limited to:
a. Regulation of use;
b. Special yards, spaces and buffers;
c. Special fences, solid fences and walls;
d. Surfacing of parking areas;
e. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate
bonds;
f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress;
g. Regulation of signs;
h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds;
i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors;
j. Regulation of hours for certain activities;
k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed;
l. Duration of use;
m. Requiring the dedication of access rights; and
n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an
orderly and efficient manner.
F. In addition to all other conditions, the following general requirements apply to every conditional use permit granted:
1. That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of
all general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit procedure; and
2. That all of the conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use, shall
apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing,
and shall be recorded as such with the county clerk and recorder's office by the property
owner prior to the issuance of any building permits, final plan approval or
commencement of the conditional use.
421
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 11 of 17
G. Applications for conditional use permits may be approved, conditionally approved or denied
by motion of the review authority. If an application is denied, the denial shall constitute a determination that the applicant has not shown that the conditions required for approval do exist.
H. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the final action taken within seven working days
of the action. If the conditional use permit has been granted the notification shall include any
conditions, automatic termination date, period of review or other requirements. If the conditional use permit has been granted, the permit shall be issued upon the signature of the planning director after completion of all conditions and final plan.
I. Termination/revocation of conditional use permit approval.
1. Conditional use permits are approved based on an analysis of current local
circumstances and regulatory requirements. Over time these things may change and the use may no longer be appropriate to a location. A conditional use permit will be considered as terminated and of no further effect if:
a. After having been commenced, the approved use is not actively conducted on the
site for a period of two continuous calendar years;
b. Final zoning approval to reuse the property for another principal or conditional use is granted;
c. The use or development of the site is not begun within the time limits of the final
site plan approval in 38.19.120.
2. A conditional use which has terminated may be reestablished on a site by either, the
review and approval of a new conditional use permit application, or a determination by the planning director that the local circumstances and regulatory requirements are essentially the same as at the time of the original approval. A denial of renewal by the
planning director may not be appealed. If the planning director determines that the
conditional use permit may be renewed on a site then any conditions of approval of the
original conditional use permit are also renewed.
3. If activity begins for which a conditional use permit has been given final approval, all
activities must comply with any conditions of approval or code requirements. Should
there be a failure to maintain compliance the city may revoke the approval through the
procedures outlined in section 38.34.160.
Section 6
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.19.120 to read
as follows:
Sec. 38.19.120. - Final plan.
422
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 12 of 17
A. If the review authority is the City Commission, If a plan is not fully compliant with all
applicable requirements, No no later than six months after the date of the Commission’s approval of a preliminary the plan, the applicant shall submit to the planning department a final plan with accompanying application form and review fee. The number of copies of the
final plan to be submitted shall be established by the planning director. The final plan shall
contain the materials required in sections 38.41.080 and 38.71.090 and whatever revisions to
the preliminary site plan or master site plan are required to comply with any conditions of approval. Prior to the passage of six months, the applicant may seek an extension of not more than an additional six months from the planning director.
B. In addition to the materials required in subsection A of this section, the owner applicant
shall must submit a certification of completion and compliance stating that they understand
any conditions of approval and the submitted final plans have complied with any conditions of approval or corrections to comply with code provisions.
C. If a plan is fully compliant with all applicable standards the review authority may approve
the final plan after the close of the public comment period. In addition to the materials
required in subsections A and B of this section, the owner applicant shall must submit a
statement of intent to construct according to the final plan. Such statement shall must acknowledge that construction not in compliance with the approved final plan may result in delays of occupancy or costs to correct noncompliance.
D. Following approval of a final site plan, the approval of the final site plan shall be in effect
effective for one year. Prior to the passage of one year, the applicant may seek an extension
of not more than one additional year from the planning director. In such instances, the planning director shall determine whether the relevant terms of this chapter and circumstances have significantly changed since the initial approval. If relevant terms of this
chapter or circumstances have significantly changed, the extension of the approval may not
be granted.
E. Following approval of a final master site plan, approval of the final master site plan shall be in is effective for not less than three but not more than five years with the initial duration to
be specified during the final action of the review authority. Owners of property subject to
the master site plan may seek extensions to not exceed five years in a single extension.
Approval of an extension shall be made by the planning director. Approval shall be granted
if the planning director determines that the criteria of subsection F of this section are met.
F. Any request for an extension must be in writing and be dated and signed by the owner of the
undeveloped area or incomplete development for which the extension is sought. More than
one extension may be requested for a particular development. Each request shall be
considered on its individual merits. An extension of the development approval under this
article does not extend other city or non-city agency approvals, e.g. for design of infrastructure extensions, necessary to complete the project. When evaluating an extension
request, the city shall consider:
1. Changes to the development regulations since the original approval and whether the
development as originally approved is substantially complies compliant with the new
regulations;
423
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 13 of 17
2. Progress to date in completing the development as a whole and any phases;
3. Phasing of the development and the ability for existing development to operate without the delayed development;
4. Dependence by other development on any public infrastructure or private improvements
to be installed by the development;
5. For extensions of approval greater than one year, the demonstrated ability of the
developer to complete the development;
6. Overall maintenance of the site; and
7. Whether mitigation for impacts of the development identified during the preliminary
plan review remain relevant, adequate, and applicable to the present circumstances of
the development and community.
G. Upon approval of the final plan by the planning director the applicant may obtain a building permit as provided for by article 34 of this chapter.
1. Subsequent site plan approvals are required to implement a master site plan, and
approval of a master site plan only does not entitle an applicant to obtain any building
permits.
Section 7
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by amending Section 38.33.010.B to
read as follows with all other portions of the section remaining unchanged:
Sec. 38.33.010. - Purpose of DRC, DRB, ADR, WRB, and BOA.
B. Development review committee procedures established. To implement this purpose, certain
procedures shall be adopted to include, but not be limited to, a regularly scheduled weekly
or biweekly meeting attended by representatives of each of the city departments charged
with development review. Each department shall have the ability and authority to require the
DRC to make a recommendation of denial when in their view the project can not meet the
requirements and review criteria of this chapter and acceptable conditions do not exist to
cure the identified failings of the project. Written meeting reviews, in the form of staff
reports or summary reviews prepared by the planning department, shall be made setting
forth the DRC's recommendation to the review authorities established in article 34 and
reasons for requiring such conditions as may be deemed necessary by the DRC. These
records shall be preserved as part of the official file for each development proposal. Lastly,
the DRC shall generally follow "Robert's Rules of Order" and may prepare and adopt
supplemental procedural rules that will ensure the accomplishment of the stated purpose and
promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the developmental review process.
1. The DRC shall at a minimum be composed of the following personnel: city engineer,
fire marshal, the streets superintendent, the sanitation superintendent, the water/sewer
424
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 14 of 17
superintendent, the planning director and the building official. When necessary, other
members of the committee may include: the director of public safety, the superintendent
of facilities and public lands, the superintendent of recreation, the city manager, with
other individuals to be included as necessary at the planning director's request.
2. When applicable, the DRC may solicit the input of noncity agencies and persons
including, but not limited to, the county subdivision review officer, the county
sanitarian, the county road superintendent, and state or federal agencies, with other
individuals to be included as necessary.
Section 8
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by deleting Section 38.33.020.
Sec. 38.33.020. - General procedures, notice and timing.
A. Informal advice and direction. A person or organization considering any construction, building or site alteration, rezoning or other development activity, may approach the DRC,
DRB, ADR or WRB for informal advice and direction. Such discussion shall be treated as
advisory by both parties and shall record only the fact that contact had been made. An
informal review by the DRC and/or DRB may be requested by submitting a completed application form provided by the planning director along with any schematic development plans or written narrative at least one week prior to the next regularly DRC and/or DRB
meeting. An informal review by the WRB may be requested by submitting a completed
application form provided by the planning director along with a wetland delineation for the
regulated wetland, development plans or written narrative describing the proposed regulated activity and a WRB meeting will be convened within two weeks of application submittal. A fee, set in accordance with the fee resolution adopted by the city commission, shall be
charged for an informal review. No application is required for informal review or advice by
the ADR staff.
B. Formal application. An application for DRC, DRB, ADR and/or WRB consideration of a development proposal must be submitted utilizing a form available from the planning director. Material to be submitted with the application shall include the elements set forth
within the requirements for the type of proposal to be considered, i.e., sketch plan, site plan,
conditional use permit, certificate of appropriateness, planned unit development, divisions of
land, etc., as outlined in this chapter. It is recommended that the applicant discuss the application informally with the DRC, DRB, ADR or WRB prior to formal submission to help expedite the process. Depending upon the size of the proposed project, its location and
type, the applicant may be directed to one or more agencies of the city for processing.
C. Public notice. Public notice for any proposal before the DRC, DRB, ADR or WRB that
requires such notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter.
D. DRC, DRB, ADR or WRB action. By no later than 30 working days from the date of the first regularly scheduled DRC and/or DRB meeting, or a meeting convened by the WRB, at
425
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 15 of 17
which the applicants' proposal was initially reviewed, the DRC, DRB or WRB shall take
action to recommend approval, approval with conditions, table pending submission of revised or additional materials or recommend denial of the applicant's proposal, unless the applicant grants a written extension to the review period. For proposals subject to ADR
review, the ADR staff shall approve, approve with conditions, delay pending submission of
revised or additional materials or deny the applicant's proposal.
Section 9
Repealer.
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances
of the City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 10
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. All other
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 11
Severability.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect
the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman
Municipal Code as a whole.
Section 12
426
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 16 of 17
Codification.
This Ordinance shall be codified as indicated in Sections 2 – 8.
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PROVISIONALLY ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, on first reading at a regular session held on the ___________ day of _________ 2016.
____________________________________
CARSON TAYLOR
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Clerk
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the ______ of
____________________, 2016. The effective date of this ordinance is _____, __________,
2016.
_________________________________
CARSON TAYLOR
Mayor
427
Ordinance No. 1944, Revisions to Site Plan Review Procedures
Page 17 of 17
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
428