Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board - 09-06-2016 Minutes Zoning Commission and Planning Board Tuesday, September 6, 2016 6:00 PM City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave. A. 06:17:20 PM (00:08:25) Call meeting to order Laura Waterton - Planning Henry Happel - Planning Brianne Dugan - Planning Julien Morice – Zoning Jordan Zignego – Planning and Zoning Paul Neubauer – Planning George Thompson – Planning and Zoning Eric Garberg – Zoning Paul Spitler – Planning B. 06:18:00 PM (00:09:05) Changes to the Agenda – As part of public comment, Mr. Rogers will give an update on the code update. C. 06:18:13 PM (00:09:19) Public Comment - No Comments from the public. 06:18:28 PM (00:09:34) Tom Rogers presents a UDC update. D. 06:21:28 PM (00:12:33) Action Items 1. 06:21:50 PM (00:12:55) Parkland Mitigation Text Amendment A revision to the standards for how to calculate required mitigation for impacts on the recreation system. Chris Saunders begins presentation on the Parkland Mitigation Text Amendment. Provides board with statistics on growth in the City and surrounding areas. Discusses the change in the type of growth and development we are experiencing. 06:24:39 PM (00:15:45) Mr. Saunders indicates the 4 types of changes we are looking to make with regards to parks program and why. 06:37:50 PM (00:28:55) Conclusion of presentation – open for questions for staff George Thompson questions the process for the City establishing cost. Mr. Saunders responds that it’s based on raw land value and how we have done this in the past. He states that we may continue to do it that way or explore other means for determining cost. 06:39:39 PM (00:30:44) Mr. Thompson is concerned with the Parks Department not being qualified to determine cost. Mr. Saunders states that the parks department will be the agency that will secure an agreement with someone qualified to make these estimates. 06:40:06 PM (00:31:11) Erik Garberg questions one unit as the trigger for park land. Mr. Saunders stated that it is a place holder or starting point until they can get more feedback. 06:41:13 PM (00:32:18) Mr. Garberg questions items that were excluded – for example Peet’s Hill would likely be excluded according to the stipulations. Mr. Saunders stated those are guidelines, but the City can determine if it is acceptable as an exception to the general rule. 06:43:05 PM (00:34:10) Mr. Garberg questions when cash-in-lieu is acceptable. Mr. Saunders responds there are some areas where they want a more urban and dense area (like in B-3), so cash-in-lieu is always accepted. In addition, he states that land is valuable, but at some point, too much open grass space is unnecessary and we should start making improvements on existing open spaces to make some parks more functional. In addition, in an effort to maintain affordability, improvements are preferable at times. 06:46:09 PM (00:37:14) Brianne Dugan questions what prevents someone from doing one unit at a time over and over (or whatever the indicated number of homes may be) to avoid hitting the requirement for park land. Also, she questions how we enforce parkland. Mr. Saunders responds with an example of a property that was presented as one large project, but had to be broken down into multiple developers, which messed up the original park land plan. He responds that to avoid losing parkland, the city requires a parkland easement to secure the park land with the initial phase, which can be reduced or changed if the project changes, if need be. Mr. Saunders responds that there is nothing keeping someone from submitting for one property at a time, but it’s impractical for builders, so unlikely they will go that route. 06:48:49 PM (00:39:54) Mr. Neubauer questions who is the deciding factor. Mr. Saunders responds that it is the commission, because the commission is responsible for approving sub- divisions. Mr. Saunders provides examples of ways that developers can get approval on their parkland independent of the subdivision process as well. 06:50:53 PM (00:41:59) Mr. Garberg questions how the City keeps other developers from claiming the set aside park land. Mr. Saunders responds that it’s allocated by parcel. Mr. Garberg questions if it’s possible to use the large community parks to allocate towards helping form affordable housing – instead of requiring additional park land. Mr. Saunders responds that it would likely need to be presented to the City Attorney to determine if that’s an option. Mr. Neubauer questions what happens if appraisals done by the City and the Developer have a great discrepancy. Mr. Saunders stated that we are relying on professionalism and if an estimate just seems completely unrealistic, we will explore realistic numbers. 06:54:44 PM (00:45:49) Julian Morice questions if this document removes the cash-in-lieu option from the developer and puts it in the City’s hands. Mr. Saunders responded that it has always had to be requested, this process should just make the process easier. Mr. Morice questions if improvements to a water course or a trail system will count towards the parkland requirement. Mr. Saunders responds that is true, those improvements do count. For some situations, it is at the City’s discretion. 07:00:00 PM (00:51:06) Chris Mehl states there were 4 categories in the beginning, but he does not feel that valuation was really covered. He states that he has been a commissioner for 6 years and doesn’t feel that cash-in-lieu ever really seems to cover the full cost of the land not being dedicated. Mr. Saunders responds. Commissioner Mehl questions if by making the cash-in-lieu process more streamlined and easy, if we will see an increase in cash in lieu proposals. Mr. Saunders responds that we may see more, but for smaller projects, it may make the process more accessible. Ultimately it’s up to the City to approve and determine if it is a good fit. Commissioner Mehl states that by the time these proposals get to the commission, there is usually a lot of momentum to keep moving forward. Mr. Saunders responds that they are working on a way to make this independent of the subdivision process so that it comes before the commission first to decide if it’s appropriate. 07:03:25 PM (00:54:30) Commissioner Mehl questions how the city will set a value on improvements. Mr. Saunders responds that we have some bench marks, that we know how much some things cost, but can also get pricing on specific projects. 07:04:36 PM (00:55:41) Commission Mehl questions how far away improvements can be made. Mr. Saunders states that it has to show that it will benefit the specific project being presented based on a service radius. Commissioner questions what happens for parks that do not have a plan. Mr. Saunders state that either the park doesn’t qualify, or the developer or parks department can put a plan together. 07:06:58 PM (00:58:04) Commissioner Mehl questioned the access to land. Mr. Saunders responds that there are some cases where public parks aren’t provided, but there may be space on private sites, which need to have a public access easement. 07:07:52 PM (00:58:57) Commissioner Mehl questions non park land open space. Mr. Saunders states there has been no changes to open space that is not park land. 07:08:34 PM (00:59:39) Paul Spitler questions who pays for maintenance of parks after improvements have been made. Mr. Saunders responds it can be the City or the Developer. In some cases, it is indicated that until the City establishes a park’s district, that the HOA must maintain the park. Mr. Spitler states that it seems important to indicate who will be responsible for the maintenance of parks before allowing cash in lieu. Mr. Spitler questions the exemptions listed. Mr. Saunders explains in detail – specifically as it applies to high density. Mr. Spitler questions the difference between the .03 acres and square footage measure for parkland. Mr. Saunders responds that mathematically, it should be the same. 07:15:36 PM (01:06:41) Mr. Spitler questions if the manual for cash-in-lieu would come back to the planning board. Mr. Saunders stated that no, it would not, not unless the commission requested it was. Mr. Morice questions if it’s true that what the Park’s Department can maintain is being exceeded. Mr. Saunders responded that yes, they have reached their capacity and if we create a park district, then the department would need to expand. 07:17:31 PM (01:08:36) Mr. Neubauer states that in B-3 and Downtown allows for cash-in-lieu, but questions if land is even an option. Mr. Saunders responds that there is an option for land, but you do not have to provide land, unlike other districts, where you start with land and get to cash-in-lieu depending on what is being proposed. 07:18:36 PM (01:09:42) Ms. Waterton questions the different plans mentioned and if they were the same. Mr. Saunders explains the different park plans – master plan, plan and concept plan. 07:20:37 PM (01:11:42) Mr. Neubauer questioned if there should be individual votes for planning and zoning boards. Mr. Saunders responds that yes, both boards should vote independently. 07:20:56 PM (01:12:01) Open for Public Comment – no public comment 07:21:21 PM (01:12:26) Board discussion on the proposed text amendment 07:21:44 PM (01:12:50) Erik Garberg comments that the trigger should be set at about 8 residential units to encourage smaller projects and infill. 07:22:39 PM (01:13:44) Julien Morice responds that he agrees that the baseline needs to be much higher than 1, to encourage infill projects. 07:23:27 PM (01:14:32) Laura Waterton questions if the goal is to encourage infill. If so, is parkland the best way to do that. 07:24:03 PM (01:15:09) Commissioner Mehl states that there will be a portion of the code that relates directly to infill, so the board may want to revisit this issue at that time, if other incentives are not sufficient. Mr. Garberg states that we could possibly just as a note that “if infill… than…”. Board continues to discuss parkland with respects to infill and the threshold for parks. Mr. Spitler states that it comes down to which type of development we are looking to incentivize. Mr. Spitzler questions how much each home costs in terms of parkland. Mr. Saunders said that for cash-in-lieu, it’s roughly $1,100 per home. The change with this process is that the appraiser would typically cost the project about $600/project. Whereas in this case we will be able to use a pre-determined amount. 07:32:41 PM (01:23:47) Julien Morice questions some of the subsequent documents needed to support this and how long it will take to put them in place. Mr. Saunders responded that a lot of it has been written up already. This will also allow for the City Staff to make some cash in lieu decisions without it going to the commission depending on what the commission feels is best. 07:35:28 PM (01:26:33) Mr. Spitler states that it appears that this will lead to an increase of cash-in-lieu. He sees opportunities and challenges. He said that it will be important to have some strong master plans to know the direction of our parks and who is responsible for the maintenance. Discussion about how to present motion to both boards for discussion. 07:37:46 PM (01:28:51) Eric Garberg Moves: Having reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14-581 and move to approve the text amendment and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified Development Code. Second by Julien Morice 07:38:48 PM (01:29:53) Discussion on the motion Erik Garberg states that he doesn’t want to spend a ton of time determining the threshold number whether it’s 1 or 8, but that he generally supports what is being presented. He feels that the board is being presented with a lot of information quickly and must absorb it quickly. Julien Morice supports the document, but has concerns with the level of predictability with the documents for the developers and encourages having those documents as detailed as possible while maintaining some flexibility. 07:40:16 PM (01:31:21) Vote by the zoning commission – board unanimously approves the motion. 07:40:36 PM (01:31:41) Motion by the planning board: George Thompson: Having reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14-581 and move to approve the text amendment and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified Development Code. Second by Paul Spitler Mr. Thompson states that he appreciates that we are moving forward with streamlining this process for the planners and developers. Mr. Spitler agrees that he appreciates the changes. Vote by the Planning Board – Unanimously approve the motion 2. 07:42:10 PM (01:33:15) Maintenance and Demolition Text Amendment These amendments clarify obligations of property owners to maintain their property and address the process for when and under what conditions structures can be removed when a structure is classed as a historic structure. 07:42:32 PM (01:33:38) Chris Saunders begins presentation on the Maintenance and Demolition Text Amendment. 07:58:50 PM (01:49:55) Open for questions for staff Eric Garberg questions who would determine that properties need to go through this process and what burden would it place on them. Mr. Saunders clarifies that it applies only to demolition, it would not alter the process of additions and changes. Mr. Garberg questions if there can be an interim plan for demolition. Or if you need to go from demo to building. Mr. Saunders responds in detail. 08:01:21 PM (01:52:26) Henry Happel questions if contributing structures are considered historic and therefore, who determined that they were. Mr. Saunders responds with how those homes were listed as contributing – based on a site survey that was also sent to the state historic preservation office for final say. Mr. Happel questions how many homes in Bozeman are listed formally on the national historic registrar. Mr. Saunders responds. Mr. Happel concludes that about 70%-80% of the homes in the historic districts have a historic label on them. Mr. Saunders responds that is correct. Within the conservation overlay it would be a smaller number. Mr. Happel questions how home owners know that their homes are listed as historic. Mr. Saunders responds with how many of them got listed and how individuals should be aware that their home is included in the historic district. Mr. Saunders indicates that the national register listing does not require homes be preserved. It is through City zoning that we have determined that homes should or can be preserved. Mr. Saunders explains how different districts are formed and how they need to speak to a common element. To be considered contributing to a district, individual properties or structures need to fit the elements of that district. 08:07:46 PM (01:58:51) Mr. Happel questions if historic designation is based on just the exterior of a home or if it’s based on the interior as well. Me Saunders responds that generally speaking, it is simply the exterior. The interior can be designated if it had been open to and accessible to the public. He gave the example of the Rialto vs the Hotel Baxter. Mr. Happel states that it appears that the commission favors vacant buildings over vacant lots – he asks for clarification on why. Mr. Saunders responds that it is economic value, in addition to maintaining character of the neighborhood. 08:11:17 PM (02:02:22) Mr. Thompson states that with the demo application it appears there will be a requirement for a building permit as well and he appreciates that. He states he lived in a community where there were smaller affordable homes that were being demoed and replaced with a home 2 or 3 times the size. In this case, it does not meet the character of the neighborhood. He questions how we stop these larger homes from coming in. Mr. Saunders states that this will not solve that. However, individual neighborhoods could create the expectation for specific building sizes through zoning. We cannot solve the problem in a blanket way. Mr. Thompson questions a specific building being historic. The building does not look historic, and is unattractive. Mr. Saunders states that there are a number of criteria to determine if a site is historic, and they are not always attractive. 08:16:39 PM (02:07:45) Mr. Thompson questions who can document what is historic. Mr. Saunders states that the standards apply to everyone, regardless of who is doing the work. It will need to be done appropriately though and approved. So, if someone is indicating something in a document, it must be backed up. 08:17:58 PM (02:09:03) Mr. Morice indicates that it’s also on the person who wants to demo a property to indicate that a property is not historic. Mr. Saunders said that is correct. In many cases the forms have been completed and it would be up to the developer to come in and indicate that the form is incorrect. Julien Morice disclosed to the board and FYI that he will be apply for a demo permit in a couple of months for a property outside of the overlay district. Julien Morice questions who determines if a home is salvageable. Mr. Saunders stated the historic preservation officer will be involved. In addition engineering will need to indicate if a building is not salvageable. In addition, there will be a building inspection to determine if there is any economic life left in the building – that the cost to remodel is greater than the cost of a new home. 08:22:00 PM (02:13:06) Julien Morice questions demolition by neglect and what the requirements are if you do not remodel a structure and it loses economic integrity over time. Mr. Saunders stated that is in part why maintenance requirements have been included. Further discussion between Julien Morice and Mr. Saunders about enforcement to avoid demolition by neglect. Mr. Happel questions enforcement mechanism for making sure individuals maintain their property. Mr. Saunders responds that it will be through general code enforcement. Mr. Happel argues that it does not count as a public nuisance and wonders how it gets included in that provision. Mr. Saunders states that he will bring that up to the city attorney, but that he feels comfortable enforcing it through that provision. Mr. Happel argues that the statute does not give the City authority to deal with the nuances for specific homes – he questions if there was a thought to give the city more discretion on a property by property basis. Mr. Saunders states that it was considered, but this was considered to be what was legally permissible. Discussion continues between Mr. Happel and Mr. Saunders regarding renovation of properties and new construction. Mr. Saunders gives details about how new construction can be implemented in historic districts. 08:34:54 PM (02:25:59) Commission Mehl questions why we do not adopt the international maintenance code. Mr. Saunders responds that we could not adopt them through the building code authority – that is limited through the state. We might possibly adopt it under different authority, but it will be a question about who will maintain the code. We currently do not have the appropriate staff for that. 08:36:28 PM (02:27:34) Mr. Spitler questions what triggers a determination on what is historic or not. Mr. Saunders responds that if someone requests changes to a home in a district that triggers it. Otherwise, the neighborhood could trigger it or the City could trigger it. Likewise, they could drop a designation. 08:37:37 PM (02:28:43) Julien Morice moves: Having reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14-623 and move to approve the text amendment. Eric Garberg Seconds Mr. Morice comments that the text seems appropriate. He feels it adds more substance to an argument about whether a property is historic. He does not agree with staff on waiting for demo until a permit is pulled, he feels some structures that are in complete disarray should be able to just come down – it can give a better view for potential buyers. A vacant lot that is maintained could be much more aesthetic than a degrading home. 08:41:02 PM (02:32:07) Mr. Garberg questions if this will be moving historic outside of the NCOD. Mr. Saunders states that is correct. Mr. Garberg states that this will expand a subjective element beyond its current bounds and therefore he cannot support it. 08:42:13 PM (02:33:18) Mr. Morice states that he shares Mr. Garberg’s concerns about expanding beyond the current NCOD. 08:43:13 PM (02:34:18) Vote by the Zoning Commission: Eric Garberg only one to vote against the motion. Motion passes. 3:1 08:43:30 PM (02:34:36) Mr. Thompson makes a motion for the Planning Board: Having reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14- 623 and move to approve the text amendment. Second by Jordan Zignego George Thompson comments that the nuances will always be a challenge, but feels the document is a good starting point. 08:45:50 PM (02:36:55) Henry Happel comments that he feels this is a step in the right direction. He however, he does not feel he’s in favor of having a building permit in hand before demolition of non-historic structures. Otherwise, he supports the document. As an unresolved issue, he doesn’t feel the building permit item does not need further attention. Commission Mehl suggests he can amend the motion to reflect that. 08:48:26 PM (02:39:32) Mr. Happel moves to amend the motion to the city commission to indicate that a certificate of appropriateness not be required to demo a non-historic structure. Second by Commissioner Mehl Amendment to the motion passed unanimously. Vote on the amended motion: Motion passes unanimously. F. FYI/Discussion – no additional discussion G. 08:52:04 PM (02:43:10) Adjournment For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Scott at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301).