HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-17 Joint PB & ZC Minutes for ApprovalCity Planning Board and Zoning
Commission
Tuesday, February 7, 2017 6:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 06:03:05 PM (00:00:05) Call meeting to order
Present were:
Zoning Commission
Erik Garberg, Chair
Jordan Zignego
George Thompson
Chris Mehl, Commissioner Liaison
Planning Board
Paul Neubauer, Chair
Jordan Zignego Jerry
Pape, Jr.
George Thompson
Paul Spitler
Henry Happel
Brianne Dugan
Lauren Waterton
Chris Mehl
B. 06:03:39 PM (00:00:39) Changes to the Agenda. Erik Garberg stated the minutes will not
be acted on.
C. Approve Meeting Minutes from Joint Zoning Commission/Planning Board Meetings on
1/17/2017. The minutes of the December 6, 2016 meeting were not included in the
packet. There were no minutes for the January 17, 2017 meeting since it was cancelled.
D. 06:03:52 PM (00:00:52) Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an
audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on
matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity
in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit
your comments to three minutes
No comment was received under this agenda item.
E. Action Items
1. 06:04:05 PM (00:01:05) Review & Consideration of Draft Article 5 UDC update
(Joint Zoning Commission and Planning Board)
Presentation and work session to review the draft Article 5 – Project Design. Site design
includes block frontage standards, site planning and design elements, and building
design. Public hearing on Article 5 is tentatively scheduled for February 21, 2017.
(Rogers)
06:04:17 PM (00:01:17) Tom Rogers stated this is a joint meeting of the City Planning Board and Zoning
Commission and characterized this as a work session. He noted staff has presented parts of this code
revision to the Design Review Board and will take the input of the various advisory groups then come
back with a revised draft for consideration.
06:07:16 PM (00:04:16) Responding to Paul Spitler, Tom Rogers stated that many of these changes are
substantive rather than procedural. Paul Spitler asked that the substantive changes be identified during
the presentation.
06:08:05 PM (00:05:05) Tom Rogers reviewed the status of this revision process, noting that the new
code will look significantly different from the current code. The Community Development Director will
make a presentation to the Commission on February 13 to review the adoption process for the new
code. In the meantime, he will be making presentations to boards regarding the revisions.
Tom Rogers turned to review of Article 5, noting it combines the development code and the design
objectives plan into one document. He noted it details block frontage, site planning and design
elements, and building design and also identifies when, where, why and how those provisions apply.
Responding to questions, Tom Rogers stated that the design objectives plan has some very simple basic
site planning and design elements that are regulatory in the entryway corridor. Those standards are
now being applied everywhere in the community. He then confirmed that the provisions applying to
franchise architecture will apply throughout the community rather than being limited to the entryway
corridors.
Tom Rogers stated this section does not apply to single-family detached households and two-household
attached units, but does apply to three or more attached dwellings, apartment buildings, commercial
and industrial buildings. He noted that these revisions include provisions for flexibility in design and
development. He stated no changes are being proposed to the neighborhood conservation overlay
district requirements. He turned attention to the major entrances, or gateways, to the community,
noting a 25-foot setback is being required instead of the 25-foot or 50-foot setback currently in place.
This additional setback allows for bicycle and pedestrian paths and the requirements of the Montana
Department of Transportation.
06:18:05 PM (00:15:05) Erik Garberg noted that these revisions have expanded the requirements for
the entryway corridors and historic preservation and applied them to all commercial districts. He noted
this has resulted in additional development standards rather than simplifying them.
06:19:28 PM (00:16:28) Chris Saunders stated the Commission removed an artificial boundary on what
was considered historical and adopted a clearer standard on how to demonstrate something is
historical, but these regulations are not automatically triggered throughout the community.
06:21:09 PM (00:18:09) Erik Garberg noted that eliminating the boundary of the NCOD makes the
application of the historic preservation less simple in its application.
06:22:03 PM (00:19:03) Chris Saunders responded that a generally applicable standard adds some
complexity but simplifies the process by providing consistency in application.
06:25:53 PM (00:22:53) Tom Rogers noted a site plan is required for any commercial building; however,
it is important to balance development and redevelopment of a site. The revisions will allow for
investment in a property without triggering full compliance with the code provisions.
06:29:05 PM (00:26:05) George Thompson asked how these regulations would impact redevelopment
of the current Heeb’s site and the old Greyhound Bus Depot; Tom Rogers responded by identifying the
level of review required for each.
06:32:25 PM (00:29:25) Tom Rogers turned attention to how the provisions apply. He then responded
to questions from Erik Garberg regarding how these provisions apply and how rezoning may trigger
those provisions.
06:39:49 PM (00:36:49) Tom Rogers discussed various block frontages, including storefront frontage,
landscape frontage, and mixed frontage. He noted that departures are available to various standards,
allowing flexibility in design. Responding to questions, he stated that Boise, Idaho, and Ellensburg,
Washington, have provisions for departures, and both communities have found those provisions work
well.
06:51:19 PM (00:48:19) Responding to Erik Garberg, Tom Rogers stated that departures are not the
same as a variance. He noted that the departure criteria vary for the different block frontages. He
noted that variances are still available for subdivisions and other zoning related pieces.
06:56:45 PM (00:53:45) Jerry Pape asked that staff look at specific items in the existing code, including
how to allow franchise architecture, weather protection, and the two front yard issue. He identified
examples of each of those and how they have impacted past projects. He suggested that the departure
process may help to address some of those issues.
07:02:06 PM (00:59:06) Erik Garberg declared a break of the joint City Planning Board/Zoning
Commission meeting for the scheduled Planning Board meeting.
07:02:22 PM (00:59:22) Paul Neubauer called the Planning Board meeting to order.
E. Action Items
2. 07:02:36 PM (00:59:36) 16533 Glen Lake Commerce Subdivision.
Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat. (WerBell)
Lauren Waterton disclosed that she had worked with the applicants on some early concepts but is no
longer involved in the project.
07:03:09 PM (01:00:09) Mitch WerBell entered his staff report and findings into the record. He noted
this is a major subdivision to subdivide 5.5 acres located northwest of the intersection of Manley Road
and Griffin Drive into fifteen lots for commercial development. He stated it is in compliance with the
land use map. He noted that access will be from Manley Road, which must be upgraded to city
standards in conjunction with this application.
Mitch WerBell reported the City Engineer approved a deviation request for access spacing for the
eastern side but did not approve the request for the proposed location for the northern access. As a
result, that access must be aligned with the Map Brewery access to alleviate vehicular and pedestrian
conflicts. He noted some mitigation for projected transportation impacts prior will be required prior to
final plat approval. He stated improvements to the intersection of Griffin Drive and Manley Road are
scheduled for 2019; and the Director of Public Works has indicated a willingness to grant a waiver from
the requirement to bring that intersection up to Level C standards in conjunction with this application.
Mitch WerBell stated that staff has found this subdivision complies with the State law and code
requirements, and has recommended approval subject to conditions and code provisions. He noted no
public comment has been received to date. He concluded by noting there is limited amount of annexed
and undeveloped land for industrial development at this time, and staff has found this application is in
conformance with the adopted growth policy.
07:09:51 PM (01:06:51) Responding to questions from George Thompson, Mitch WerBell stated that
improvements to the intersection of Griffin Drive and Manley Road were identified as a high priority for
the City through the capital improvements program process and are independent of this application. He
noted that the Manley Road improvements will include on-street parking but he is not certain about
bike lanes.
07:11:27 PM (01:08:27) Responding to questions from Henry Happel, Mitch WerBell stated he has seen
some concept drawings of the development in the subdivision, but the view of the subdivision from
Manley Road is not known at this time. He stated that the lots will be subject to plan review process,
but noted it is too early to speculate on whether the buildings on the lots adjacent to Manley Road will
face it or not.
07:13:03 PM (01:10:03) Jerry Pape stated he feels the industrial use is an appropriate use in this area.
He voiced concern about the railroad crossing on Griffin Drive and how it may impact development of
this area. Mitch WerBell responded it is his understanding that the improvements to the intersection
are designed to reduce the vehicle stacking at the railroad crossing.
07:15:14 PM (01:12:14) George Thompson asked if the intersection improvements are to include a
traffic signal. Mitch WerBell responded there will be turn lanes, but he is not certain if it will be
signalized.
07:15:49 PM (01:12:49) George Thompson asked about landscaping and berming along Manley Road,
particularly if parking lots abut the roadway. Mitch WerBell responded that parking will be from the
local street and will be directed toward the rear. He noted that landscaping will be required in
conjunction with site review, and the code will require screening of the parking and upgrading of Manley
Road that includes boulevard landscaping and street trees.
07:18:09 PM (01:15:09) Responding to questions from Paul Spitler, Mitch WerBell stated that if an SID is
approved, the final plat may be approved prior to construction of the improvements; however, if it fails,
Manley Road must be constructed adjacent to that subdivision prior to final plat approval. He briefly
highlighted some of the uses allowed in the M-1 zone, which include industrial uses but limited
commercial and residential uses.
07:20:08 PM (01:17:08) Paul Neubauer stated he is not concerned about the use of SIDs in this instance
since it is an industrial development.
07:21:29 PM (01:18:29) Todd Mitchell, TM Designs on behalf of the applicant, noted this property has
been subject to several different proposals for development. He feels this design meets code
requirements as much as possible, given its shape and size. He noted this is an infill project in an area
that has been growing. It is accessed via Manley Road and City services are readily available to the site.
He turned attention to the conceptual site development, noting the lots adjacent to Manley Road will be
accessed from the interior roadway and may or may not have parking lots between the buildings and
the street. He noted the building facades are to be presentable to Manley Road. He turned attention to
the dirt and asphalt that has been previously deposited on the site. He noted some preliminary
environmental evaluations have been completed, and no real concerns about potential issues were
identified. Also, the tank farm across Griffin Drive has some environmental issues; but they are not
impacting this property.
Todd Mitchell turned attention to infrastructure improvements as required by the code. He
acknowledged that the intersection of Manley Road and Griffin Drive does not function well in the
morning but functions better in the afternoon. He noted the intersection is now on the City’s CIP, which
provides some flexibility in timing of those improvements. He noted Manley Road is designated as a
collector but has not been improved to date. He recognizes that it needs to be improved and suggested
it be improved to collector standards all the way to either the northern edge of Gallatin Park or to the
city limits through an SID. He turned attention to the locations of the accesses to the site and potential
safety issues with various locations. He voiced concern that the requirements to improvement Manley
Road have been waived for all other projects along that roadway to date and, while he recognizes this
applicant must participate in those improvements, his preference is that the improvements be
addressed on a broader basis through the SID process. As a result, he has taken on the initial steps in
the process for creation of an SID and has provided the information to City staff.
Todd Mitchell stressed that the intersection of Manley Road and Griffin Drive serves a large portion of
the community and not just this development. He noted the intersection has not been improved for
many years even though traffic volumes have increased, and recognized that it is time to do so. He
asked that the final plat be approved and development be allowed to occur once the SID has been
created so that this project can continue to move forward.
07:38:59 PM (01:35:59) Lauren Waterton noted the right-of-way for Manley Road at the intersection is
55 feet wide instead of the required 90 feet.
07:39:22 PM (01:36:22) Todd Mitchell responded there is an additional 20 foot easement along this
property, although it has not been dedicated. He stated the additional 15 feet would be required from
the Mergenthaler property. He noted parking is not desired at the intersection and suggested that it be
eliminated to the curve so the road improvements can fit within the 75 feet of right of way available.
07:41:44 PM (01:38:44) Responding to Paul Spitler, Todd Mitchell stated it is too early to identify the
types of uses will be developed on this site. He noted that these lots are small, with some of them being
only a quarter acre. He recognized the range of uses in the M-1 zone is pretty broad.
07:42:46 PM (01:39:46) George Thompson voiced appreciation for the renderings. He voiced support
for the SID approach, noting it makes sense to improve the entire roadway. He then noted that
improvements to the access to the East Gallatin Recreation Area could also be beneficial.
07:45:06 PM (01:42:06) Paul Neubauer opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
07:45:23 PM (01:42:23) Patrick Kainz, owner of MAP Brewing Company, stated he feels the SID is critical
to this entire corridor, and recognized he is part of the parking and traffic issues. He feels those
improvements will benefit people in the community.
07:46:38 PM (01:43:38) Dan Alexander, developer, stated a couple engineering soil labs have shown
interest in this site as well as the Montana Fish Company. He stated these are businesses using space
elsewhere in the community that may not be optimal, and this would allow them to construct the type
of facilities they need. He is willing to work with the City’s Engineering Department in the infrastructure
improvements.
07:48:05 PM (01:45:05) Paul Neubauer closed the public hearing.
07:48:19 PM (01:45:19) It was moved by Jerry Pape, seconded by Chris Mehl, that having reviewed
and considered the application materials, public comment and all the information presented, the
findings presented in the staff report for Application 16533 be adopted and approval of the Glen Lake
Commerce Subdivision preliminary plat with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions be
recommended.
07:48:51 PM (01:45:51) Jerry Pape stated he is interested in seeing this property developed. He noted
there is not much M-1 zoned property in Bozeman, and it is surrounded by a number of uses and
amenities.
07:50:41 PM (01:47:41) Chris Mehl voiced his agreement with the staff report and findings.
07:51:12 PM (01:48:12) The motion carried unanimously.
07:51:27 PM (01:48:27) Paul Neubauer declared a break.
08:00:59 PM (01:57:59) Paul Neubauer called the joint Planning Board/Zoning Commission back to
order.
F. FYI/Discussion
1. Water Facility Plan status update (Saunders) 2. Fire Facility Plan status
update (Saunders) 3. Transportation Plan status update (Saunders) 4.
Strategic Plan status update (Saunders) 5. Growth Policy status update
(Saunders)
08:03:27 PM (02:00:27) Chris Saunders noted the City has roughly a dozen facility and other plans that
guide different elements of the community, and staff is actively working on updates to five of them. He
noted the strategic plan is a new document, and a public open house is scheduled for February 15 on
this document. It has had a substantial amount of public input and has provided an opportunity to work
on a wide range of issues. He noted the City Manager’s office has taken the lead in creating this
document.
Chris Saunders turned attention to the transportation plan, noting the public review document has just
been released. He stated this document has received a substantial amount of public comment, and that
input has been summarized. He noted the document has implemented the Wikimap, which allows for
public comment and ease of adding likes or dislikes. He noted that staff is also considering whether the
same type of process can be used for the growth policy update. He noted the transportation plan was
last updated in 2009, and the public comment is still open on the update.
Chris Saunders addressed the water facility plan, which was last updated in 2006. He noted the update
is approximately 95 percent complete, and it should be ready for public release in about ninety days. He
noted the facility plans set large scale policy issues and where building can occur, but they also get into
many details. He stated several expansions will be needed in the water facilities to support the
community.
Chris Saunders stated the fire facility plan was also last updated in 2006. This plan looks at locations for
fire stations and deficiencies in coverage. He does not anticipate a public draft for roughly six months.
Chris Saunders turned attention to the growth policy update, noting that funding was approved for this
fiscal year. He stated staff plans to draw from public input and data gathered from the other plan
updates. He noted the City has released an RFP to provide assistance in analyzing the data and
determining what land inventory is needed to support the future needs of the community and received
eleven responses back. He stated the dynamics in the valley are changing as Belgrade and Four Corners
develop and with the explosion of e-commerce. He noted that all of these issues impact the land use
inventory for the community. He suggested that the Board members assist in the update process by
looking at the neighborhood plans and determining if they need to be included in the growth policy or if
they need to be eliminated.
Chris Saunders stated he anticipates the strategic plan and transportation plan update adopted by the
Commission within the next three months. He is also working with the consultant on updating the
impact fee schedules for water, sewer, transportation and fire, which will take a significant amount of
his time.
08:17:58 PM (02:14:58) Chris Mehl asked how the Planning Board members can best provide input on
what to include in the growth policy update.
08:18:42 PM (02:15:42) Chris Saunders suggested input can be provided in a formal meeting or in a
committee setting, noting that staff is willing to work in either format. He noted that in the next few
months, there will be a lot of UDC public hearings held, and there are projects to consider. He suggested
some special meetings could be held if the Board so chooses.
08:19:59 PM (02:16:59) Paul Neubauer voiced his interest in getting further through the UDC revision
process, but he feels that reviewing the neighborhood plans and their viability would be a good first
step. He noted that it appears the Board’s role in the growth policy update will be greater in the
summer based on Chris Saunders’ presentation.
08:21:06 PM (02:18:06) Chris Mehl noted it would be good to have someone from the Board look at the
eleven responses received. He noted the Board could also influence the RFP for the growth policy
update.
08:21:53 PM (02:18:53) Responding to questions from Jerry Pape, staff confirmed the economic
development plan was approved. Jerry Pape indicated a willingness to serve as Board liaison on the
committee to review the responses for analyzing the economic data, noting he would be a fairly
antagonistic representative.
08:22:49 PM (02:19:49) Paul Neubauer also volunteered to serve on the committee.
08:23:32 PM (02:20:32) Chris Mehl asked how the Board wants to prepare for the growth policy update,
and if it wants to hold additional meetings to begin providing input.
08:24:46 PM (02:21:46) Henry Happel asked about the relationship between the strategic plan and the
community plan update and whether the community plan update process should be started before the
strategic plan is adopted.
08:25:25 PM (02:22:25) Chris Mehl responded he does not believe the community plan update will be
started before the strategic plan is adopted since the RFP process will be the first step.
08:26:27 PM (02:23:27) Chris Saunders noted there are six themes in the strategic plan, and one of
them is a well planned city.
08:27:32 PM (02:24:32) Responding to Henry Happel, Chris Mehl noted the Planning Board provides
recommendations to the Commission. He stated they can be reactive and meet as necessary or can be
proactive. He acknowledged that the Board makes that choice.
08:29:26 PM (02:26:26) Paul Spitler stated he feels the community plan update is the most important
issue for this Board to grapple with, particularly when looking at how much the community has grown.
He is interested in getting in front of the plan update and taking a leadership role.
08:30:54 PM (02:27:54) George Thompson suggested that the Board devote its meeting on either the
first or third week of the month to community planning issues so that it gets updates at least monthly.
He noted this would allow the Board to focus on key topics.
08:32:08 PM (02:29:08) Chris Saunders recognized there are timelines to be met and noted it may be
possible to manage work flow so that projects can be reviewed at one meeting each month.
08:32:30 PM (02:29:30) Jerry Pape stated it is important to understand how this Board can make a
meaningful contribution to the process and noted they need to understand when, how much material is
to be digested, and who has the time to do it.
08:33:15 PM (02:30:15) Chris Saunders noted that staff could provide a fifteen-minute highlight of each
of the neighborhood plans for Board consideration.
08:34:53 PM (02:31:53) Jerry Pape suggested that the Board get rid of the non-productive paths after
determining what the end product should look like. He then asked staff to identify the five most
significant issues the Board can contribute on.
08:36:09 PM (02:33:09) Chris Saunders confirmed that staff could provide a series of key questions that
they would appreciate a response on.
08:36:34 PM (02:33:34) Lauren Waterton noted the Planning Board has few roles under state statute,
and updating the community plan is one of them. She feels the first step should be understanding what
the statutes require in the plan and what is in there. Structurally, it is important to consider the
neighborhood plans and whether they should be included in the community plan or not. She suggested
the first fundamental question to consider might be whether the Board feels neighborhood plans are a
good idea or not.
08:38:31 PM (02:35:31) Chris Mehl noted staff could send the statutes applicable to the plan to all
Board members and then the Board can discuss whether the plans make sense and how they should be
modified or updated.
08:39:49 PM (02:36:49) Jerry Pape questioned how much time the Board needs to spend responding to
the future and how much time it needs to spend on responding to the past. He suggested that there are
bugs in the system or things that are broken and stressed there is no need to fix those things not broken.
He feels for the Board to be effective, it is important to ensure the neighborhood plans are appropriate
and cover all of the issues they should.
08:41:15 PM (02:38:15) Paul Neubauer noted the Planning Board members are interested in working on
the community plan update, and agreed that the Board should devote any lulls in their workload to that
effort. He noted the first step may be for board members to familiarize themselves with current
statutory requirements and with the current plan. He asked Board members to expect two meetings a
month to begin working on this issue.
08:43:35 PM (02:40:35) Jerry Pape stated he does not want to get buried in state statue, but he does
not want to violate it.
08:43:50 PM (02:40:50) Chris Saunders noted state statute is pretty general but provides latitude for
local control.
08:44:05 PM (02:41:05) Paul Spitler noted it is important to identify the big issues that need to be
addressed in the community plan and, in drafting the RFP and selecting consultant, being mindful of the
issues that the consultant should have expertise in.
08:44:57 PM (02:41:57) Paul Neubauer thanked staff for the update.
E. Action Items
1. Review & Consideration of Draft Article 5 UDC update (continued)
(Joint Zoning Commission and Planning Board)
Presentation and work session to review the draft Article 5 – Project Design. Site design
includes block frontage standards, site planning and design elements, and building
design. Public hearing on Article 5 is tentatively scheduled for February 21, 2017.
(Rogers)
08:46:33 PM (02:43:33) Tom Rogers noted the next meeting’s agenda includes a continuation of this
review and asked for a two-hour block to do so. He stated work sessions before the Commission are not
yet scheduled because he wants to complete the sessions with advisory boards.
08:50:14 PM (02:47:14) Responding to Paul Neubauer, Tom Rogers stated he had envisioned two
meetings to get through the work session, after which he will continue to refine the document based on
input received. He recognized it is a large, complicated process that will result in a preliminary working
draft of the entire document.
08:52:26 PM (02:49:26) Jerry Pape asked about regular business items for the next meeting, noting it is
important to provide a block of time for this work session rather than breaking it to review specific
projects.
08:52:59 PM (02:49:59) Tom Rogers responded he does not know what notices have been published.
He expressed an interest in working with the public first, then conducting the work session.
08:53:39 PM (02:50:39) Erik Garberg stated Zoning hearings need to be scheduled for 6:00 p.m., noting
that Planning hearings can be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. if necessary. He acknowledged that breaking the
work session is not productive.
08:54:39 PM (02:51:39) Chris Mehl stated that advertising for both the Zoning and Planning hearings
can be for 6:00 p.m., noting that the Planning hearings can then begin immediately after the Zoning
hearings are done. The joint work session can be conducted after the hearings are completed so it is
uninterrupted.
08:55:23 PM (02:52:23) Paul Neubauer stated this work session will be continued to February 21.
D. Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the
record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the
Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments
pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes
08:55:35 PM (02:52:35) Susan Riggs, consultant for the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, drew
attention to the provisions for variances, relaxations, deviations and departures. She noted they are
nice for flexibility, but noted they can also be very complicated in the downtown area. She asked if
deviations will be only for historic remodels or will they be available for new construction. She also
raised concerns about the confusion that might arise from looking at the zoning map and frontage map
in the new document, recognizing that the urban design manual will help to address some of that
confusion. She expressed concern about eliminating the historic preservation guidelines, which could
hold important information for single-family and duplex units. She concluded by encouraging everyone
to look at how these plans will work in the downtown area.
2. Review of draft Bozeman Design Manual (Zoning Commission)
**Continued to a future date**
Presentation and comment on the draft Urban Design Manual. (Owens)
F. FYI/Discussion
G. 08:59:20 PM (02:56:20) Adjournment