The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-27-17 - Joint ZC & PB Minutes Joint City Planning Board and Zoning Commission Tuesday, June 27th, 2017 6:00 PM City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue A. Call meeting to order Present Were:  Paul Spitler (PB)  Jordan Zignego (PB/ZC)  Jerry Pape (PB)  Chair Paul Neubauer (PB)  Erik Garberg (ZC)  Henry Happel (PB)  Dan Stevenson (ZC)  Lauren Waterton (PB) B. Changes to the Agenda C. Approve Joint Meeting Minutes (None) D. 06:07:47 PM (00:01:31) 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. 06:08:15 PM (00:01:59) Brian Guyer from HRDC made public comment regarding p. 279 of the UDC draft, which covers town homes and row homes. He stated that the changes in requirements would impact the affordability of homes. He also voiced concerns regarding the manufactured home communities and their eventual need to be annexed into the city due to failing wells and septic systems. His concerns were in relation to the difficulty of the process for these home owners. E. Action Items 1. 06:11:44 PM (00:05:28) UDC Work Session (Rogers)  Memo: Comment and Amendment Process on Draft UDC  ZC & PB Summary of Comments 06:12:38 PM (00:06:22) Board member Jordan Zignego commented that he appreciates the UDC moving toward a form base code with set‐backs and commented on landscaping, pedestrian accessibility and parking requirements. 06:18:58 PM (00:12:42) Board member Paul Spitler offered comments that encouraged implementing language in the updated UDC code that supported the City’s climate action plan. 06:28:07 PM (00:21:51) Board member Dan Stevenson who contributed to the previous UDC update commented that connecting the City’s other 06:29:49 PM (00:23:33) Board member Waterton asked if there were cases where the document referenced other city documents for compliance. Rogers answered that there are other places where this occurs and referenced the Prost Plan as an example. The group continued to discuss whether or not the UDC was the correct place to tie to other city objectives from other plans. 06:41:46 PM (00:35:30) Spitler continued by suggesting including compliance with the Prost Plan under the Subdivision Review Criteria (p. 90, no. 8). 06:44:51 PM (00:38:35) Rogers stated that the code does fully require compliance with the Prost plan as written, through Site Plan and Subdivision activities with its requirements for parkland and trail networks. He said that it may be necessary to provide clarity there so that the requirements are more obvious. 06:46:19 PM (00:40:03) Board member Stevenson brought the board’s attention to p. 337 of the UDC draft, 1st paragraph as where it comes very close to recognizing the Prost Plan. He wondered if providing clarification there would meet Spitler’s intent in his previous comment. 06:47:36 PM (00:41:20) Spitler commented on a deletion on p. 172 under 38.11.010 1b striking the text “foster the development of vertically oriented mixed uses in contrast to single use development distributed along high vehicle capacity roadways.” He requested un‐ deleting that text. Board member Waterton thought that there was a replacement statement added to p. 174 item #3. She suggested that it was a reorganization to simplify that section of the code. 06:52:36 PM (00:46:20) Spitler added a comment suggesting reducing minimum parking requirements, increasing allowed restrictions to the minimum parking requirements for developments that use car sharing or that are close to transit. 06:54:11 PM (00:47:55) Zignego agreed that parking requirements need to be reduced and singled out a statement that says “too little parking in B3”, requesting to negate that statement. He continued by stating that these are things that could be tied into public transportation and long range planning and how those pieces fit together. 06:55:06 PM (00:48:50) Board member Pape also commented on parking and suggested that changes need to be made regarding how we handle parking, using the Black Olive project as an example. 06:56:18 PM (00:50:02) Chair Neubauer commented on a section in the UDC regarding parking (p. 437 & 438) on the sentence that says “but must not exceed two spaces per unit.” He asked that they revisit that section to provide clarity, stating that it is vague. 06:57:41 PM (00:51:25) Commissioner Mehl stated that there are 4 parking areas of interest currently, including: downtown, zones adjacent downtown, B2M parking district and B2M overall. 07:03:00 PM (00:56:44) Board Member Pape spoke against zero parking and presented his input for the UDC update. He had concerns regarding a form over function code, losing privacy in regard to duplexes, townhomes and condos with putting aesthetics before function by restricting garages in the front. He pointed out that restricting garages in the front increases impervious surface and decreases safety for pets and children by forcing yards in the front, therefore requiring a shorter fence. 07:21:23 PM (01:15:07) Pape provided an example of alley facing garages and the negative consequences that resulted. Pape continued to point out areas in the code he felt conflicted each other. 07:31:20 PM (01:25:04) Board member Henry Happel pointed out a statement at the bottom of p. 26 of the UDC. The statement that concerned him says “In the case of difference of meaning or implication between this chapter and the City’s Growth Policy, the Growth Policy must control…” Happel was concerned that this was an ambiguous statement and could potentially lead to legal issues. 07:32:50 PM (01:26:34) Board member Erik Garberg pointed out a code section on p. 365 (38.500.020a: Relationship to Other Codes and Documents) where it states which article presides when article provisions may conflict with others. 07:35:03 PM (01:28:47) Board member Waterton had a comment on p. 39 regarding the Design Review Committee process as it relates to the updated UDC. Rogers responded to say that what the DRC looks at is not changing, just the process with which they do the review. 07:40:15 PM (01:33:59) Chair Neubauer requested to increase the number of projects that the Design Review Board would review by lowering the qualifications that required a project to be brought to DRB. He clarified that this would be an attempt to put more weight behind more of the subjective things in the UDC. 07:53:33 PM (01:47:17) Planning and Zoning Commission continued to work through the memo marking areas to discuss. Some items had been addressed in previous conversation. 07:54:38 PM (01:48:22) Board members discussed transition areas, set‐backs and potential requirements for building height. Members deliberated on whether adding restrictions would alleviate the identified issues. 08:10:41 PM (02:04:25) Board member Henry Happel pointed out a code section regarding garage setbacks from alleys, asking that the required setback be reduced in order to increase the yard (UDC draft p. 244‐245). 08:19:01 PM (02:12:45) Chair Neubauer proposed increasing the maximum size for ADUs by changing the restriction that the ADU not exceed 1/3rd of the total area of the principal structure to 2/3rd. (38.360.040 a1: p. 247‐248). Board member Morice supported this and also proposed removing the rule that says that a garage with an ADU above the garage cannot exceed the height of the principal structure. Commissioner Mehl recommended removing the proportion requirement entirely and having a maximum square footage. 08:24:12 PM (02:17:56) Board member Waterton stated that in order to support affordable housing as much as possible and to support density in compatible neighborhoods she thinks that the parking requirement to have one off street parking space with an ADU should be re‐ evaluated. 08:30:24 PM (02:24:08) Happel voiced support for the other member’s ideas to loosen restrictions with ADUs in order to promote infill and affordable housing. 08:36:21 PM (02:30:05) Board member Dugan asked about drive aisle restriction. She noted that the UDC should be consistent in referencing drive aisle vs. driveway. (p. 310, #2) 08:40:15 PM (02:33:59) Board member Morice advocated for looking at a percentage rather than specific drive aisle width restriction with townhomes to promote architectural creativity. 08:47:14 PM (02:40:58) Board member Waterton raised questions regarding improvements on non‐conforming properties to allow minor improvements without triggering large scale requirements for development review. (p. 366) Waterton also commented on special residential block frontages (p. 383) and the example illustration, which she felt caused confusion. Waterton is asking where these restrictions would apply and if there is a way to simplify the requirement. 08:58:03 PM (02:51:47) Board member Morice asked about front façade requirements, which require a large amount of glass (60% of façade). Morice asked if it would be possible to remove the requirement where it has to be between 30 inches from the ground and 10 ft. high. (p.372) 09:00:49 PM (02:54:33) Chair Neubauer reviewed the process of providing comments and edits to Planner Tom Rogers for the UDC update. He explained that Planning Board and Zoning Commission will vote separately to provide feedback to the City Commission. Board members and staff continued discussion on how best to move through the recommendation and voting process for the City Commission. F. FYI/Discussion G. 09:17:49 PM (03:11:33) Adjournment For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@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 Gray at 582‐3232 (TDD 582‐2301).