HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A5. Ordinance 1981 Provisional, Readopt 4598, 4B Guidelines - SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO
MEMORANDUM TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM G.5, APPLICATION 17399, SUBCHAPTER 4B This memo is to update the Commission on the meeting of the Design Review Board (DRB) held on September 13, 2017, in the City Commission chambers at 5:30 PM. The DRB met to consider Application 17399, a proposal to affirm and readopt Resolution 4598, as amended by Resolution 4623, which added Subchapter 4B (design guidelines for commercial development within the neighborhood conservation overlay district, specifically the B-3 “halo”) into the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. A quorum of the DRB was not present, therefore no formal vote was taken. An audio recording of the meeting was made as the video equipment in the Commission chamber was being replaced this week. The audio recording is available to the Commission and the public on the City’s website at https://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=1761f9a0-5185-4b38-9f6d-fb8f0f7ff52c&prefilter=654,3835. There was a technical failure and the first 22:30 minutes of the recording only includes silence. The reason for this is unknown and we have confirmed the data is not recoverable. This silent section includes some of the public testimony. A summary of the public testimony is provided below. Formal minutes of the meeting will be prepared later to the extent possible. Members of the public were present and the DRB received public testimony. One written comment was received in advance of the meeting, which was provided to the DRB and has been provided to the City Commission. Four persons gave spoken testimony. None spoke in favor of the application. A variety of concerns were raised including overall impact on historic areas, particular impacts on residential areas adjacent to commercial areas, development review processes, prioritization of standards, community character, adoption process and timing, inadequate standards, parking, privacy, zoning district boundaries along streets rather than along midblock locations, and setbacks. Three members of the DRB were present. Four members are required for a quorum. All offered individual comments but no motion was made and no vote was taken due to there being no quorum.
Page 2 of 2
At minute mark 38:19, the first DRB member to speak, Lessa Racow, recommended considering the B-3 in relation to residential transitional areas and parking. Suggested that the Commission not approve the application at this time. Brady Ernst spoke next at minute mark 40:42. He observed there had been two years to use Subchapter 4B. Could have been amended not reapproved as is. Subchapter 4B was put in as a stop gap, guidelines were reasonably good where areas are not historic. Consider where conflicts have arisen. Transitions are important, consider whether the UDC update could address which standards take precedence. Work to harmonize between the UDC and 4B. Charley Franklin spoke at minute mark 44:33. He stated that the 4B could use some help but does a generally good job. Changes from historic to non-historic places. Concern on where the zoning lines were drawn and that issues would be less if the zoning boundary was along a street rather than dividing individual properties. Look at possible changes to B-3 zoning boundary changes to lessen possible conflicts. Address the transition zones. Subchapter 4B does address the transition which might not be an issue if the line went down the centerline of the street. Consider updating 4B along with the update to the overall design guidelines. At minute mark 51:58, Lessa Racow said she would also support revising the zoning boundary lines as well as massaging the transitions in the 4B document. The discussion then concluded. After discussion of FYI items the meeting ended.