Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042109 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Caldwell called the joint meeting of the Planning Board and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to take attendance. Planning Board Members Present: Staff Present: Dawn Smith Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Bill Quinn Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Cathy Costakis Donna Swarthout Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Chris Mehl Erik Henyon Zoning Commission Members Present: Peter Harned Nathan Minnick Nick Lieb Members Absent: Guests Present: JP Pomnichowski Steve Ziegler Sean Becker Susan Kozub Rob Pertzborn Karl Wetlaufer Peter Redman ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Steve Ziegler, 2531 Whitetail Rd, stated he had spoken with the Planning Board regarding the Bridger Bench area during the update to the Growth Policy. He stated he looked at the Growth Policy as addressing zoning designations and the growth policy designation proposed for the bench area would be too dense. He stated he wanted the possibility of the PB/ZC looking at the zoning at some point in the future to focus more on a green, sustainable and natural environment. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2009 ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2009 Mr. Mehl stated he would like to see the Planning Board minutes informally before they are sent to the City Commission or other review agencies. President Caldwell stated he had spoken to Staff regarding edits to public meeting minutes and suggested Mr. Mehl speak with Assistant Director Saunders and the City Attorney’s office. MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the Planning Board minutes of March 17, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Henyon abstained as he was not in attendance at the previous meeting. MOTION: Mr. Harned moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the Zoning Commission minutes of March 17, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Minnick, Mr. Harned, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. PROJECT REIVEW 1. Amendments to Title 18 (U.D.O.), Bozeman Municipal Code, #Z-08041 Modify 18 chapters of the City’s land development standards. Bring forward revisions as directed by the City Commission and suggested by Staff. (Saunders) President Caldwell asked the Board and Commission members if they had any particular method with which they would like to review the proposed amendments and suggested Staff make their presentation prior to discussion by members. Ms. Smith asked if the Planning Board would only be commenting on items applicable to Planning Board review. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the Zoning Commission would address zoning amendments and the Planning Board was specifically charged with reviewing Growth Policy and subdivision related amendments. They could comment on items they saw as implementing the Growth Policy. Mr. Sypinski asked if the Zoning Commission would be allowed to vote on Planning Board amendments. Assistant Director Saunders responded points of concern could be discussed on any item in the amendment list, but on specific items, the motion would need to be specifically made by the Board/Commission with jurisdiction over those requested amendments. Assistant Director Saunders stated there were a total of 18 chapters affected in either small or large areas. He stated a number of the edits had been requested by the City Commission and were sent for review for the purpose of collecting comments. He stated Staff had looked at the required criteria for a zoning text amendment and there were specific identified purposes for subdivision that served the same function as review criteria. He stated the nature of land regulation was that there was very little difference in standards between which of the legal processes allow the development of the land. He stated Staff monitored regulations and ordinances on a regular basis and kept a list of items that needed amending. He stated the first two items were related to each other; the Casino Overlay District and the definition of a casino. He noted the Commission had suggested the amendment to the definition of casino and the amendment would only affect future projects and would not be effective retroactively. He stated the allowance of off-premise signage in transit shelters was a significant edit as it had previously been disallowed altogether. He stated the standards for street lighting had been edited with regard to when lighting was required to be installed. He stated the public noticing requirements had been amended to minimize costs. He stated the minimum requirements of noticing had been reduced and legal ads have been decided upon as the new noticing method, but would not include a map; he added that the same notices that adjoiners would get would be posted on the web and would include the location map. He directed the Board and Commission to the location of the public notices on the City website and added that an e-mail alert system had been included to notify the public of new notices being posted on the website. He stated the City Commission had requested review of all public agency zoning exemptions. President Caldwell suggested the Board and Commission discuss the City Commission edits first. Mr. Mehl and Ms. Smith disagreed that Staff should halt their presentation. The Board/Commission concurred that the Staff presentation should be completed prior to any member discussions. Assistant Director Saunders directed the Board/ Commission to Staff and Advisory Board requested edits. He noted bicycle parking requirements had been clarified as well as grading and storm water drainage requirements. He noted clarification of application and historic review would be achieved by referencing the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. He stated specific procedures for termination and renewal of CUP’s had been included and would be consistent with law in general. He stated the submittal requirements had been edited to include specific references to Wetlands Review Board review. He stated specifications on what constituted a buildable lot had been included. He stated the Essential Services II language had been included with regard to changing from a conditional to a principal use. He stated civil penalties would be included in enforcement options, but would not result in a permanent criminal record for someone. He stated the Restricted Size Lot requirement had been included to allow the City Commission to make a decision on whether or not the Restricted Size Lot requirement should be kept in the UDO. President Caldwell opened the item for public comment. Susan Kozub, Intrinsik Architecture, 111 N. Tracy Ave., handed the Board and Commission her recommended edits. She suggested the edits include specific counts for lot coverage requirements; she added that R-4 zoning was allowed 50% coverage and R-O was allowed only 40% coverage and suggested those should be the same. She stated the allowable sidewall height requirements would not work in every situation and cited three examples where clarity would be more advantageous. She suggested first floor heights for garages could be reduced to allow for better use of the 2nd floor Accessory Dwelling Unit. She stated there were some locations where a two story accessory structure might be appropriate; she cited Foxtail Street in Cattail Creek and noted that type of design would not be allowable under the requested amendment. She stated in chapter 18.44, where the B-3 setback requirement of 0 feet still had to observe the street vision triangle and suggested that should not be required with zero lot line zoning requirements. She suggested pedestrian signage should be exempt from setback requirements and some height requirements. She stated requirements for color should be clarified that unless it is an obnoxious color it would not need reviewed. She stated that the definitions of certain uses in 18.80 had been confusing as many uses could overlap. She suggested specific language for the exempt signage section of the code to allow for pedestrian directory signs and suggested language for public parks signage. She suggested including political signs in residential zoning designations. Mr. Mehl suggested going through the edits in order. The Board/Commission concurred. Assistant Director Saunders suggested discussion occur prior to the motion being formulated. President Caldwell asked for comments on the first amendment. Seeing no comments forthcoming, he called for comments on the second amendment and noted Ms. Kozub had addressed the item in her public comment. Assistant Director Saunders noted the item discussed by Ms. Kozub had not been included in the amendments as they were noticed and suggested the Board not include that language in the motion. Assistant Director Saunders stated the list of sections distributed to the members in packets did not include minor edits, such as misspellings or the removal of a period, and only substantive edits had been included. All edits were shown in the text with underlines or strikeouts. President Caldwell asked if there would be any discussion regarding modular lots. No member offered any discussion of the topic. Mr. Mehl asked why Staff had noticed the amendments so that the Board/Commission could not discuss the document as a whole; he suggested Staff include all possible edits. Assistant Director Saunders responded adequate noticing requirements specified language be included instead of noticing blanket changes to the UDO; he added he would check with legal Staff to see if the noticing requirements would allow less specificity. Mr. Sypinski asked the difference between a public hearing and a public meeting. Assistant Director Saunders explained and responded that is was primarily the noticing requirements that were different. Mr. Henyon asked the difference between the 40 and 50% lot coverage in the R-4 and R-O zoning designations. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a different expectation between residential development and residential office development; he added the R-4 had been recently raised to allow 50% lot coverage. Ms. Smith added that the Restricted Size Lot could help provide incentive to build on those lots if the allowable lot coverage were larger. Assistant Director Saunders responded the amendment would specify the same home size limit, but would allow flexibility with the lot itself. Mr. Mehl asked why modular lots had been stricken. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Building Codes would not allow a home to straddle the property line between two lots so the allowance in the UDO would be moot. President Caldwell asked for comments on the proposed garage door edit. Ms. Smith apologized for stating something that was not a proposed amendment and stated 20 feet was not adequate length for a vehicle to park to prevent the vehicle from hanging over the sidewalk in the City. President Caldwell directed the Board/Commission to the edits regarding Casino’s and the Casino Overlay District. He suggested an amendment to 18.1 as the Casino Overlay District would apply to cabaret licenses and suggested the B-3 and central business core district should have a principal use specific to cabaret licenses. Mr. Sypinksi stated he did not agree that cabaret licenses should not have to go through the CUP process for approval. Mr. Lieb suggested the item could not be moved on as it was not part of the proposed amendments. President Caldwell stated a cabaret license was much different than a liquor license and should be allowed in the B-3 area as a principal use. Mr. Sypinski asked if a vital downtown was based on alcohol services and suggested the real vitality of downtown was that businesses should be compatible with each other and part of the larger economic mix. Mr. Mehl stated that the item should be discussed at a different time. President Caldwell asked for any other Board/Commission comments on page one. Mr. Lieb asked for clarification of the 12 foot height requirement. Assistant Director Saunders responded that mixed use/commercial buildings were required to have an adequate ceiling height to accommodate any possible future uses. President Caldwell asked if there was any concern regarding structure height from floor to floor. Assistant Director Saunders responded the height was measured from floor to ceiling plate. Mr. Minnick asked if the height would be required in all the B zoning designations and if there would be allowances made. Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be required in all the B zoning designations and no allowances would be made if the proposed text was adopted. President Caldwell asked who would pay for the update of the historic inventory. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff was pursuing funds through grants as well as application fees and the update itself could be contracted work. Mr. Sypinski added that there had been discussion by the HPAB for volunteers to update the historic inventory. President Caldwell stated it would add more review time for everyone’s project in that area of town. Assistant Director Saunders responded he did not think it would increase the review time; as it stands now, the out of date form slows the Planner down due to having to review previous files for background information and the updated form might save some time. President Caldwell stated there had been a suggestion from Ms. Kozub regarding 18.38.050.e and the height of sidewalls. Mr. Mehl asked why the height had been decided upon at three feet. Assistant Director Saunders responded it seemed more reasonable and Staff recognized the public comment. Mr. Harned stated that, architecturally speaking, they could be attractive buildings, and however, there were several he had seen that were very tall; he suggested an overall height restriction be included instead of restricting only the height of the sidewall. President Caldwell added it seemed relative to the mass of the structure and suggested a universal method would be to reference plate height surrounding a structure; he noted an established plate height could be used or utilize a thinner floor system. Mr. Henyon stated he agreed with President Caldwell. 18.18.060.b Vice Chairperson Minnick asked if there were any more comments on the minimum height requirement within the B zoning designations. President Caldwell stated that as an architect, and in reference to universal design, commercial buildings last for ~30 years and the amendment would assist in the preservation and re-use of those buildings. Mr. Lieb noted it would be a big added cost to developers. Mr. Harned stated he agreed with Mr. Minnick that a 12 foot ceiling height would be amazing, but he could think of places on Griffin Drive (like the new licensing bureau) that a ten foot ceiling would be appropriate; he stated he did not think it should be a blanket statement across zoning. President Caldwell noted the measurement was from floor to floor and if they wanted a nine foot ceiling, there would be nothing to preclude the design from accommodating the height. Mr. Lieb asked if that was why the twelve foot minimum had been established. Assistant Director Saunders responded flexibility in re-use was part of it and it was an idea seen increasingly often and cited the remodel of the Stiff building; he noted material costs might be added, but the investment would be worth it. Mr. Harned stated he was not supportive of the proposed language. MOTION: Mr. Harned moved, Mr. Minnick seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for amendments 18.16.020 through 18.34.100 with the exclusion of 18.18.060. The motion carried 2-1. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Minnick and Mr. Harned. Those voting nay being Mr. Lieb. MOTION: Ms. Swarthout moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for 18.16.020 through 18.34.100 with the exclusion of 18.18.060. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Henyon, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. President Caldwell asked for specific comments from members on amendments18.38.050.F -18.62.010 with the exception of those comments relating to the sidewall height of accessory dwelling units. Mr. Henyon asked which zoning districts wind turbines were allowed in. Assistant Director Saunders responded they would be an accessory use that could, theoretically, be allowed in any district, but the larger turbines were only allowed in industrial/manufacturing zones. Mr. Lieb asked for an example of what certain circumstances would be. Assistant Director Saunders responded that if the wind turbine was mounted on the roof and under fifteen feet in height, the turbine would be exempted from height restrictions but COA’s and Building Permits are still required. Mr. Sypinksi stated in 18.64.040.B the Planning Director had the authority to dictate the amount of parking necessary for the use. Assistant Director Saunders responded that not every possible use could be specifically listed and there was a formal appeal process if the Planning Director’s administrative decision were protested. Mr. Sypinski asked if only the applicant could appeal the Director’s decision. Assistant Director Saunders responded that anyone who could show that they were an injured party could appeal the decision. Mr. Sypinski stated his concern was the balance of parking requirements. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff would take a broader look at the parking requirements in general once the Growth Policy and Downtown Plan were adopted. President Caldwell clarified the amendment was only in reference to uses that were not clearly defined or classified. Mr. Sypinski noted the discussions regarding the clarification of uses were relevant to the discussion. Assistant Director Saunders responded that, as an example, an escort service was not included in the list of uses so the Planning Director would determine the most similar use and gauge the requirements based on those facts. President Caldwell added that as the downtown business plan comes forth, the chapter would be revisited and would address many of the parking standards. Ms. Smith stated she was opposed to proposed amendments18.52.140 and 18.52.150 to litter the City of Bozeman with signage for the sake of a little bit of money; she stated she thought there was too much messaging in the community and it was not worth what the City would get out of it monetarily. She stated she disagreed with advertising for alcohol and tobacco in public parks and suggested she would hate to see national alcohol and tobacco vendors in parks advertising their products. Assistant Director Saunders responded the content of a sign could not be edited as it became a constitutional issue; he noted if someone demonstrated an immediate public health and safety issue the sign could be disallowed. He stated the City as landowner of the parks had more restrictive powers than the land use regulation; the City can address the issue through its use agreements. President Caldwell asked how off-premise signage could be disallowed. Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be disallowed for everyone equally instead of pointing out specific signs that would not be allowed. Mr. Henyon asked if pizza delivery vehicles would no longer be allowed to put their signs on their vehicles. Assistant Director Saunders responded that vehicles used for delivery purposes were technically on-premise signage. Mr. Leib stated he agreed with Ms. Smith that signage should not be included on transit stops. Ms. Smith stated the sense of place discussed in the Growth Policy would be negated with the installation of bus shelter signage. Ms. Costakis stated she agreed with Ms. Smith that signage should not be allowed unless the City could review the design, but she would like to see bus shelters in Bozeman. Mr. Mehl stated that exceptions could be made but it seemed like two weeks was a long time for an alcohol/tobacco sign to be up while children were in the neighborhood. Mr. Henyon stated the federal tobacco settlement prohibits tobacco companies from advertising; he added the Budweiser music tour could have the potential to come to Bozeman and a generator of economic development would be eliminated. Ms. Smith responded a logo placement was different than advertising an actual product. Mr. Mehl stated he would hate to see all the cultural activities tossed out. President Caldwell clarified that product placement on public property could be regulated. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had discussed the amendment with the Parks Department to address those concerns. President Caldwell noted that specific references to tobacco or alcohol products could not be banned from the UDO. Mr. Mehl stated he did not want to concede that those signs couldn’t be specifically called out. Mr. Sypinski suggested California had sign ordinances restricting alcohol and tobacco sign placement within a certain number of feet from schools, churches, etc. and suggested the restriction be included in the UDO. Ms. Swarthout suggested Staff consult with the City Attorney regarding specific language and any constitutional muster; she suggested moving on. Mr. Harned stated he was supportive of Staff seeking guidance from the City Attorney before the language was removed completely. Mr. Mehl suggested the definition of City should be included for clarification. Assistant Director Saunders responded that for conciseness, the City had been a general description to consolidate as chapter 64 clearly defined who approves what type of application. Ms. Swarthout asked if the WRB had hearings on the proposed changes to the UDO. Assistant Director Saunders responded the WRB did not have hearings prior to this one. Ms. Swarthout stated she was supportive of the proposed language in general, but wondered if there was some impact on a member of the community that she was not aware of. Ms. Smith stated the last sentence that applied to wetlands that are wholly manmade and asked what happened if the manmade wetland had been in existence for 50 years. Assistant Director Saunders responded things created by human action were excluded from the definition of wetlands. Mr. Mehl stated the wetland parameters should be more evident and suggested including them in the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded that information was contained in chapter 18.80 but language could be included to reference that section. President Caldwell asked for additional discussion or clarification on items 18.38.050F – 18.62.010. Mr. Henyon asked if the necessary wetland permits should be referenced. Assistant Director Saunders responded the first item of required materials listed in 18.78.020 included Wetlands permits. Ms. Kozub asked if there were any comments on the recommended language regarding the elimination of section and replaces it with chapter in 18.52.050. Mr. Mehl asked her recommendation for language. Ms. Kozub suggested government utility signs and directory signs might be excluded if the language was adopted. Mr. Henyon stated he agreed with Ms. Kozub. Mr. Mehl asked for Staff’s input. Assistant Director Saunders responded amendment provides a process to determine applicability and functional issues (street vision triangles, comprehensive sign plans, etc.); he added the City had typically taken the position that the City does not zone signs within the right of way. Mr. Mehl asked what would be gained by changing the language. Assistant Director Saunders responded it gave the City the opportunity to look at comprehensive signage plans and the neighboring vicinity. Ms. Costakis stated she was in favor of what Ms. Kozub suggested regarding pedestrian signage. MOTION: Mr. Lieb moved, Mr. Harned seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for 18.38.050.F through 18.62.010 with the exclusion of 18.38.050.E., 18.40.030, 18.52.140, and 18.52.150. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Minnick, Mr. Harned, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being none. President Caldwell stated he did not believe any of the items under the Planning Board’s purview had been an issue. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for 18.40.090, 18.42.030.k, 18.42.080, 18.42.150, and18.56. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Henyon stated he would like to see the RSL lots reviewed by the City Commission and if they were not working, he would like to see the sunset provision in place. President Caldwell stated he thought RSL’s worked as it created a stratification in housing prices to supply a diverse housing stock. Mr. Sypinski stated he was supportive of the flexibility provision, but did not support the sunset provision in the language. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the amendment would provide an opportunity for them to comment on RSL lots. Mr. Henyon stated he was supportive of the Commission reconsidering RSL lots. President Caldwell asked for specific items on the last page that would need discussion. Mr. Mehl asked if in 18.76.030 what the implication of the revisions to noticing requirements. Assistant Director Saunders responded the implications were only in the way it was advertised. Mr. Mehl asked if the public agency exemption would be noticed in the paper and on the website. Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be posted both places and posted on-site. President Caldwell asked for any additional comments. None were forthcoming. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for 18.64.010 – 18.80.3170 as presented. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Harned seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for 18.64.010 – 18.80.3170 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Minnick, Mr. Harned, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Harned seconded, to forward a recommendation to amend section 18.40.030 & 040 to define the wall height based on the height of the structure instead of the sidewall, for items 18.52.140 & 18.42.150 to determine if there can be an exclusion of signage for tobacco/alcohol and to not approve signage in transit shelters. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Vice Chairperson Minnick, Mr. Harned, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Harned stated he would prefer to have both the signage amendments stricken from the UDO with the City investigating another department’s enforcement of park signage before any action on park signs. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Henyon asked to be excused from the May 7, 2009 meeting. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS None was forthcoming. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board/Commission, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman __________________________________ Nathan Minnick, Vice President Zoning Commission City of Bozeman