Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-06 Planning Board & Zoning Commission Minutes.doc JOINT MEETINGAGENDA THE CITY OF BOZMAN PLANNING BOARD THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Planning Board President and Zoning Commission Chairman JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Zoning Commission Members Present Staff Members Present JP Pomnichowski Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Nathan Minnick Development Peter Harned Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning and Nicholas Lieb Community Development Planning Board Members Present Visitors Present JP Pomnichowski Tony Renslow Brian Caldwell Sean Becker Nicholas Lieb Marcia Youngman Dave Jarrett Elliot Eisenberg Mike Hope Erik Henyon Randy Carpenter 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.} There was no public comment. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2006 President Pomnichowski called for corrections or additions to the minutes of the May 2, 2006 meeting of Planning Board. Erik Henyon asked that the words “before they are problems” be stricken from the end of the last sentence of the third paragraph of page 5, as he feels traffic issues are already problems. The minutes were approved as corrected. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Delaney Neighborhood Mixed Use District UDO Text Amendment, #Z-06049. The Proposed District proposes to create a “Neighborhood Mixed Use Zoning District”. The district would establish the intent of the district, the allowed principal and conditional uses, required yard setbacks, required lot area and width, maximum building heights, and maximum lot coverage. The proposal includes the development and adoption of special development standards and design criteria to apply within the new district. The standards and design criteria includes items such as landscaping, building design, compact development requirements, encouragement for multi-story building, vertical mixed use, pedestrian access, street connections, crime prevention, parking and public spaces. (Saunders) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders handed out a copy of a Ft. Collins, CO “How to” publication on Mixed Use Zoning Districts. He then presented the proposal, describing it as a text amendment which would be applicable throughout the jurisdiction, and not just for one site. He explained that the mixed use zoning district proposal would create the opportunity for developers to create, “A more intensive urban experience than anything currently on the books.” He discussed four questions that need to be addressed when reviewing text amendments of this nature, as outlined in the Staff Report, and then reviewed the 12 public interest criteria for evaluating zone code text amendments, as set forth in state law. Mr. Saunders stated that: “Based on the findings and conclusions presented [in the Staff Report], staff finds some merit with the proposal. Staff finds some revisions are necessary to fit the district within the overall planning and regulatory program of the City.” Mr. Saunders concluded his presentation by stating that since this is a proposed amendment to the UDO, both the Planning Board and Zoning Commission would need to take separate actions. Mr. Brian Gallik of the Law Firm of Goetz, Gallik and Baldwin, P.C., representing Delaney and Company, stated they had relied on the Urban Land Institute’s publication, “The Mixed Use Handbook”, to prepare this application. He noted that ULI and others view mixed use zoning as a way to promote Smart Growth. Mr. Gallik indicated that Mixed Use Zoning is not just a “big city” concept; noting that he has clients who are using it at Big Sky. He then read a definition of MU zoning from the Handbook, and explained that, while the 2020 plan promotes mixed use, the UDO provides only limited opportunity to put the concept into practice. Mr. Gallik concluded his remarks by stating they are generally in agreement with the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report, with the exception of the recommendation that a Mixed Use Zoning District be limited to areas designated as “Commercial” in the 2020 Plan. He stated they feel it should be applicable to any land use classification, and that they are open to suggestions to make the proposal better. Applicant Mike Delaney, of Delaney and Company, distributed what he described as the “Real World Map” of Bozeman, depicting the limited areas where a Mixed Use Zoning District could be applied. He suggested that this map demonstrates there is no need to limit the location of MU Zoning Districts as recommended by staff. He described his vision of vertical mixed use, as opposed to horizontal mixed use, and decried the “lost opportunities” for mixed use developments at the Gibson’s and Hastings sites. President and Chairwoman Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. Board member Randy Carpenter expressed concern about the lack of “mixing” ratios in the Mixed Use proposal, stating that without set ratios, a mixed use development could contain only one or two uses. Assistant Director Chris Saunders replied that, after further policy discussion, it would be possible to mandate proportions of uses, using tools such as Floor Area Ratios (FARs), percentage of lot coverage, etc. Dave Jarrett questioned the process to apply a Mixed Use Zoning District to the map – would it be through a Zone Map Amendment process? Would there be a minimum or maximum size? Mr. Saunders noted that the Ft. Collins model distributed earlier requires a 10-acre minimum lot size, to allow for a “multiplicity” of uses. Mike Hope disclosed he is in the hospitality business, and that he has some concerns with the proposal. He wondered if a MU District could be applied to other areas, like the North 7th corridor, and whether or not the uses proposed in the draft ordinance could already be done under the UDO. He cited the Jacob’s Crossing building as an example of where mixed use has already occurred under B-3 zoning. Mr. Saunders explained that the proposed MU district would allow additional uses and additional height than existing districts would allow. Mr. Hope stated that downtown Bozeman is the heart of the community and that he is very skeptical of any proposal that could jeopardize its health and vitality. Mr. Hope stated that on a 10, 20, or 30 acre site, a MU district would really be a regional commercial development. He questioned whether this proposal is just a way for Mr. Delaney to get to do what he wants to do on Huffine Lane, including obtaining a multitude of liquor licenses through his “Resort” classification. Mr. Delaney interjected that they would like to be able to do mixed use projects in several locations, and reviewed a photo exhibit depicting a successful mixed use development in San Jose, CA. Ed Sypinski stated he felt this Mixed Use zoning district proposal might be most appropriate as a redevelopment tool, rather than for raw land. He suggested that perhaps it could be set up as an overlay district instead of a free standing district. Mr. Sypinski expressed concern about the proposed height allowance, and the effect it could have on the Bozeman skyline. He concluded by stating that a “City of villages is not really a community.” JP Pomnichowski asked what a reasonable minimum size for a MU district would be, and whether perimeter streets would be required. Mr. Delaney responded that 15 to 20 acres should be minimum for a free-standing MU district, and that perimeter streets are desirable. JP expressed her concern about building massing, given the proposed height allowance, and inquired if “step backs” could be incorporated into the design. Mr. Delaney stated that with the “focus on the center,” building heights could be stepped back from the perimeter to the center. Dave Jarrett commented that he doesn’t see this as a redevelopment tool. He also stated that he cannot vote for this proposal tonight because there are too many questions. Peter Harned expressed his view that this proposal would advance policies in the 2020 Plan, and that there is a need for this sort of district to be created. He stated that Main Street can “hold its own” in the face of “perimeter” development, but that he is concerned about the size of buildings this zoning district would allow. Mr. Harned expressed general support for the proposal, but noted it is not a “finished product” yet, so he feels it needs more work. Steve Kirchhoff expressed confidence in Delaney and Company’s ability to do quality work, but stated he has some reservations. He commented that commercial development along major arterials is still strip development, and that quality development in a poor location is still poor development. Mr. Kirchhoff stated his concern that this zoning district could contribute to sprawl. He noted that he finds enough merit in the concept to “move it ahead” through the review process, with the expectation that the City Commission will refer it back to the Planning Board and Zoning Commission for further work before it is finalized. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she likes the general idea and hopes it comes back to the PB and ZC for further work. She expressed concerns about the lack of defined ratios and the potential for phasing, and commented again on her concern regarding scale and massing of buildings. She questioned whether the community really wants “islands of height” around town. Ms. Pomnichowski noted that the intensity of uses contemplated in a mixed use district would result in huge traffic generation. She suggested this whole proposal could perhaps be better addressed through the upcoming 2020 Plan update. Ms. Pomnichowski also expressed her opinion that four of the 12 review criteria are not met, especially those dealing with “overcrowding of land” and that “reasonable consideration be given to the character of the district.” She concluded that a mixed use zoning district would be most appropriate in lands designated “Community Commercial” in the 2020 Plan, to address these concerns. Nicholas Lieb questioned whether Mixed Use Zoning would be appropriate on vacant land. Chris Saunders replied that is a question that would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Mike Hope commented that almost everything that this zoning district would allow can already be done in the B-2 and B-3 zoning districts, except the height. He stated the real issue here seems to be the BP zoning designation on Mr. Delaney’s Huffine Lane location. Mr. Delaney stated that without the Mixed Use Zoning District, the City will continue to get single story buildings surrounded by parking lots in strip developments. JP Pomnichowski called for Board and Commission discussion. Erik Henyon commented that he feels Mixed Use doesn’t neatly fit into any existing district, so this would be a more efficient zoning district. He stated he feels the proposal fits the 2020 Plan, and would promote more vertical development and discourage sprawl. Mr. Henyon noted that using these district regulations would be easier than doing a PUD, that the town is changing, and Mixed Use zoning is a healthy solution. Brian Caldwell stated that his first reaction was that the concepts embodied in the Mixed Use Zoning District proposal are already allowed, but now he likes switching from “permissive to required” when it comes to promoting mixed use. He would go so far as to support banning horizontal development in favor of building higher. But he noted he feels the City’s tolerance for anything over five stories is very limited; but that three stories should be minimum in any Mixed Use District. Caren Roberty stated she likes the flexibility that the Mixed Use District would allow, as long as appropriate ratios could be defined. She agrees there should be requirements for verticality. Dave Jarrett noted that under this proposal it would be possible to triple the total square footage of a project over what is currently allowed. He stated this sort of change to the Code should be deferred until the UDO edits are completed. Mike Hope stated he likes Mixed Use Zoning for redevelopment areas. Using it on the perimeter of town is “too far from the consumer base” and could hurt downtown. He doesn’t want “little villages surrounding the City.” Mr. Hope commented that he believes a Mixed Use Zoning District should be limited the area between North 19th and Rouse Avenues, for use as a redevelopment tool. JP stated that she feels the zoning criteria for approval of this text amendment are met if the underlying land use classification is Community Commercial in the 2020 Plan. Steve Kirchhoff suggested the community needed to be more accepting of tall buildings. Mike Hope questioned the process from this point forward. Planning Board and Zoning Commission members generally discussed the need for more information, and the need for more time to deliberate on this matter. MOTION: Dave Jarrett moved that the Planning Board continue this item to June 6, 2006. Steve Kirchhoff seconded. Under discussion of the motion, Caren Roberty indicated she would like input from the City Commission, before working on this matter further. Randy Carpenter echoed this thought. Steve Kirchhoff stated the City Commission will greatly appreciate advice and a recommendation from the Planning Board and Zoning Commission prior to their consideration of the matter. Mike Hope noted this is a great opportunity for the Board and Commission to do some planning, instead of just reacting to development proposals. The motion passed 9-0. MOTION: Peter Harned moved that the Zoning Commission continue this item to June 6, 2006. Nicholas Lieb seconded. The motion passed 3-0. ITEM 5. PRESENTATION “Inclusionary Zoning” Presentation by Dr. Elliot Eisenberg (Economist with National Association of Home Builders). Presentation given on May 15th to the City Commission. Dr. Eisenberg stated that Homebuilders across the country want to be part of the affordable housing solution, but also want to be successful business people. He presented a slide show comparing housing prices across the country, and presented various economic models to demonstrate that inclusionary zoning is bad public policy. He stated that government regulations add cost to housing. While acknowledging that land cost is the biggest factor in home pricing, Dr. Eisenberg stated that tax and regulatory solutions don’t work to reduce costs of housing. He commented that economists find “no favor” in tax and regulatory solutions to affordable housing, and noted that inclusionary zoning “always and everywhere” raises the cost of housing. Dr. Eisenberg concluded by advising the Planning Board and Zoning Commission to be cautious in advancing inclusionary zoning in Bozeman, because home buyers have options to move to other parts of the County if costs are perceived too high here. Board members and Commissioners thanked Dr. Eisenberg for his presentation, and asked that they be provided with copies of the material he presented. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS – None ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS President and Chairwoman JP Pomnichowski announced that she is exploring the possibility of having the Planning Board and Zoning Commission meetings held in the Gallatin County Courthouse, where it would be possible to broadcast the proceedings via public access television, as does the City Commission. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City of Bozeman Planning Board or the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission, the Joint Meeting of the Board and Commission was adjourned at 10:51 p.m. _____________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director JP Pominchowski, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board