Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-06 Planning Board & Zoning Commission Minutes.doc** MINUTES ** JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION AND PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 5th, 2006 7:00PM 0:09:17 [18:57:53] ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair JP Pomnichowski called the joint meeting to order at 7:09PM and directed the secretary to record attendance. Zoning Commission Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, Chair Nicholas Lieb Nathan Minnick Warren Vaughan Sean Becker, Commission Liaison Zoning Commission Members Absent: Peter Harned (excused) Planning Board Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, Chair and President Brian Caldwell Caren Roberty Edward Sypinski Erik Henyon Steve Kirchhoff, Commission Liaison Planning Board Members Absent: Randy Carpenter (excused) Dave Jarrett (excused) Staff Members Present: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Joe Batcheller 0:09:38 [21:32:28] ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) Seeing none, JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 0:09:56 [18:58:02] ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21ST, 2006 Zoning Commissioner Warren Vaughan noted that on page 9, second paragraph he wanted to clarify that he was not giving blanket support, but his support of the project was for the change in zoning from industrial to residential zoning. Erik Henyon stated he submitted a change via e-mail to the recording secretary and wanted to get clarification that Ms. Kenney-Lyden was in receipt of this to which she confirmed. Chair Pomnichowski motioned to accept the minutes as edited. Ed Sypinski moved and Brian Caldwell seconded. Motion passed 8-0. 0:11:36 [19:01:47] ITEM 4. JOINT REVIEW Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance - Proposed Amendments. Revisions include suggestions collected during the open public comment process and amendments proposed by staff, directed to move to formal amendment by the City Commission. This is the completion of the UDO edits from 2004. (Windemaker/Saunders) 0:11:44 [19:11:55] Staff Presentation Assistant Director Saunders presented the staff report. He noted these edits started back in 2004 with a total of 306 submissions. There were nine advisory boards solicited to review the edits and make recommendations to the Planning Board and Zoning Commission. Mr. Saunders stated the scope of the edits were from every aspect; from grammar to punctuation, significant changes in policy, to rephrasing or adding an item. A total of seven bills came forward from the state legislature which made additional revisions to our land use program. He added Planning Board and Zoning Commission will hold two public hearings on this in December 2006 and then the City Commission will hold the final two public hearings in January 2007. To date, the city has not received any public comment. Mr. Saunders noted he will now present only the edits of substance arising apart from the initial UDO edit suggestion process and noted these are all from Title 18 and will reference only chapter and section number. 1. Chapter 16, section 020: This clarifies that a pair of attached townhomes be a principle use in the R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-O zoning districts. This was a practice by the city for ten years; however it needed to be clarified in our ordinance. 2. Chapter 36, section 090: There is a proposal to add two additional options for acquiring performance points that all Planned Units Developments are required to obtain. This proposal would increase the weighting for affordable housing so one could accomplish more. Secondly, there would be an option for historic preservation of brown fields. Mr. Brian Caldwell noted that since townhomes are now principle uses in R-2 zones, table 16-2 needs to state clearly what the minimum lot area is. Mr. Saunders noted the minimum lot area for this is 3,000 square feet and stated this will be clarified. Mr. Caldwell also noted the lot width will need to be clarified as well. Mr. Saunders stated the general practice has been a minimum of 25 feet, but R-2 has been 60 feet allowing 30 feet for each townhome lot width. 3. Chapter 40, section 130: This section describes the standards to put a manufactured home on a freestanding lot. Right now, there is a reference to the color of the home being part of the evaluation criteria. The City is suggesting to drop the word color from this section as it is not a matter the city should be regulating. 4. Chapter 42, section 080: There has been a longstanding practice in the engineering department to limit the slide slopes of drainage facilities to establish how they are vegetated and for the safety of individuals. This is being put specifically into the ordinance to state that the slopes shall not exceed a 25% grade. Ms. Pomnichowski noted there seems to be a discrepancy in this section that states a 33% grade and asked Mr. Saunders to replace any reference of 33% with 25%. It was clarified that slope occurred in two different contexts and therefore two different standards existed. 5. Chapter 42, section 100: There are two edits; there is some reorganization of the watercourse language and an amendment to some of the standards making this a more functional standard requirement. 6. Chapter 42, section 140: Regarding loading docks, this edit provides an exemption for motels that do not have restaurants or conference centers in it. They do not receive large deliveries that would be expected from a food service provider. 7. Chapter 46, section 040: Regarding parking and since the City has a transit system, it would be legitimate to increase the allowed reduction for proximity to a transit stop. For several years, there has been a 5% allowance so with a hundred parking spaces, one could provide 95 spaces and still meet the code. However, with the bus system, the proposal would change the allowance to 10% so with a hundred spaces, you could provide 90 if this parking area is close to a transit stop since driving is not the only means of transportation. Chair Pomnichowski stated that with future development, it is difficult to project where a transit stop will be located at and asked how this will be predicted. Mr. Saunders replied that there is limited ability to predict where and when, however the City will work closely with bus operations in conjunction with any new development to coordinate this. 8. Chapter 48, section 050: Regarding landscaping, this edit will establish the maximum allowed slope and how it has to be stabilized. 9. Chapter 48, section 060: This edit will specify how you measure the diameter of the caliber of certain types of plants to achieve consistency and standardized with nursery practices. Also, there are a certain amount of points to achieve with landscaping and the City is looking at adding two more options; landscaping roofs and adding sculptures to help achieve these points for overall urban design. 10. Chapter 50, section 020: This edit is a clarification. The City Commission put an explicit cap on the amount of park land required with development and this edit ensures the language is consistent throughout the UDO. 11. Chapter 58, section 140: Regarding flood plains. This edit specifies how many sets of plans are required so the engineering department can conduct their review. They needed one more set than what was originally required in the ordinance. 12. Chapter 74, section 020: A wording change, but will change the word collateral to surety in regards in reference to financial guarantees. The City wanted to use a more descriptive term. 13. Chapter 76, section 030: The table that specifies what kind of noticing needs to be provided. This edit is due to the state statute changes of recent. There was a modification stating that anytime you have to notice due to a public hearing, you must publish it twice. The City will be in compliance with state requirements that means some noticing will require more publishing and some will require less. 14. Chapter 78 regarding submittal materials: The edit is to add a requirement for digital submittals. This is a direction the City Commission is heading towards because it provides greater public access since these can be posted on the web and it simplifies staff requirements. 15. Chapter 78, section 080: When someone submits a drawing as part of a site plan, this edit ensures all the on-site utilities are labeled clearly. 16. Chapter 80, sections 1010, 1310, 1850, and 2270: These are definitions and certain elements required clarification. The proposed amendment will state vacation homes are now considered to be extended stay lodging for the purpose of fitting into the regulatory program in the city. They are specified in certain districts and specific manner to gain approval. Mr. Saunders noted these are not the standard residences. They are also distinct from hotels and are an emerging element in the hospitality industry because they have a mini-kitchen included, but lack the considerable turnover of standard hotels. This definition was created to fill the gap between a hotel and a residence. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how the city can determine whether or not a residence is being used as an extended stay facility. Mr. Saunders noted the owner would have to acquire a permit as well as a business license. He added that the neighbors along with advertisements for vacation homes in the paper lead the public to call our code enforcement officer who will issue violations to those who do not comply. Ms. Pomnichowski stated her concerns with the city's capacity for enforcement. Mr. Saunders noted that the City cannot interfere with the landlord/tenant agreement, however if, for example, a resident rented out for multiple short periods of time, it is no longer a residential use, it becomes a commercial use and the City can enforce that. 0:51:43 [19:13:02] Public Comment Seeing none, JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 0:52:05 [19:13:30] Discussion Brian Caldwell wanted to know what the rationale was behind requiring an applicant to get a conditional use permit for a restaurant in the NEHMU district in chapter 24. He noted this makes it such a challenge. Chris Saunders replied when this issue got to the City Commission, the public said the Historic Mixed Use is not what they are opposed to, but were opposed to extended hours of operation bothering a small community including delivery trucks making their deliveries at 3:00 AM right behind a residence. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the number of tables, hours of operation, parking spaces, and deliveries were part of the criteria. Mr. Saunders confirmed, but also noted the City looks at overall square footage and business hours as determining factors for conditional use permit approval. Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff asked if one could make hours of operation a subsection of the restaurant use. Mr. Saunders noted that hours of operation was only one of the issues of concern brought forward to the Commissioners. Mr. Caldwell stated he feels that restaurants in this HMU district should be permitted as a principle use since M1 district uses are included in this area. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she supports restaurants as a conditional use in the NEHMU district because restaurants are permitted in an M1 district. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated that NEHMU district is a special district of its own. Warren Vaughan noted if the HMU allows trade schools, health establishments, or car washes in this area, it seems logical to have a restaurant within walking distance to these establishments. Chair Pomnichowski noted that in the past, a restaurant was not allowed in this district at all and now it is a conditional use. Steve Kirchhoff stated both sides could be argued evenly, however CUP's are more difficult because of the higher standards and requirements that need to be met. Zoning Commissioner Vaughan asked Mr. Saunders about section 18.06.040. He noted the language is being changed from sufficiency to adequate. Mr. Saunders replied the state passed two bills; one for subdivision and one for zoning. They both used the term adequate and sufficient in the reverse order, so instead of having dual meanings, the City has edited this to reflect each time the word adequate is used in this section, it will mean the same thing to decrease the confusion. Mr. Vaughan stated he is satisfied with this edit. Caren Roberty noted in section 18.36.090, item 7A; this edit confuses the issue of donating a dwelling or a 20 year restriction. She asked Mr. Saunders if he has seen this used very much. Mr. Saunders replied there are points gained in a PUD for affordable housing; however he has not seen it used very much because it has not been in the UDO for very long. He added this option and how to achieve performance points is completely at the discretion of the developer. Ms. Roberty stated the 20 year minimum could be deleted from this edit and maybe add the option of 1 point for each lot donated to the City for affordable housing with some added standards for lot size for multi family lots. This edit would be clearer. She noted this will allow for some flexibility in case the developer wanted to donate some lots for tax credit purposed if the project is 'for profit'. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated that with the input of CAHAB, the developer could come up with an alternative plan, or put the words "as approved by CAHAB" in there plan since the City cannot think of eventuality. Chris Saunders asked the boards to please submit their suggestions to the planning department and it will be distributed. Erik Henyon stated on page 16-4 where it mentions lot area and width, he thought the City was trying to create more density, yet the break down of apartment lots by increasing lot sizes seems to defeat this purpose in R-4 and R-O zones. Mr. Saunders noted developers were looking at total area and only thinking about the end count of total units per acre without allowing for parking, height, or other thresholds. This edit allows for a realistic expectation of what can really happen on the land. Mr. Henyon then referenced page 16-6, 18-5, and 20-5 dealing with density in regards to height requirements. He suggested adding some relaxations in height requirements in the B-1 and B-2 zones; this will allow for a more walkable community and not have buildings so spread out. Mr. Saunders responded that the community as whole has had issues with building height because of the feeling of being 'loomed over' and building character is important as well. He added there are districts that allow for four story buildings, but there is no right answer, there is a large range of preferences and it could be looked at again. Mr. Sypinski stated he is not opposed to putting a cap on building height, but to allow this across the board would not be acceptable and it is only possible to judge each project on a case by case basis. Mr. Caldwell noted the City of Bozeman will not approve a seven story building, but it does make sense to do this. Mr. Saunders noted that in the B-2 district, the developer can pursue a Conditional Use Permit to add another 30% to the building height. He added that putting in structured parking is where one can truly get density. Brian Caldwell stated that in the conservation overlay district, building height is a challenge in getting approval, but if you meet all the other checkpoints it should be easy to get approval. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted that he feels Mr. Henyon is asking for the boards to come up with a response to density in regards to height because the City Commission is struggling with this. He closed by stating that it truly doesn't matter whether height or density seems to be the center of discussion, but there does need to be a strong effort and presentation to the Commission. Chair Pomnichowski stated she feels Bozeman has accomplished greater density without adding greater height. With this, it still feels livable because there is not a 'towering' building. She closed by noting she will not be in support of relaxing the height requirement. Mr. Henyon referenced page 16-4 and asked why the city is measuring stream setbacks from two different places; the high water mark or the bank. Mr. Saunders answered this edit states the default position is the high water mark, but if there is no high water mark, you would have to move to the stream bank. Mr. Henyon wanted to know if measuring the setback from the center of the stream would be more feasible and Mr. Saunders responded the center changes just as much as both of the above which is why this edit has been added. Erik Henyon referenced 18.78.030 of the UDO edits and asked how many copies of the plan are given to the planning department for a plat application submission. Mr. Saunders stated this is one reason why we are now asking for digital submittals, however we currently ask for 20 copies. He added that if the city asked for one copy for everyone who participates in the review process, we would be looking at 40 copies, but most of these can be passed on to the next user after each advisory board meeting. Mr. Saunders stated that the number of paper copies required per each submittal is not set by City ordinance; it is set by the planning department. With this edit, our department will be sure to get at least one digital copy. Caren Roberty noticed there was nothing in the edits regarding green building. She asked Mr. Saunders if the planning department could add a section in the PUD chapter that states a developer could acquire points if they adapted a LEED certified program into their project. Chris Saunders stated this was not listed in the original advertisement, but can be looked at as an option. Nathan Minnick noted that in section 18-020 regarding table 18-1, the edit states to remove the option for ground floor offices in downtown referring to the core area. He asked Mr. Saunders if this is just a clarification or is this intended to encourage high volume in the area. Chris Saunders responded this edit was suggested by the downtown business association who made their points to the City Commission of what they want to see changed to encourage a high activity area. He noted this area covers the area of Mendenhall to Main and Babcock to main and stated this was the core area. JP Pomnichowski stated that on page 34-12, the edit makes a change so that final site plans which used to be approved by the City Commissioners will now be approved by the Planning Director. Mr. Saunders noted this was only for granting an extension to final site plans. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted this has not been a problem for the commission and is in support of this edit because it reduces the volume of work for the City Commissioners. He added this will end up being the job for the Board of Adjustments and to date, no one has been appointed. Chair Pomnichowski that on page 16-4 on table 16-2 footnote one makes reference to additional area. She asked Mr. Saunders if there is a way to have a formula here to define the additional more space. Chris Saunders noted there is no automatic formula, but the City can look at the specifics and advise them on a case by case basis. He closed by stating there are too many unknowns and clarified in noting the numbers change when you look at a townhome or condominium versus a single family residence. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the property owner now receives formal notification on a pre-app for a subdivision because it should be the applicant and not the property owner. She read from page 6-2 and noted it says the property owner will not receive formal written notification of the acceptability or adequacy of a subdivision pre-application submittal and asked Mr. Saunders to clarify. He responded this edit is in compliance with state law due to a change during the last legislative session. He closed by stating there are different procedural steps in the preliminary plat application than in the subdivision pre-application and these notices are by statute, for acceptability and adequacy of the submittal materials at the time of preliminary plat. JP Pomnichowski noted that on page 14-1, the edit is the addition of an urban mixed use district to the zoning map. Mr. Saunders stated this is because the Commission has preliminarily approved the idea of the new district, but it has not been finalized yet. The final draft has been prepared and is under legal review. He added it will be its own chapter; Title 18, chapter 19. Ms. Pomnichowski asked why these boards do not have a copy of this document and wanted to be on record that the Planning Board/Zoning Commission would like a copy of the entire the Chapter 19. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated both boards forwarded a recommendation of denial to the City Commission, but noted it would be a good idea to have the board review it. Mr. Saunders responded that legally, the Zoning Commission and Planning Board had their opportunity to review this proposal at two hearings, recommended denial, and the Commission has decided that though they have approved it, they will not send it back through to the advisory boards. It is at their discretion and is now in the hands of the legal staff. This Planning Board/Zoning Commission motion was to recommend denial because there were too many unanswered issues at that time. Mr. Saunders added the City Commission did not want to wait for the 2020 update and every process has been taken. Mr. Ed Sypinski asked if this new zone is going to be an overlay district. Mr. Saunders replied it will not, however it has not been determined where it will go, but it has been preliminarily authorized. Mr. Henyon noted the City needs to look at the transportation plan update and capital improvements update in order to determine where this UMU district will go. Mr. Saunders noted the Delaney mixed use proposal had more of a B2 zoning function than a BP would, for higher intensity of uses. Ms. Pomnichowski stated her concern with this is that some of the aspects of the original adaptive use proposal, Edit 19 could be blended in with the new UMU district to make it more appealing and applicable as to where the City will put this. She closed by stating if the Commission wishes to not pass this back to the advisory boards again; she will forward her recommendations to the Commission along with Chapter 19. Ms. Pomnichowski noted that on page 18-2, it used to be that extended stay lodges were permitted in B-2 zones and not B-3 zones, but now they are. Mr. Saunders noted this was an independent, self supporting amendment. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if they are okay in downtown and Mr. Saunders confirmed. JP Pomnichowski stated she would like to see a copy of Chapter 19. Warren Vaughan noted that since this will be on the agenda one more time, he asked if the process will be the same. Mr. Saunders responded that all members from both advisory boards should think about these issues and next time around, there will be a need for a formal motion to forward a recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Vaughan added that Commissioner Kirchhoff's comment regarding the City Commission needing guidance on building height and density and wanted specificity on this boards charge. Mr. Saunders commented the next agenda is full and the City Commission will get the final vote and reminded each board member to send all their suggestions and recommendations within the next week and forward them to either himself or the planning department so it can be easily addressed during the next session. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she would like these issues addressed and voted on during the next joint meeting; building height, density, and affordable housing. 2:25:22 [19:13:37] ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Chair Pomnichowski looked at next year's meeting dates and noted that the boards will meet at City Hall for both meetings in February 2007. 2:26:18 [19:54:40] ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Kirchhoff noted he will e-mail his suggestions to the planning department and to all other board members. Ms. Kenney-Lyden noted that the zoning commission and planning board will meet on Wednesday, January 17th due to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. JP Pomnichowski noted that the next meeting will be on December 19th and asked all members to advise her of their absence if they will not be able to attend due to the holidays because the Planning Board is down a member until a county representative is appointed. She also reminded them that they will convene on January 2nd for electing officers for both Zoning Commission and Planning Board. Mr. Brian Caldwell informed all board members that he will be absent for the January 2nd meeting. 2:29:21 [21:29:53] ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair JP Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 9:47 PM. _________________________________ _________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chair of the Zoning Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Commission and President of the Planning and Community Development, Planning Board, City of Bozeman City of Bozeman