Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-05 Planning Board & Zoning Commission Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Harry Kirschenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Sarah Alexander Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Mike Hope Chris Saunders Associate Planner Dave Jarrett Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Harry Kirschenbaum JP Pomnichowski Visitors Present Cory Frehsee Charles Hinesley Chris Budeski Lee Hietala Erin Shanahan Duane Burkenpas Sondra Torma ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (O-15 MINUTES President Kirschenbaum opened the meeting for public comment. Erin Shanahan, representing Northeast Neighborhood, asked that the recommendation on the Simkins-Hallin GPA and ZMA be delayed for four weeks to allow all neighbors to have the opportunity to comment. The secretary noted the notices are being resent with the corrected map attached. Senior Planner Dave Skelton noted he would talk to the planning director about the possibility of rescheduling the Planning Board meeting to allow the public time to comment. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2005 President Kirschenbaum called for corrections or additions to the minutes of March 15, 2005. Ms. Alexander provided edits. The minutes were approved as edited. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Major Subdivision Amended Plat, Prel. Plat Application #P-02012C – (Laurel Glen, Phase 2) A Major Subdivision Amended Plat, Prel. Plat Application by the applicants, C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc., representing the Hinesley Family LP, to add two lots to Block 16, reconfigure Lots 1-7 in Block 15, and the addition of Block 34 to the Phase 2 plat. The property is described as Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 2, and is located in the S½ of Section 4, T2S, R5E of P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is located between Glenellen Drive and West Oak Street, west of Baxter Creek, and is owned by the Hinesley Family LP. Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the Staff Report. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if Lot 1 of Block 34 really had a 35 foot watercourse setback. Planner Skelton noted that was correct as when the original plat was approved, the watercourse setback at the time was 35 feet. Mr. Jarrett asked if there was a change in the number of lots. Planner Skelton noted there was an increase of two lots. Mr. Jarrett asked if the Park and Recreation Board had made a decision on the amount of parkland to be dedicated. Planner Skelton noted the Park and Recreation Board had met to discuss the parkland dedication for the project; he then noted more parkland was being dedicated than was required. Mr. Jarrett asked for the status of the improvements to Durston Road. Planner Skelton responded with the information. Cory Frehsee, C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc., noted he had nothing to add and was here to asked answer questions. As the Board had no questions, President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING. MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Ms. Alexander seconded, to recommend conditional approval of application #P-02012C with Staff Conditions. The motion carried 5-0. President Kirschenbaum recessed the Planning Board at 7:25 p.m. THE CITY OF BOZEMAN JOINT MEETING OF PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Kirschenbaum called the Joint Meeting of the Planning Board and Zoning Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. He discussed the recommendations submitted by Ms. Pomnichowski, and the Joint Board concurred with her recommendations and proceeded accordingly. Members Present Staff Present Sarah Alexander (PB&ZC) Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Cliff Chisholm (ZC) Andrew Epple, Planning Director Mark Evans (ZC) Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Mike Hope (PB) Dave Jarrett (PB) Harry Kirschenbaum (PB) Page Lutes (ZC) JP Pomnichowski (PB) Visitors Present Cory Frehsee Charles Hinesley Chris Budeski Lee Hietala Duane Burkenpas Sondra Torma ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minutes time limit per speaker.} There was no member of the public who wished to speak at this time. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 19 AND MARCH 15, 2005 As there was not a quorum of Zoning Commission members present at the time, the action of the minutes of January 19, 2005 and March 15, 2005 was postponed either to later in the meeting when a quorum was present or to the next meeting. ITEM 4. UDO REVISIONS – Joint meeting with the Planning Board and Zoning Commission. UDO Policy Edits requested for further consideration. President Kirschenbaum called for the audience to speak to any of the Edits being considered at this time. Members of the audience indicated they would speak when the Edit in question came up on the list. Associate Planner Chris Saunders noted that Edits #74, #76, #78, #80, and #84 pertained to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) and should be discussed as a group. The Joint Board concurred. Edit #74 –Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Vote – Action 4 - 7- 0. Public comment -Duane Burkenpas, Marwyn-Lindley neighborhood, questioned whether the reduction to 20% lot coverage was enough as that limitation might lead to the loss of the integrity of the neighborhood if it allowed to much building in the rear. Edit #76 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Ms. Alexander asked that the same language be included in all three setback areas or not in any of them. Planner Saunders explained the difference between the yard setback and the yard that is outside the setback. He then discussed corner side yard. Vote on Recommended Action – 7- 0 with Mr. Chisholm abstaining. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the existing language refers to other structures and asked that examples be included in the UDO. Edit #78 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments, noting Staff does not support. Vote Action 1 - 0-8 Vote Action 2 - 0-8 Vote Action 3 - 0-8 Public comment – Mr. Burkenpas noted the Inter-Neighborhood Council (INC) suggested several actions. He spoke to each suggestion and discussed safety concerns for added parking requirements and traffic. He stated the installation of an ADU in an R-1 zoned neighborhood shouldn’t take away from the existing single households, but the developer should move to the appropriate zoning for creating a duplex. Sandra Torma, Marwyn-Lindley neighborhood, noted an ADU doesn’t get further review after three years. She stated R-1 should be maintained as R-1, and not be expanded to have ADU’s permitted. Mr. Chisholm asked if ADU’s referred to in this Edit were only for R-S and R-1 zones, what the proposed Edit meant, and what the current code meant. Planner Saunders explained the differences. Mr. Chisholm asked if additional parking was required for ADU’s. Planner Saunders noted one additional off-street space was required for each ADU. Mr. Chisholm asked if there was a difference between ADU’s in attached and detached structures. Planner Saunders explained. Mr. Chisholm asked if there is a need for ADU’s in an R-1 zone. Planner Saunders noted that multiple Single Household Residences (SHR’s) were permitted on an R-1/R-S zoned lot with site plan review. He noted an ADU was permitted in R-1/R-S zones by Conditional Use Permit; however, the owner is required to occupy one of the units. He noted that owner occupancy distinction was not a criteria in other zoning districts. Mr. Hope asked if the lot split near Lindley Park and reviewed recently by the Planning Board could have happened without this edit. Planner Saunders noted the second dwelling unit could have been proposed with a site plan review application. Mr. Hope asked for the rationale for having an ADU in R-1. Planner Saunders noted the intent was to provide housing for elder parents near their children. Mr. Lutes asked if he had a five bedroom house, could he divide it into two units. Planner Saunders noted that would be possible if they met the restrictions and were permitted in his zoning district. He stated one of the units may or may not be an ADU, then reviewed the criteria for ADU’s in R-1 and other zones. He discussed the “Household” definition. Mr. Hope asked the audience if the ADU’s were being occupied by college students. Mr. Burkenpas noted their neighborhood has small lots and mostly single family households. He noted when an ADU had been installed, the neighborhood had experienced increased parking, safety, and traffic problems. He noted the neighborhood wasn’t platted for those kinds of uses. Ms. Alexander asked what how a three year review was conducted. Planner Saunders noted the City Commission would review the conditions of approval, and if they were being met, the Commission would approve the continuation of the ADU use. He noted the Code Enforcement Officer spends 70% of her time dealing with housing issues. Ms. Pomnichowski suggested the City Commission might consider creating a task force to address the larger issue of ADU’s to create a balance between fair housing laws and neighborhood character. President Kirschenbaum asked if Mr. Burkenpas was concerned with the establishment of the ADU or if it was the after effects. Mr. Burkenpas noted it was the after effects. Board Members noted additional enforcement maybe effective in addressing these concerns. Edit #80 – Planner Saunders noted the edit is the opposite of Edit #78, and presented Staff comments. Mr. Chisholm noted Rob Pertzborn had suggested allowing the construction of the ADU immediately rather than waiting five years as the parking issues could be better addressed. Vote – Action 1 – 2 Action 2 - 0 Action 3 – 0 Action 4 – 6 Ms. Pomnichowski stated that neighborhood character is established in the first five year, and she felt the density shouldn’t be doubled in five years. She suggested Edits 74, 76, 78, 80, and 84 be considered as a whole. Mr. Hope noted that as a homeowner goes through life, there may come a time for the need for an ADU, perhaps for an aging parent. Mr. Evans noted most new subdivisions have covenants that don’t allow ADU’s. He concurred with Mr. Jarrett who suggested that if higher densities are desired, then the applicant should seek appropriate zoning prior to development of the property. Mr. Burkenpas noted the INC recommended that ADU’s be approved only as Conditional Use Permits (CUP’s). Edit #84 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Vote – Action 4 – 8-0 President Kirschenbaum asked if any members in the audience were here to speak to other Edits. There were no members of the audience who wanted to address specific Edits, but wanted to address them in order of discussion. Edit #64 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how design PUD’s have been reviewed. Planner Saunders noted no design guideline only PUD’s had been received by the Planning Office since the adoption of the UDO. Planner Saunders noted the Master Site Plan has largely replaced that option. Mr. Evans suggested the option be left in for flexibility. Vote – Action 1 - 7 Action 2 - 2 Edit #65 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Mr. Lutes asked for the cost of this proposed edit. Planner Saunders noted the costs would include time to assemble the needed materials, and other issues. Vote – Action 1 – 0 Action 4 – 8 Edit #67 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Vote - Action 1 – 0 Action 4 – 8 Edit #68 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Mr. Hope asked if the intended edit was to be able to offer cash-in-lieu for the amount of parkland. Planner Saunders explained that the way the Edit was currently written, it would require 30% open space on top of existing parkland requirements. Karin Caroline, a member of the UDO group, noted the 30% open space requirement disappeared with the adoption of the UDO. She noted other cities and counties use the 30% open space requirement. She noted that more open space reduced the number of affordable housing lots. Clint Litle, HKM and a member of UDO group, noted he had difficulty meeting the parkland requirement with the West Winds project as 45% of the net area would have been required for the parkland. He suggested stepping back to the previous requirement would be more predictable. John Dunlap noted it became a double dip on parkland and open space. He stated they are considered two separate components now. Mr. Chisholm asked if they were looking to simplify the requirement calculation, or if this was an attempt to defeat the affordable housing requirement. Planner Saunders noted when the section was originally written, a couple of PUD’s then being processed were run through the numbers for calculating the open space and parkland, and the numbers came within ½ %. He noted the proposed Edit would require more parkland and open space dedication. He discussed the effects of the proposed Edit and how the points referred to in the UDO might be applied. Mr. Chisholm stated he doesn’t understand the balance between affordable housing and open space. Planner Saunders explained the theory. Ms. Alexander explained the concept. Bob Lee, Morrison-Maierle and a member of the UDO group, asked if, when using a PUD, stream side setbacks could be included in the calculations for open space. Planner Saunders noted they would be counted. Mr. Lee noted the PUD still suffered from the double dip. He noted it is difficult to get the required open space, parkland, and enough lots to make a piece of property marketable. He questioned the use of the PUD process if it was such a difficult process. He stated a PUD required too much open space, which isn’t important to neighborhoods. However, he noted parkland was very important to neighborhoods. He suggested the City Commission revisit the calculation for open space. Mr. Litle stated West Winds was penalized for having density by the parkland requirement. Mr. Dunlap noted an incentive for affordable housing could be a reduction of required open space/parkland. Director Andrew Epple described the affordable housing aspect of a PUD in relation to parkland dedication. He stated the concept is good. He noted the problem with the West Winds development was not with the 20 points for a PUD, but with the parkland dedication. Mr. Hope suggested the vote on Edit #68 at a later date. President Kirschenbaum noted it is very similar to Edit #190. MOTION: Mr. Hope moved, Mr. Lutes seconded, to move Edit #68 to the discussion of#190 -195. The motion carried unanimously. Edit #69 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Vote – Action 1 – 3 Action 4 – 4 Ms. Pomnichowski noted statute requires the UDO be in compliance with MCA. Ms. Caroline noted the intent was to go back to the previous regulations, which allowed commercial uses in perhaps a BP zone. Planner Saunders noted if commercial uses are desired, a GPA would be in order to change the land use to accommodate commercial uses. Mr. Chisholm noted he didn’t support the proposed revision and gave his rationale. He noted the growth policy should be changed as it needs to be change. Mr. Hope noted the property next to Home Depot was a good example of changing the land use to meet the needs of the time. He noted he was opposed to a developer purchasing land outside the growth policy area and annexing it with whatever zoning he thinks would be approved. He continued he didn’t think it was appropriate for the developer to then request a zoning change as it increases the value of his land many fold. Mr. Lee noted the proposed Edit #69 opens the door to the future. He stated he didn’t feel the Edit was against statute. Director Epple noted the 1990 Growth Plan brought forth the provision for a limited neighborhood commercial development, which could be done anywhere on the intersection of arterial and collector streets. He stated the 1990 Plan was criticized for lack of predictability. He noted the 2003 Growth Policy was an attempt to bring back some predictability of where the commercial nodes would be located. He noted it is a Bozeman 2020 Community Plan discussion rather than a UDO discussion. Vote – Action 1 – 4 Action 4 – 4 Edit #73 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Vote – Action 1 – 8 Edit #75 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Vote – Action 3 – 8 Chris Budeski asked if telephone pedestals in front yards were an issue. Planner Saunders noted they were considered Essential Services and would not be affected by the edit. Edit #77 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Vote – Action 1 – 8 Edit #85 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. He reviewed the existing UDO section and what the proposed edit would change. Mr. Hope noted it was standard practice for the City Commission to vote against a CUP for fuel and alcohol sales, however, it was permitted under the code. He stated he and several others felt the condition was sneaked into the UDO without adequate public comment. He noted there was no proof that selling gas and alcohol at the same site have any connection to one another. He stated his desire was for the opportunity for due process on the section of the UDO. Director Epple noted the regulation was duly noticed and public comment opportunity provided. However, the Planning Office would take responsibility for not specifically calling out the edit when the UDO was adopted. Mr. Budeski noted the UDO group couldn’t see any need for the regulation as there seemed to be no justification for it. Mr. Chisholm noted it wasn’t only a matter of scientific proof; it was a matter of making rules to protect the public safety and some judgment is required. Vote – Action #1 – 4 Action #4 – 4 Edit #86 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Ms. Caroline noted the UDO group’s interpretation was that lighting was only permitted on the main structure; the canopy and parking lot needed to be lit also. Vote – Action #1 – 6 Action #4 – 2 Edit #88 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Vote – Action #1 – 4 Action #4 – 4 Ms. Alexander noted the City should start with a higher standard, then, if the applicant wants to propose an alternative, they can make their case. She then exited from the remainder of the meeting. Edit #96 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Mr. Hope asked if this Edit had previously been adopted as an interim ordinance. Planner Saunders noted it was, and it has now become part of the current regulations after revision by the City Commission. Mr. Jarrett stated that big boxes are acceptable if the design is superior. Vote – Action 1 – 6 Action 4 – 1. Edit #97 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Director Epple noted he felt the intent was for a project that “meets or exceeds” the requirements. Mr. Budeski stated he was concerned about having to exceed any criteria. Mr. Lee noted Director Epple’s “fix” was acceptable. Ms. Pomnichowski asked Mr. Budeski if his group would like to offer a new wording for a third action. None was forthcoming. Vote – Action 1 – 6 Action 4 – 1 Ms. Pomnichowski commented that the Entryway Overlay District standards exceed the regular standards. Edit #103 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Mr. Budeski noted he was an advocate of parkland containing retention/detention ponds. He stated some of the retention/detention ponds are mud holes; however, if they are well kept, work well as part of the parkland. He noted land is expensive and should have dual usage. Mr. Chisholm noted that just two weeks ago the same discussion had been held. The Joint Board wanted the standards expanded. He urged the City to work with the developers to develop workable design standards, which should coordinate with City stormwater planning. Vote – Action 1 – 2 Action 4 – 5 Ms. Pomnichowski stated the vote reflected that the recommended action is only the tip of the iceberg and the Joint Board suggested a task force of design professionals be formed to work with City staff to develop standards for retention/detention ponds within public parks and open spaces. Edit #104 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments. Mr. Budeski noted his concern was that trails are allowed in the stream setback as are storm water facilities. He stated his concern was that there may be conflicts as fill may need to be added for the trail. Planner Saunders noted those exceptions are allowed in the existing ordinance. Vote – Action 1 – 0 Action 4 – 7 Edit #105 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments, noting Staff feels the language proposed by the WRB was better than that initially proposed by Staff and recommends Action “2A” to use the WRB language. Vote – Action 1 – 0 Action 2A- 4 Action 2b – 0 Action 3 – 2 Mr. Lutes abstained. Edit #106 – Planner Saunders presented Staff comments noting it was the beginning of the lighting edits. The Joint Board determined this edit would be continued to the next meeting. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Planner Saunders announced the City Commission will begin their review of the Editorial and the Classification Edits on April 15th. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she often calls or emails the Planning Office with questions prior to meetings, which, she stated, helped her understand the Edits and make a more informed decision. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no Old Business to be discussed at this time. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City of Bozeman Planning Board or Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ____________________________________ ___________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board and Presiding Officer of the Joint Meeting of the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission and Planning Board