Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-05 Planning Board & Zoning Commission Minutes.docSPECIAL JOINT MEETING THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES AGENDA CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET WEDNESDAYTUESDAY, JANUARY 1FEBRUARY 155, 2005 7:00300 P.M. (There is no Zoning Commission meeting scheduled) ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Harry Kirschenbaum called the meeting to order at 6: 05 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Mike Hope Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director JP Pomnichowski Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development Dave Jarrett Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Harry Kirschenbaum Jeff Krauss Ed Musser Jane Shaw Stroup Visitors Present John Harper John Dunlap Karin Caroline Paul Wiese Jeanne Wesley Wiese ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board or Zoning Commission and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} ITEM 3. UDO REVISIONS – UDO Policy Edits requested for further consideration beginning with Edit #190. Associate Planner Chris Saunders noted the first public hearing for the UDO had been scheduled and advertised. He stated the City Commission would only be looking at clarifications, editorial, state statutes, A.D.U.’s, and parkland edits. Mr. Kirschenbaum added that the public hearing would be the formal occasion for the Planning Board/Zoning Commission to make recommendations. Ms. Pomnichowski asked for clarification with regard to the items to be discussed at the public hearing. Planner Saunders reiterated and added that the revisions would be outlined for the Planning Board/Zoning Commission. Mr. Kirschenbaum asked if it would be possible for Mr. Hope, should he need to be called away, to be absent and the Planning Board/Zoning Commission still forward formal recommendations. Planner Saunders responded the Planning Board/Zoning Commission could still forward formal recommendations without a quorum. He stated he would be outlining the state statute that dictated parkland procedures and began a power point presentation. He stated the City relied on two portions of State Statute with regard to parkland requirements (Subdivision and Platting Act and Municipal Zoning). He noted the statutes address how an area of parkland is decided and gives two options. He cited examples of the different options available to obtain the required amount of parkland and exceptions when parkland requirements were zero. He stated the language was broad to make certain that all aspects of the development would be reviewed. He stated the governing body was the final ruling on the form of parkland a subdivision was allowed. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how the two numbers, one estimate of required parkland from the preliminary submittal and one calculated amount of required parkland for final submittal, differed. Planner Saunders responded that the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan had minimum and maximum projected densities. Mr. Dunlap interjected that he did not know how the parkland determination was made when the density of a subdivision was unknown and added that the Planning Office would demand the highest estimated amount of parkland. Planning Director Epple responded there would be default densities (minimum projected Bozeman 2020 Community Plan densities) used to determine parkland designation. He cited the text designed to address the issue. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how the two, estimated and calculated, densities would be resolved. Planner Saunders responded the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan provided guidance and made it possible to meet the minimum or the maximum densities and added that, on average, the parkland calculation would not make much difference. Ms. Pomnichowski stated that, at the preliminary stages, the calculation was often different than when the project was further through the process. Mr. Dunlap insisted that his question of who was the ultimate deciding factor had not been answered and that the calculation would become obsolete after the entire development had been based on the preliminary estimate. Mr. Jarrett stated that once the park had been designed, if a review agency did not approve of the proposal, it would be entirely redesigned with new calculations. Planner Saunders responded the Planning Office had attempted to put a greater amount of predictability into the process. He stated that procedure dictated that when an application is deemed complete, the only way to modify the application would be to withdraw it and resubmit once the inefficiencies had been addressed. Mr. Kirschenbaum asked Mr. Dunlap if he was able to lock the parkland requirements into place when he had submitted a complete application. Mr. Dunlap responded that the density could not be identified in his PUD submittal, and added that the Planning Office required him to have the maximum parkland requirements which worked out to be 1,307 square feet of parkland per dwelling unit. Planner Saunders stated Sufficiency of Design played a part in parkland requirements. Mr. Hope asked when the POST plan was last updated. Planner Saunders responded it was updated in 1997. Planner Saunders stated there was a separate document describing the parkland proposal, within the submittal, and the Planning Office reviewed the proposed open space. He used the analogy of filling a fruit basket to explain the standards for parkland dedication. He stated that the idea was simply to establish that the requirement would be met and there were options available to provide the means and added there should be a known number and known standards to work with. Mr. Jarrett asked how negotiable the parkland requirement options were. Planner Saunders responded they were very negotiable. Mr. Dunlap stated he did not know how large the “fruit basket” was supposed to be and added that if he knew the answer to that question, his problem would be solved. He stated the interesting thing was the way that none of the review boards could work together to provide a balance for parkland requirements and added there were no adopted parkland standards. Planning Director Epple responded there was an adopted PROST Plan and adopted parkland standards within State law. He added that on the West Winds PUD submittal the maximum densities were used to calculate parkland because density numbers were given in the submittal and the City Commission had moved to reduce the required amount of parkland for the development. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there would still be a preliminary calculation and later an exact calculation. Planning Director Epple responded there was no discrepancy as the requirement was either based on units or would default to the minimum requirements per the interim ordinance. Ms. Stroup asked if the minimum density calculation would hold through the final stages of the development. Planner Epple responded it would remain constant. Mr. Lutes asked why the 11% could not be held as the standard and why he would have to give the City parkland when the City should be buying the land from him for parks. Mr. Lutes stated he thought the 11% would be the method to use. Planner Saunders continued his presentation noting the Park Facility Plan was a supporting document to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He stated there were different methods of applying parkland dedication and cited local examples. Mr. Hope asked, if a commitment was given by the developer to meet the requirements at a later date, what insured their compliance. Planner Saunders responded that the City reserved the right to dictate areas of parkland to provide for trail connections, etc. Ms. Pomnichowski asked what would happen if a subdivision proposed a park outside of what the Park Facility Plan envisioned for that area. Planning Director Epple responded the parkland would still be counted toward the requirement. Planner Saunders responded there were times when the city had absolute jurisdiction and there were times when the city did not have absolute jurisdiction. Mr. Hope asked if the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board could be split up into jurisdictional areas. Mr. Harper responded the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board reviewed the City as a whole. Mr. Harper addressed the Planning Board/Zoning Commission discussing existing parkland dedication and the institution of linear parks. He stated the Recreation and Park Advisory Board’s goal was to consolidate the parkland as usable outdoor space within any given subdivision. Mr. Jarrett asked if there were difficulties regarding the maintenance of park areas. Mr. Harper responded that there were a couple of methods used to maintain parks; City maintenance and Homeowners Association maintenance. Planner Saunders responded that a parks maintenance district could be instituted to provide maintenance for some of the parks taken over from the Homeowners Associations. Ms. Stroup asked if the Cattail Lake development was made to give the public a specific amount of parkland and if the rest of the private parkland would be counted for their requirements.  Mr. Harper responded the applicant wanted to count the lake as part of the parkland requirements and the City Commission decided it was unallowable. Planner Saunders clarified that there was language in State Statute or City regulations that banned passive parkland. Mr. Hope asked Mr. Dunlap if he treated a park as an amenity when he was proposing a development. Mr. Dunlap responded most definitely a park was looked on as an amenity and added the problem came when he did not know the exact requirements. Mr. Hope asked Mr. Harper if he thought developers understood the need for parkland areas. Mr. Harper responded he thought most developers did understand the cities needs for open space. Mr. Nixon stated the Northeast Neighborhood had drafted an outline of proposed definitions of City Park categories and handed out copies of said outline. Ms. Caroline asked for clarification of the timeline for the new PROST Plan. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the City Commission required the first draft of the PROST Plan by September 1, 2005 to help clarify some of the proposed edits. Planner Saunders responded that a subcommittee had been appointed by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and public was invited to attend any of their meetings. Mr. Kirschenbaum stated, for the record, he was “put out” by being pre-empted by the City Commission. Ms. Stroup concurred and stated she did not see the merit to discussing the proposed edits in the preliminary stage. Planner Epple responded that City Commission is in a hurry to complete the first round of edits, but is still interested in the Planning Board/Zoning Commissions opinions. Planner Saunders noted the City Commission had pieced out the proposed edits to expedite certain items; #190, #191, #192, and #194 not immediate, #193 and #195 were immediate; and some edits were deferred until the PROST Plan was updated and adopted. Edit #190 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote – Action 1-1 vote, Action 2 – 0 votes, Action 4 – 6 votes. No action until PROST Plan is updated and adopted. . Public comment – Mr. Hope addressed Mr. Harper stating his concern was trading parkland for low income housing. Mr. Harper responded that the more dense the housing, the less the parkland for people in the area and added the current regulations caused an undesirable affect and the PROST Plan would help deter that affect. Mr. Dunlap stated there needed to be a balance between density and parkland. He added that the problem came from each board and committee being equipped with “blinders” preventing them from looking at the overall picture. The Planning Board/Zoning Commission suggested Mr. Dunlap join the PROST Plan committee. Edit #191 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 4 – 7 votes. No action until PROST Plan is updated and adopted. Edit #192 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 4 – 7 votes. No action until PROST Plan is updated and adopted. Edit #193 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote – Action 3 – 6 votes, Action 4 –1 vote Edit #194 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 4 – 7 votes. No action until PROST Plan is updated and adopted. Edit #195 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 7 votes. Edit #196 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 4 votes, Action 4 – 3 votes Edit #197–Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 1 vote, Action 4 – 6 votes. No action until PROST Plan is updated and adopted. Edit #198– Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 0 vote, Action 4 – 7 votes. No action until PROST Plan is updated and adopted. Edit #199 – Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 2 – 7 votes. No action until PROST Plan is updated and adopted. Edit #199a –already discussed at prior meeting. Edit #200 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 6 votes, Action 2 - 1 vote. Public comment – Mr. Harper directed the Planning Board/Zoning Commission/Commission to RPAB comments. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she would prefer wells for irrigation instead of precious city water. Mr. Kirschenbaum stated he agreed with Ms. Pomnichowski and cited the Staff Report Edit #201 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. He stated Staff did not support the edit as it would make the language less clear. Vote –Action 1 – 2 votes, Action 4- 5 votes Edit #202 –Planner Saunders suggested continuing this edit to the next meeting to wait for Staff comments to be provided. Vote –Action 1 – 3 votes, Action 4 - 4 votes Edit #158 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 7 votes Edit #159 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Staff supports this edit. Vote –Action 1 – 7 votes Edit #160 –Planner Saunders noted the edit had been previously discussed and explained that the chemicals necessary in paint colors that are not white or yellow do not hold-up to the elements. Edit #161 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 6 votes, Action 4- 1 vote Edit #168 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 7 votes Public comment – Ms. Pomnichowski asked why the current standard would not work. Planner Saunders responded that pews were seldom used and the standard did not specifically apply to non-fixed-seating. He suggested that stating the cumulative occupancy of the classrooms and/or sanctuary should be the language in the standard. Mr. Kirschenbaum asked what standard was applied at Christ The King Lutheran Church. Planner Saunders responded he was unsure of the standard as there was no fixed seating for that project. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she did not want to lowball the required parking just because there was no justification for designing the church for its Easter Sunday parking load. Ms. Stroup asked if linear feet referred to fixed-seating. Planner Saunders responded that it did and Staff was trying to get away from that. Mr. Lutes stated that the structure not being occupied with the same patron load at all times would be cause for flexibility in the ordinance language. Planner Saunders brought attention to something being called the megachurch; noting the daycare, synagogue, and other internal church services would have separate parking calculations. Ms. Pomnichowski asked what the proportion to be used for the parking calculation would be. Planner Saunders responded Staff did not know at this time and cited two options for parking calculations. The edit is to develop an appropriate standard. Edit #169 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 6-1 Public comment – Mr. Hope stated one problem was people in business who purchased a parking stall for a certain cost and another individual received less of a cost at a later date. Planner Saunders responded he had been working with the Parking Commission to address the unfair costs associated with purchasing parking. Ms. Stroup asked if the amendment changed the regulations. Planner Saunders responded it would change the regulations and added that the average of the Parking Study done by City Planning showed businesses in the core area could get by with 40% less required parking to meet the same client needs. Mr. Jarrett pointed out that the cost of constructing a new parking lot would exceed the cost of purchasing existing parking stalls. Edit #170 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. He stated the edit was a companion to #169. Vote –Action 1 – 0 votes, Action 2 – 0 votes, Action 3 -0 votes , Action 4-0 votes, Action 5– 7 votes Public comment – Planner Saunders stated the Parking Garage would act as a giant shared parking lot. Mr. Hope explained that perception of the Parking Garage would expand the ability to develop along Mendenhall Street; not relieve parking, just create more employee parking stalls. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the recommended action was not any of the listed actions. Action was taken to suggest the recommended action be followed and be known as Option #5. Edit #171 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 -5 votes – Action 2 -1 vote, Action 3 – 1 vote Public comment – Ms. Stroup asked if the edit made it more difficult to ask for an exception to the requirements. Planner Saunders responded that the edit would not make exceptions more difficult to acquire. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if Action 2 included adding references to another section of the code. Planner Saunders responded that Staff proposed striking paragraph #1 to remove the exception entirely causing anyone in the Conservation Overlay District to provide the same parking as everyone else. Edit #172 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 -6 votes, Action 4 -1 vote Public comment – Public comment – Mr. Hietala stated the City Manager was ultimately in charge of the Parking Commission. Ms. Pomnichowski stated it was her understanding that there was a city "umbrella" governing all of its advisory bodies. Mr. Hope asked if the City Commission was moving toward establishing a more formal Parking Commission. Mr. Hietala was uncertain. Edit #173 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 6 votes, Action 4 – 1 vote Public comment – Ms. Pomnichowski suggested someone oversee the Parking Commission. Edit #175 –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments stating Staff did not support the edit. Vote –Action 1 – 1 vote, Action 4 – 6 votes Edit #178a –Planner Saunders described the substance of the proposed edit and presented Staff comments. Vote –Action 1 – 7 votes 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 9:04 p.m. ____________________________________ ___________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board/Zoning Commission and Presiding Officer of the Joint Meeting of the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission and Planning Board/Zoning Commission