HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-05 Planning Board & Zoning Commission Minutes.docFOR THE CITY OF BOZEMAN
JOINT HEARING BY THE
PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 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 joint meeting of the City of Bozeman Planning Board and Zoning Commission to order at 8:06 p.m.
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.}
President Kirschenbaum called for public comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board/Zoning Commission. There was no public to comment.
ITEM 3. UDO REVISIONS – Public Hearing.
Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report and the Staff Memo on the first round of UDO revisions.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the park land requirements were intended to be different from the administrative policy. Assistant Director Saunders explained the administrative policy was
a stop-gap measure to fill the void until the UDO could be amended. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the document had been forwarded to the UDO group and Mr. John Dunlap. Assistant Director
Saunders noted he had emailed the document to Karin Caroline, the point person for the UDO group and asked that she forward it to Mr. Dunlap.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked if “open space” should be included in the park definition. Assistant Director Saunders read the definition of “open space” and noted that open space may or may
not be a park. Ms. Pomnichowski asked what the rush was for acting on the park revisions at this time. She stated the Parks and Recreation Board could come up with a third set of parkland
dedication formulae. She noted the administrative policy is in effect now, and the interim standard is unnecessary.
Mr. Jarrett stated he would like to see the joint board/commission vote on the items.
Assistant Director Saunders noted Staff needs a vote tonight on everything in the green sheets.
Ms. Alexander suggested the members who had issues with any section in the green sheets should bring them up for discussion and vote, then vote on the whole group of edits aside from
those already discussed.
Ms. Stroup asked if individual proposed edits would be discussed individually and voted upon. It was noted that only the proposed edits that someone had issues with would be discussed
and voted upon. She asked if Item #96 was the correct item that was noticed. It was noted the item noticed was actually Item #98.
Ms. Alexander suggested the procedure was for an item to be discussion, a motion should be made and seconded, followed by discussion, and voted upon.
Ms. Stroup noted she understood Item #46 meant that apartments have to provide the same amount of parkland as subdivisions. Assistant Director Saunders explained applicability of the
Item to sketch plans for four units or less, and site plans for more than four units. Ms. Stroup noted she disagrees with the parkland requirement for apartments for affordable housing.
Director Epple noted the problem comes with apartments being reviewed and approved and later converted to condominiums, therefore getting around the parkland requirement. He noted
there has been no method of enforcing the parkland dedication as condominiumizing is done through the State. Assistant Director Saunders noted that if adequate parkland dedication is
provided during subdivision, the applicant doesn’t have to deal with it in the future. Ms. Alexander summarized that what Ms. Stroup wanted to see was a relaxation of parkland for affordable
housing.
MOTION: Ms. Stroup moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to delete Item #46 from consideration. The motion failed on a 4-4 vote.
Ms. Stroup asked if there will actually be ADU’s allowed within R-S and R-1 zoning districtsafter the adoption of these amendments. Assistant Director Saunders noted there would be.
He noted there have been approximately 12 application within R-S and R-1 zoning districts, which were not all approved. Ms. Alexander asked where the one bedroom restriction came into
being. Assistant Director Saunders explained that City Commission had given that direction as part of these amendments.
Mr. Lutes asked if the lighting items would be discussed tonight. Assistant Director Saunders noted they weren’t noticed for this round; therefore, weren’t up for discussion.
Ms. Pomnichowski stated she had problems with the amendment to 18.42.100.B.5 as the addition shouldn’t be for just this code provision. Assistant Director Saunders noted there seems
to be confusion and questions on the section and the statement was added to try to eliminate those issues. During discussion it was determined that adding wording that doesn’t change
the section’s requirements.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Ms. Alexander seconded, to strike the proposed Item 214-13 in 18.42.100.B.5.
During discussion, Mr. Lutes noted if there are certain geological impacts on a subdivision, this amendment is necessary to allow for those impacts.
The motion carried 5-3.
Ms. Pomnichowski noted the last postscript for 18.44.090 Table 44-3 is the same as currently stated in the UDO. Assistant Director Saunders noted the statement was bolded for emphasis
as was requested in the UDO edits process.
Ms. Pomnichowski noted the Parks and Recreation Board is working through the development of the PROST Plan update. MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Ms. Alexander seconded, to delay action
on edits affecting Chapter 18.50 until after September 1, 2005 when the PROST Plan first draft is due, and use the existing Administrative Policy, except for section 18.50.100.F as required
by State statute. Ms. Pomnichowski noted that because the numbers are conflicting, she suggested delaying the vote on the chapter until the PROST Plan is adopted. Director Epple noted
if the group is uncomfortable with the numbers, they can be changed them in the administrative policy. Ms. Pomnichowski suggested the group make the process work. Ms. Alexander asked
if the PROST Plan will be included in second round of edits.
The motion carried 5-3.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Ms. Alexander seconded, to strike the removal of the language from 18.66.060.B. Ms. Pomnichowski noted variances require strict scrutiny and the language
should be included to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Assistant Director Saunders noted the struck-out language is located in the wrong place as it refers to appeals. Ms.
Pomnichowski asked if the sentence had been added in the appropriate place. After being assured it was in the proper location, Ms. Pomnichowski withdrew the motion, and Ms. Alexander
withdrew the second.
Ms. Stroup asked if the City Commission could approve significant deviations. She stated she felt this restricted the City Commission’s authority. Ms. Pomnichowski noted legal staff
had requested the addition to clarify that deviations cannot be granted for “shall not” provisions as they are possibly variance items. Assistant Director Saunders noted deviations
are usually granted for an exceptional design that benefits the City as a whole.
Ms. Stroup asked why the addition was made to the apartment definition in 18.80.150. Assistant Director Saunders gave an explanation.
MOTION: Ms. Alexander moved, Mr. Musser seconded, to recommend approval of the amended UDO text including the Staff memo with the exception of the items acted upon by motion earlier
in the evening. The motion carried 8-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Jarrett asked how many proposed edits are left to review. It was noted there are about 26 remaining.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the next scheduled meeting is July 6, 2005. He asked if the joint committee wanted to continue with special meetings or how did they want to handle
the remaining edits. Assistant Director Saunders asked if they wanted edits on the next agenda. Following discussion, President Kirschenbaum cancelled the July 6, 2005 Planning Board
meeting. Assistant Director Saunders noted he will try to have the next set of edits starting with #180 in the packet for July 19th.
It was asked what the “business meeting” item was on the Planning Board and Zoning Commission list. The secretary noted it was to have discussions about City Commission decisions with
the Planning Director regarding projects that have been acted upon by the Board or Commission. Discussion followed on the capacity of the waste water treatment plant. Director Epple
noted it is the subject of a study currently being done.
Ms. Stroup suggested a presentation be done for the Planning Board. President Kirschenbaum asked that it be an agenda item from the Sanitation Departments in a 20 minute session.
ITEM 478. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board or Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
______________________________________ _____________________________________
Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President
Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board and
Presiding Officer Joint Meeting of
Planning Board/Zoning Commission