HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-10 Zoning Commission Minutes
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2010
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and ordered the Recording
Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Nathan Minnick
JP Pomnichowski
Ed Sypinski
City Commission Liaison
Chris Mehl
Members Absent:
Nick Lieb
Staff Present:
Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Rob Pertzborn
Bob Emery
George Hecht
Sean Canady
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-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there was no public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pomnichowski closed this portion
of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2010
MOTION
: Mr. Sypinski moved, Vice Chairperson Minnick seconded, to approve the minutes of
The motion carried 3-0
August 17, 2010 as presented. . Those voting aye being Chairperson
Pomnichowski, Mr. Sypinski, and Vice Chairperson Minnick. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 7, 2010
1
1. Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-09241
– (Residential Emphasis Mixed
Use) A Zone Code Amendment requested by the applicant, RTR Holdings II and
representatives Intrinsik Architecture and GGLO, and requesting to establish a
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use zoning district designation within the City of
(Continued from 8/17/10.)
Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger)
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal had been opened
and continued from the combined meeting of the Zoning Commission and Planning Board on
August 17, 2010. He stated there had been quite a bit of discussion with the Planning Board and
he had provided a Staff Report addendum to address some of the concerns voiced previously. He
stated Staff had included additional technical input to the proposed language and that language
had been forwarded to the Zoning Commission as well. He stated he wasn’t prepared to walk
through the entire chapter, but would touch on some of the proposed edits; he noted changes
were in strikethrough format with proposed changes underlined. He stated he expected the
chapter to evolve through City Commission review, but the Zoning Commission had been given
the draft that would go forward to the City Commission. He stated a Mixed Use District had
been previously approved through the City, but no development had currently been proposed for
that site. He stated there a broad list of uses proposed for the zoning designation with a 70
percent residential to 30 percent commercial ratio for the development. He stated a new type of
housing would be administered in the form of a student housing model. He stated the size
restriction would be in place of the Conditional Use Permit process. He stated a requirement for
a Master Site Plan or Planned Unit Development had been proposed for projects 10 acres or over
in size. He stated height would be regulated in stories instead of a specific number. He stated
retail uses of a certain size would be limited which was another way to limit the impact of
commercial development within a residential neighborhood.
Planner Krueger stated the requirement to administer restrictions on commercial development
based on a 70-30 percentage was unique. He stated the requirement to maintain the
residential/commercial percentage balance (concurrency requirement) throughout the
development had been removed and would instead be a requirement for a contiguous zoned area.
He stated the calculation would be made and administered would be either to use existing
development, or the City could exact an entitlement via the Master Site Plan review process; an
initial application would be required a 70-30 balance while the second project or PUD would be
reviewed by its entitlements to continuously maintain the balance.
Planner Krueger stated the second section regarding the requirement for a Master Site Plan or
PUD included an intent for the District and noted the language could be construed as a restriction
on a minimum size for rezoning a REMU area; the language was intended to provide additional
review criteria for those properties 10 acres or larger in size. He stated the Master Site Planning
process was being proposed due to Site Plan approvals issued that could not be required to
complete improvements to the property such as landscaping, sidewalks, etc., and the requirement
for Master Site Plan allowed a minimum five year entitlement with an additional year extension.
He stated he change had made the code much clearer and Staff was more methodical about
reviewing phased developments with the Master Site Plan or Planned Unit Development proposal.
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 7, 2010
2
Planner Krueger clarified the definition of a convenience use which included automotive fuel
sales; without a differentiation in convenience uses proposed in the chapter, Staff recommended
specifically differentiating automotive fuel sales as a Conditional Use. He stated Staff had
determined drive-in drive-out uses were not consistent with the land use designation or the intent
of the zoning district. He stated the format for calling out specific uses or further restrictions had
been included as footnotes in the proposed language; limiting types of uses to a certain land area.
He stated some additional language might need to be included to help in the management of
smaller properties; would smaller properties be allowed some of the uses larger properties would
be allowed and Staff had suggested the language “zoned area” be included. He stated the
definition of student housing had been proposed and the City was hesitant to restrict housing to a
certain type of people Staff suggested the language “congregate” replace “student” housing.
Planner Krueger stated the mixed use provision in the code for building height was inconsistent
with regard to building height. He stated a narrative should be included instead of a citation to
another section of the ordinance. He stated other sections of the code would be impacted and
would require an amendment to reflect the REMU code; ADU, PUD, Telecommunications, Signs,
Definitions, and Open Space. He stated signage had been addressed through reference points to
standards from other zoning districts. He stated assistance from the applicant would be required
to form a definition of congregate housing and additional work would need to be done if the
definition of a household needed to be revised. He stated the administration of parkland/open
space requirements would be difficult in that student house would not be considered dwelling
units. He stated one letter of public comment had been received from the University in support of
the proposal. He stated there was a possibility that if substantial changes were made to the
ordinance, they would be presented to the Zoning Commission at that time. He stated Staff was
supportive of the proposal with Staff edits and recommendations of approval.
Mr. Sypinski directed the Zoning Commission to the areas identified by the City for potential
REMU zoning and asked if all three areas were 10 acres or larger in size. Planner Krueger
responded they were not all ten acres in size. Mr. Sypinski asked if the REMU was indicating the
parcels would need to be at least ten acres. Planner Krueger responded a ZMA could be
requested for a parcel less than 10 acres though the units per acres lent itself to a larger site. Mr.
Sypinski stated the definition of household was at odds with the current proposal for student
housing and added he was concerned how student housing in particular would affect adjacent
neighborhoods; would they have an adverse affect. Planner Krueger responded the code allowed
for different types of uses though the location of any of the uses allowable on the site would be
subject to review and approval through the Master Site Plan or PUD process for any REMU
development over 10 acres. He added student housing could be allowed anywhere that it fit
within a specific type of development.
Mr. Mehl asked Planner Krueger for clarification of contiguous planning areas; wouldn’t all
REMU be contiguous. Planner Krueger responded contiguous had been included for emphasis.
Mr. Mehl asked if the proposal in first would have more flexibility. Planner Krueger responded
the mix of uses would still be required though the first development might have the opportunity to
develop larger retail developments; the development of the first could potentially impact the
second development. Mr. Mehl asked why sketch plan review had been stricken. Planner
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 7, 2010
3
Krueger responded sketch plan review had traditionally only been done for smaller commercial
and residential building permit review; the complexity of infrastructure would demand site plan
review. Mr. Mehl stated the street and circulation standards had been modified from “should” to
“shall” and asked for clarification. Planner Krueger stated that buffering the sidewalk from the
travel lane by angled or parallel parking would be based on the cross sections available from the
Transportation Plan so that a proposal for on street parking; where possible Planning Staff would
like to see more parking. Mr. Mehl suggested strong encouragement would, in his opinion,
include “should”; “shall made him nervous. Planner Krueger responded different styles of parking
had been proposed and was very permissive. He stated the alleyway provision had been included
in the Growth Policy as a goal or objective to require alleys where feasible and would be
determined at the project level; repeating the provision might result in alleys being created, but
would more likely be an argument with Staff that it would be unfeasible. He added the zone was
primarily residential and pedestrian in form; the applicant had proposed very small lot sizes and
alley loaded garages would be more accommodating to those sites. He added there was always
an “out” for the applicant to request a relaxation from including alleys in the development.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked for clarification of the project being noticed. Planner Krueger
responded the proposal had been noticed in the newspaper and posted publicly within the City
offices; he added the zoning could only be implemented through a ZCA for a specific site.
Chairperson Pomnichowski commended Planner Krueger on his Staff Report; she stated the
minutes of the last meeting were excellent, had brought her up to speed quickly, and thanked the
Recording Secretary. Chairperson Pomnichowski suggested a couple modifications to current
ordinance could accomplish the same result as what was being proposed. Planner Krueger
responded the uses listed in the Growth Policy were not necessarily appropriate for the allowed
zoning designations. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the B-2 commercial zoning designation
was similar to what was being proposed; she asked what could not be accomplished with other
types of zoning. Planner Krueger responded the REMU district had been expressly anticipated to
work with the new land use designation; the intensity of use would be predominantly residential
and would include restrictions on the total number of commercial uses allowed. He cited hotels
were allowed in the REMU district, but only up to 40,000 square feet in size, which would be half
of the size of the hotels allowed elsewhere in town.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated the definition of cooperative household had not been included.
Planner Krueger responded the definition was already included in the UDO, was distinctly
different from student housing, and did not allow student housing within that definition. Planner
Krueger responded the definition would need to be resolved prior to formal review by the City
Commission.
Chairperson Pomnichowski stated she was concerned with two of the criteria the ZC must find to
be met. She stated the provision to allow for phased development of the site was a concern as the
City had current issues with the installation of infrastructure. Planner Krueger responded any plan
review would require the installation or financial guarantee of improvements. Chairperson
Pomnichowski clarified that the Master Site Plan or PUD process would be applied to properties
over 10 acres in size. Planner Krueger responded the applicant had proposed those processes to
allow the City the ability to provide input on the proposed design and layout as well as administer
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 7, 2010
4
the 70-30 balance. Chairperson Pomnichowski stated a PUD or Master Site Plan would go
through DRC review and then be approved by the City Commission without being seen by the
PB, ZC, or DRB. Planner Krueger responded that any of those types of development would
follow the same requirements from the code and would be reviewed by the necessary agencies.
Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the Transportation Plan standards were being adhered to.
Planner Krueger responded the applicant had proposed flexibility in street design standards
though the City Engineering Department might have issues with those designs that would be
identified during project review. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked for the reference to standard
rights of way. Planner Krueger responded the UDO did not specifically call out the provision but
instead referenced the Transportation Plan; the standards were not included in the proposed
chapter. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked if the minimum lot width would be 25 feet. Planner
Krueger responded the 25 foot lot width was still included. Chairperson Pomnichowski asked the
minimum width for townhouse lots. Planner Krueger responded the minimum standard for a
townhouse lot would be 15 feet.
Rob Pertzborn, Intrinsik Architecture, addressed the Zoning Commission. He introduced Sean
Canady, Randy Hecht, and Bob Emery. Mr. Canady thanked Planner Krueger for his thoughtful
review and dialog regarding the proposed ordinance. He stated the applicant had agreed to many
of Staff’s proposed amendments but there were a few items that would need to be clarified. He
stated there was not an endorsement for concurrency of the commercial/residential balance; the
premise of giving the City a more detailed level of input had been the intent for the requirement of
a Master Site Plan or PUD as opposed to allowing property owners to develop their ten acres
with commercial structures leaving the next property owner with the residential requirement – he
suggested the 60-30 split be applied to each REMU proposal. He stated designs had been
executed to incorporate a drive thru which worked well on similar sites; he added he did not think
all convenience uses should be listed as Conditional Uses and suggested auto fuel sales facilities
had been expressly called out as a Conditional Use. He stated the intent was to create a
customized and tailored process that would allow the City to provide input and requiring alleys
would contradict the intent of recognizing the realities of site constraints including slopes,
waterways, and open spaces; he thought alleys should be encouraged but not required. Mr.
Canady stated the applicant had incorporated many of Staff’s responses and they supported the on
street parking principal where feasible.
Mr. Mehl stated the language regarding the parking included “shall” instead of “should” as Staff’s
recommendation had indicated and asked for clarification if the applicant was amenable to Staff
recommendations why those changes had not been made. Mr. Canady responded the language
was under discussion, but the overall principal of the language remained intact. Mr. Mehl asked
how a drive through would fit into the context of a mixed use neighborhood. Mr. Canady
responded a drive through could be instituted with design of the sidewalk, integration of
landscaping, street frontage, etc.; it might be difficult, but did not need to be prohibited. Mr.
Mehl stated there was very little possibility of public input in past years, but in recent years there
had been a lot of public participation; he suggested there would be more responsibility and
flexibility with less public input. Mr. Canady responded he would defer to Staff and the City
Commission.
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 7, 2010
5
Chairperson Pomnichowski opened the public comment period of the meeting. Seeing none
forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
Mr. Sypinski stated that one of the areas of compromise could be to differentiate between a fast
food drive thru and a drive in such as the one in Livingston. He stated his main concern was to
encourage public participation. He stated he felt the proposal was in compliance and compatible
with the Growth Policy; encouraging market flexibility, design flexibility, and growth. He stated
the definition of student housing concerned him. He stated he felt the proposal was in keeping
with the 12 review criteria as set forth in the UDO.
Chairperson Pomnichowski reiterated that any application under review by the ZC had to comply
with the 12 review criteria as set forth in the UDO. She listed those criteria and noted she had a
concern with congestion in the streets due to the proposed variations in the street standards. She
stated the unrestricted heights might require sprinkling of the structures and noted the applicant
would have to work with the Fire and Building Departments for those requirements. She stated
the character of the district would be unique and she felt there would be conflicts due to the
mixed character of the district. She stated there were no existing buildings on the sites, but the
applicant could not adversely affect neighboring uses. She asked the City Commission and knows
it is expected that the ZC forward a recommendation of approval, but she does not expect the
document in its current form to be adopted; she wants street standards specified and honored.
She suggested there should be more clarification on the language “contiguously zoned area” or
“contiguously zoned REMU” area, or a specific application. She stated the “Residential
Emphasis” indicated that a drive thru would not be appropriate for the REMU zoning designation
she stated she agreed with Staff. She suggested greater population and uses would require more
accesses and suggested alleys should be discussed further. She stated she was pained to vote for
the proposal when it suggested a Master Site Plan or PUD would be the only review processes
available; there was not an opportunity for public comment and suggested insertion of a public
hearing or advisory board requirement into the PUD process or a subdivision review instead of
Master Site Plan or PUD. She stated her greatest reservation was the lack of public participation
and suggested the flexibility and innovation would be lost without public involvement. She stated
she was supportive of the proposal with the described Staff and Zoning Commission member
changes and noted she expected the document to be modified.
MOTION
: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Minnick seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-09241with Staff
conditions of approval and recommended language amendments suggested by the Zoning
Commission.
Mr. Sypinski clarified that Zoning Commission recommendations had been included in the motion
for approval. Chairperson Pomnichowski and Vice Chairperson Minnick concurred.
The motion carried 3-0.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 7, 2010
6
There was no new business forthcoming.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
___________________________________
_______________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
Zoning Commission Minutes – September 7, 2010
7