Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-11 Zoning Commission Minutes ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Ed Sypinski Nathan Minnick Nick Lieb City Commission Liaison Members Absent: Staff Present: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Tim McHarg, Planning Director Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Rob Pertzborn Bob Emery Susan Riggs ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {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 general public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2010 MOTION : Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the minutes of December 7, The motion carried 3-0 2010 as presented. . Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-09241 – A Zone Code Amendment requested by the applicant, RTR Holdings II and representatives Intrinsik 15 Page of Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011 Architecture and GGLO, and requesting to revise local development regulations to create a new zoning Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) district with defined intent, uses, setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and special development standards. The application also proposes to amend Chapter 18.36 Planned Unit Development Standards, Chapter 18.40 Standards for Specific Uses, Chapter 18.46 Parking, Chapter 18.50 Park and Recreation Requirements, Chapter 18.52 Signs, Chapter 18.54 Telecommunications, Chapter 18.80 Definitions to accommodate the uses, standards, and definitions provided in the proposed REMU Zoning District. (Krueger) Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal had been previously reviewed by the Zoning Commission and substantial progress had been made on the proposal. He noted Staff felt the proposal was ready for City Commission review and noted there were some associated changes to the UDO that would need to be made to accommodate the new zoning district which was typical to an amendment of the type proposed. He noted the proposed amendments had been included in the packet materials distributed to the Commission. Planner Krueger stated the proposal had been reviewed by the City Commission as a policy discussion concerning issues identified during the initial Zoning Commission review. He stated a final draft and Staff Report had been issued to the Zoning Commission in the hope that the Zoning Commission would forward a formal recommendation to the City Commission for their review on February 14, 2011. Planner Krueger noted which items had changed since the original draft had been reviewed by the Zoning Commission. He stated the tracking of the proposed mix of uses had been addressed by retaining the maximum 30% nonresidential requirement which would be based upon the amount of square footage in each Master Plan development. He stated any project over five acres, instead of the originally proposed ten acres, would be subject to Master Plan or Planned Unit Development review. He stated this would require that the details of any REMU development would be brought forth on paper to see how the layout of the uses and their functions would work together as well as to define the water/sewer capacities. He stated the allowance for drive-thru and drive up uses had been questioned as to their compatibility but had been found by the Commission to be acceptable permitted uses in the District. He stated the Zoning Commission had reviewed the option of the inclusion of student/cooperative housing which had been identified as a new use that would be good for Bozeman. The new use would be “Group Living” and would include the specific definition; he added Staff was awaiting an answer from the City Attorney’s office on the proposed language. He stated the PUD performance points had been proposed for the overall PUD chapter and removed from the REMU chapter to provide alternative methods for achieving performance points. He stated the parking reductions being considered for the District had included the same parking reductions as were included in the commercial nodes and would only apply to nonresidential uses. He stated different street standards had also been originally proposed for the REMU District and the City Engineering Department had recommended the street standards be reviewed on a case by case basis with further development in the District. The final REMU draft defers to the Transportation Plan and the Complete Streets Policy and the options available for each type of roadway construction. He 25 Page of Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011 stated the alley requirement had been removed from the language as the Commission had viewed the originally proposed language as too strong. He stated the proposed signage language had been removed from the REMU District and included in the signage requirements chapter of the UDO as Staff felt it would be more appropriate. Planner Krueger listed the affected chapters in which language had been drafted to accommodate the REMU District; mixed use projects were included in the PUD chapter, additional PUD performance options, ADU requirements were included, Group Living use was proposed, parking requirements for Group Living were proposed, parking reductions for the REMU were proposed, parkland requirements for Group Living were included, the sign chapter was modified, telecommunications chapter was modified to include REMU, and the definition of Group Living was included. He stated the public hearing had been noticed and no additional public comment had been received other than the letter of support received from the president of MSU. He stated Staff was supportive of the project with the proposed amendments and attachments. Mr. Sypinski asked for clarification of whether a Zone Map Amendment Application would be required for each site to be zoned as a REMU District. Planner Krueger responded Mr. Sypinski was correct and each site would need to propose the zoning designation for review and recommendation by the Zoning Commission and approval by the City Commission. Mr. Sypinski stated he wasn’t as concerned with parking reductions if the site was in proximity to the university, but he felt the intent of the ordinance was to be more pedestrian friendly; he added his concern was that people would be parking along the road if there weren’t enough parking provided on site. He stated it seemed there were no uses that were disallowed in the proposed REMU District and suggested if the intent was to find a different way to grow the community a myriad of commercial options did not seem appropriate. Planner Krueger responded the variety of uses was the intent of the District; larger parcels would have a longer development timeframe and would require a larger availability of uses. He added uses for individual lots would be the final stage of review for any of the Master Plan or Planned Unit Development proposals. He cited the downtown core of Bozeman which included many of the uses proposed for the REMU District; he did not think it was a coincidence that a diversity of uses was that which created vibrancy and interest downtown. Mr. Lieb asked how the group living classification had come about. Planner Krueger responded Staff had been involved in discussions regarding types of housing that did not specifically fit into the UDO. Mr. Lieb asked if the classification existed in other communities. Planner Krueger responded the classification was addressed differently in different communities such as a more intensive use category, such as the one proposed, or a relaxation of their definition of a “household”. Mr. Lieb asked if the whole idea of Residential Mixed Use had been geared to a larger size development. Planner Krueger responded Staff and the applicant felt that District requirements could be applied to both large and small development parcels; the regulations could accommodate both. Mr. Lieb asked if REMU would fit in with the urban infill development the City wanted. Planner Krueger responded if it looked like REMU was working, consideration of other REMU Districts would be appropriate. Mr. Lieb asked why the requirement for alleys had been removed. Planner Krueger responded the language had not been removed, but had been softened due to the vast types of uses to allow flexibility for potential development. Mr. Lieb 35 Page of Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011 asked for clarification of the reduction to five acres for the PUD requirement. Planner Krueger responded the original proposal had been for developments of 10 acres or more, but the 5 acre requirement would be more flexible; he added a larger development would likely already be proposed for the Master Plan or Planned Unit Development process. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick stated the proposal was designed to allow for different percentages of commercial and residential developments as the market demands. Planner Krueger responded Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick was correct and the overall maximum square footage would be tracked by Staff. Mr. Lieb added that commercial development could occur immediately and the residential development could be completed in ten years. Planner Krueger responded that in many cases, more urban types of developers were looking for services before they wanted to commit to buying a site while letting the market determine if residential units would be built. The City may have to review the paradigm in 10-15 years but the Commission had been supportive of the language as proposed with the maximum 30% nonresidential requirement without concurrency. Susan Riggs, Intrinsik Architecture, addressed the Zoning Commission. She introduced Rob Pertzborn and Bob Emery who were also in attendance. She stated the applicant felt the proposal had the quality to be good for Bozeman and the flexibility for the developer. She stated they were excited to see the words on paper turned into an actual project and to see three years of work and review completed. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming the public comment period was closed. Mr. Lieb stated he was supportive of the District as proposed but he had some concerns about the allowable parking reductions especially with regard to those sites in near proximity of the university which is already experiencing parking difficulties. Mr. Lieb asked for clarification of which parcels could apply for the REMU District zoning designation and if they would have to make application for a growth policy amendment. Planner Krueger responded the Land Use designation would dictate those locations and there would be areas that Growth Policy Amendments would be required as well as areas that were already conducive to the zoning designation. Mr. Lieb stated he could see a lot of developments wanting that designation. Planner Krueger responded changes could be made to the District over time as issues arose. Mr. Sypinski stated he had some reservations regarding a Zone Map Amendment and the concurrence of build-out on the site. He stated Planning should work hand in glove with the developers and not let the market make those decisions. He stated his biggest concerns had been discussed earlier in the meeting. He stated the compliance with the adjacent neighborhoods and the conflicts of the District with the character of the existing neighborhoods was another of his concerns. He stated he did not feel the new zoning would lessen the congestions in the streets and was concerned that the review criteria of the UDO were not being met. He stated he thought the intent and purpose of the zoning had been to bring more people into the area and did not meet the criteria of lessening congestion. He thanked Staff for their diligence in answering all the questions of previously Board/Commission reviews. He thanked the developer/applicant for their cooperation with the City. 45 Page of Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011 Vice Chairperson Minnick stated he felt safeguards were in place and he liked the intention for the sites to be market driven with options for the developer with regard to flexibility. He stated his reservations were similar to Mr. Sypinski and Mr. Lieb’s, but he liked to think the UDO would protect the community from overcrowding issues. He stated he understood the intent of the parking reductions for retail/offices and the proposed percentages but suggested smaller reductions be considered for the proposed density of the development. He stated he was supportive of the project as proposed. Mr. Lieb stated he did not see overcrowding as an issue as the site would pull people from other parts of the City. Mr. Sypinski clarified that the overcrowding review criteria had been intended for infrastructure and public facilities. Mr. McHarg responded Mr. Sypinski was correct, and added that the Zoning Commission should also consider public amenities and open space areas. MOTION : Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-09241 including the final draft REMU language in the Staff Report and associated attachments. Mr. Sypinski stated the Zoning Commission found the application to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the UDO as well as the Staff findings presented in the Staff Report. The motion carried 3-0 . Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS There were no items forthcoming. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. ___________________________________ ______________________________________ Nathan Minnick, Chairperson Pro Tem Tim McHarg, Planning Director Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 55 Page of Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011