Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-11 Zoning Commission MinutesZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Ed Sypinski Nathan Minnick Nick Lieb David Peck City Commission Liaison Chris Mehl Members Absent: Staff Present: Tim McHarg, Planning Director Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Michael Delaney Ileana Indreland Tony Renslow Jami Morris Cyndy Andrus ITEM 3. 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 4. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2011 MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the minutes of February 1, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-11002 – (Spring Creek Village Lot 4) A Zone Map Amendment requested by the owner, Spring Creek Village, LLC, and representative, Jami Morris, requesting to allow a change in urban zoning designation from B-P (Business Park District) to B-2 (Community Business District) on 19.9621 acres generally located west of Resort Drive, north of Huffine Lane, and south of Fallon Street and legally described as The Spring Creek Village Resort, Minor Subdivision No. 295, Lot 4, Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Saunders) (Continued from 2/15/11.) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was to amend the zoning map and directed the Commission to the location of the site. He stated the Growth Policy Designation for the property was Community Commercial Mixed Use. He noted streets adjacent to the site and the location of the Community Commercial growth policy designation in comparison to the subject property. He stated there was a considerable amount of property within the vicinity that had not gone through the development process. He noted the location of the Billion property adjacent to the site and noted adjacent uses. He stated there had not been any public comment received in writing or in person. He stated Staff had been concerned with elements of the proposal and added the primary concern was compliance with the Growth Policy and its conformance with the map, goals, and objectives contained within the document. He stated the meeting had originally been noticed but had been opened and continued to this date while the City Commission was scheduled to review the proposal on March 21, 2011. He stated the Zoning Commission could concur with Staff, make their own findings, or table the proposal to allow time for amendments to the proposal. He stated Staff had met with the applicant and would continue to meet with them regarding design alternatives for the site. He stated he would be available to answer any questions. Mr. Sypinski asked for clarification that there would be a zone change made to include commercial uses as opposed to industrial uses to comply with the Growth Policy designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were a number of uses that overlapped in the B-2 district from the BP district and necessity for a zone change would depend on the specific proposal; he added there was a larger diversity of activities in the B-2 than in the B-P. Mr. Lieb asked the allowable uses that would cross over from B-P to B-2 zoning. Assistant Director Saunders responded that some examples of uses would be day care centers, banks, health & exercise establishments, hospitals, research laboratories, light manufacturing, medical clinics, offices, various public buildings, etc. and there would be opportunities to pursue Conditional Uses in the district. Mr. Lieb responded there did not seem to be a considerable difference in the allowable uses. Assistant Director Saunders responded B-P zoning was more restrictive as far as setback requirements were concerned and B-2 was more relaxed; B-2 also allows retail, food service, and housing. Mr. Lieb asked Staff’s concern regarding the proposed design of the site. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff’s concern was the relationship between the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy and the B-2 zoning for this site. This includes vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site; Staff was also concerned with proposed orientation and location of the structures within the site. Mr. Sypinski asked how the B-2 zoning would differ in impact on the Entryway Corridor than the B-P, UMU, or any other zoning designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded the positioning of the building and parking on the site would allow lesser setbacks where Business Park would simply look like a business park versus the something like the Locati building on East Main Street; office residential mixes would not be allowed in the B-P zoning district. Jami Morris addressed the Zoning Commission. She noted the development adjacent to the site; Allied Waste, Loyal Garden, JC Billion, and Cottonwood Vet Clinic as well as Alpine Orthopedic which was under construction. She noted the site was originally Business Park Growth Policy designation, but was currently Community Commercial Mixed Use Growth Policy designation. She noted the current proposal was for B-2 zoning and it would provide for basic services for residential neighborhoods located to the north of the site. She stated B-2 would afford an opportunity for higher density development and added that design and scale would be addressed during site plan review. She stated there were nine viable uses available for the property and a hotel and restaurant were currently interested in the location. She stated the applicant felt the City had indicated Community Commercial would be the best use for the site as they had modified the Growth Policy from its Business Park designation. She stated water and sewer were already being provided to the property and there were already signalized intersections and there was an existing sort of pork chop limiting access in that location to right in, left in, and right out. She stated the applicant had been given indication by the City Commission that they did not want to see the site developed as a PUD. She stated there was not much of a market for B-P lots and the general definition of strip development included direct access to a major thoroughfare, which would not occur on the site. She stated the Growth Policy discouraged strip development and all design proposals would be reviewed against the Design Objectives Plan. She stated the applicant chose the B-2 zoning designation option as outlined in the submittal materials outlining their responses to the review criteria. Michael Delaney addressed the Zoning Commission and directed them to a handout of a more specific design layout. He stated the property had been zoned Business Park for 20 years and no matter how they tried they could not develop the property. He stated Billion had used a Planned Unit Development to develop his property to allow his dealership. He stated a PUD had been initiated for the property east of the site known as Valley Commons which had widened the uses of B-P through the PUD. He stated he had been told the game had changed and the City would no longer encourage PUD’s; B-2 properties were developed and those with a different zoning designation that were developed had done so under a PUD. He stated the policy of the City was that there would be no more commercial development west of Fowler Avenue though the Ridge and other properties had been developed. He stated the City had approved the Urban Mixed Use zoning designation and he had argued the conditions of approval had made it nearly impossible for the site to be developed; a mandate of a minimum of three stories in height. He stated the City had agreed to zone the Billion property and part of the Loyal Garden subdivision as B-2 so they had attempted to secure the same zoning; he added two tenants were interested in occupying the site; one a bar/restaurant owner as well as a hotel owner. He stated there would be complications with each residential unit including parkland requirements and workforce housing; now the tenants are unwilling to wait beyond next summer. He stated he was encouraged that months from now the requirements for UMU would be changed; the B-2 development he was proposing would be well developed to include a mini Main Street done with style and thoughtfulness with users for at least two of the sites. He asked for the support of the Zoning Commission and suggested they would be proud to use the site in the future. Mr. Lieb asked if the property had the resort designation. Mr. Delaney responded the property did have a resort designation that had been approved through the State of Montana; he added they were in the process of purchasing their own liquor license as they have no guarantee the State of Montana will issue liquor licenses. Mr. Lieb asked if the hotel depicted on the site would be a Wingate. Mr. Delaney responded it would not be a Wingate, but would hopefully be another recognizable hotel. Mr. Lieb asked what uses would be located behind the hotel and restaurant. Mr. Delaney responded there would be mostly retail uses in that location. He stated entitlements for a B-2 zoning were workable while those for a B-P were difficult. Mr. Sypinski thanked Mr. Delaney for his presentation. He stated the Planning Board had recently reviewed the UMU zoning designation and asked why the applicant was not willing to extend the UMU designation to the site instead of requesting the B-2 zoning designation. Mr. Delaney responded they had considered that option and after the City Commission discussion during Informal review it was hard to understand what the City wanted and nearly impossible to develop the site at three story buildings; the killer of the deal according to Dan Burden to ensure long term success for the project and construction of buildings up to three stories in height but not mandated to construct them three stories in height. He stated financing would not be available if users were not acquired. He stated you had to be leery and practical in the current market. He stated that a number of occupants on North 19th Avenue had failed and would be vacating their stores; their intended design was based on a smaller and more intimate scale. Mr. Peck asked if public objections had been voiced in earlier iterations of the proposal. Mr. Delaney responded he can think of no public objection in any proposal in the last 20 years with the exception of one condo development that requested more green space in front of their building; there were no negative comments with the current proposal. Mr. Lieb stated the hotel had proposed 120 rooms and asked the scale of the structure. Mr. Delaney responded it would be somewhere between the Wingate and the Hilton Garden Inn but would be more stylized to fit the development; he added they were debating on whether or not to include a restaurant/bar in the hotel as well. Director McHarg suggested the Zoning Commission look more specifically at the zoning criteria while keeping in mind that only one of the many options for B-2 development had been presented at the meeting. Mr. Delaney responded if there was a choice between only UMU and B-P they would choose UMU, but would come back and request the B-2 zoning at a future date. Mr. Mehl stated the Staff Report indicated the intensity of the development might not be supported by Resort Drive. Mr. Delaney responded the State of Montana would require a four way stop. Mr. Mehl asked if Mr. Delaney was worried that right turn only out of the site would cause traffic issues. Mr. Delaney responded there would be two avenues of exit available as well as a possible future access point from the bank and medical campus planned for the area to the west; he added there were a number of right turn only access points along 19th Avenue that did not seem to detour people. Mr. Mehl asked how much of the site needed to be pedestrian friendly. Mr. Delaney responded if the development wasn’t pedestrian friendly, it would fail; when the property was developed to the east there would be connectivity between the sites and would be accessible by biking or walking. Mr. Mehl asked who had indicated that a PUD was not the preferred option. Mr. Delaney responded the Billion property had been encouraged to develop under the PUD and the City Commission had discouraged repeating the same zoning designation. Ms. Morris added the comment had been provided by Staff after the City Commission hearing for the UMU zoning designation. Mr. Mehl asked why the applicant was concerned that the Zoning Commission would recommend UMU. Ms. Morris responded that after three weeks of DRC review the indication was that Staff would support only UMU on the property and had instead recommended denial of the proposal instead of recommendation of the UMU district; she added Assistant Director Saunders had indicated that the noticing for the proposal would indicate an upzoning that had not been included in the proposal originally. Assistant Director Saunders stated the viability of which would be the best zoning district had been discussed during DRC review; UMU had not been advertised and B-2 had been analyzed with an allowance for the applicant to modify the application. He stated Staff’s concern was that the public was accurately noticed in a character that would allow them to reasonably conceive that there were multiple zoning districts under consideration. Mr. Delaney added he had asked his attorney to respond to Staff’s concerns and the Zoning Commission had been given that information. Director McHarg responded that just because something was legal did not make it the best planning practice. Mr. Sypinski stated he wished Greg Sullivan or Tim Cooper had given an opinion on Mr. Gallik’s letter of response. Mr. Mehl responded he thought Staff had already provided for the options available regarding a decision on the proposal. Mr. Mehl stated Mr. Delaney had the option of going before the City Commission to present the design that would be facing Huffine Lane. Mr. Delaney responded all the properties surrounding the site were effectively being used as B-2 properties; there was so much big retail in Bozeman that it was almost impossible to get it financed. He stated every ugly thing that could have been built in the City had been built and that was not their game anyway. Ms. Indreland asked the Zoning Commission to review how the site would comply with the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy; she added the answers would demonstrate how the site would comply. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick opened the public comment period of the meeting. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Mr. Lieb stated he had reservations with the approval of the proposal. He stated the City had not wanted B-2 zoning in that location as they had wanted services more centralized. He stated he didn’t think it would be a good location for the hotel right along Huffine Lane. He stated he had a problem allowing B-2 for adjacent sites and not the site in question. Assistant Director Saunders responded the adjacent zoning designations included B-P but the new Billion development north of Fallon Street was zoned B-2. Mr. Lieb responded he was in support of the proposed B-2 zoning designation. Mr. Peck stated he was so new to the project and the Zoning Commission that he hesitated to say much. He stated he liked the proposal and he felt as though the owner had put a lot of thought into the development of the property. He stated the layout was a little too symmetrical as he preferred asymmetrical design. He stated he was not crystal clear on Staff’s concerns with regard to the Growth Policy. He stated he was supportive of the proposal. Mr. Sypinski stated the review criteria must be addressed as set forth in the ordinance. He stated he was concerned with the B-2 zoning and would prefer to see the UMU zoning designation expanded; it seemed like the applicant wanted a second bite at the apple as the tenants originally proposed for the UMU had been relocated to the B-2 zoning area. He stated he did not find the application to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the ordinance. He stated he was not supportive of the B-2 and noted three areas west of the property that were already zoned B-P. He stated he was not supportive of the application as proposed and suggested the Zoning Commission recommend the UMU zoning designation as opposed to the B-2 zoning. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick stated that it seemed like there would be a better vehicle to allow Mr. Delaney to develop the property. He stated the worst case scenario is that the property would change hands and not be developed to the same quality. He stated his concern was whether or not the PUD could be the vehicle used to guarantee the proposed quality of design. Mr. Sypinski responded there would be no guarantee that the proposal would be built out as shown on the applicant’s drawing; he added it sounded great, but zoning potential did not allow for knowing exactly what the project would be. Mr. Lieb asked how the B-2 could be restricted. Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick responded development was economically driven and he did not think there was going to be a demand for that type of use for some time. Director McHarg responded he thought a PUD was always an option, though not one was necessarily theoretically supportive of; the Zoning Commission was charged with reviewing a vacant piece of property for allowable uses. Mr. Sypinski stated there were three options; denial, approval, or a recommended alternative to the zoning designation. Director McHarg responded he did not think it was good practice to recommend a different designation than that proposed unless the project was remanded back to Staff for further review and discussion with the applicant. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-11002 as proposed. The motion carried 3-1. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Lieb. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski. ITEM 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick nominated Mr. Sypinski as the Chairperson due to his experience. Mr. Sypinski stated he would humbly accept the nomination. MOTION: Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to appoint Mr. Sypinski as Chairperson. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Chairperson Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded to appoint Mr. Minnick as Vice Chairperson. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Lieb, Mr. Peck, and Mr. Minnick. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Sypinski welcomed David Peck to the Zoning Commission. Assistant Director Saunders clarified what a majority of the Zoning Commission would be and what would constitute a quorum of members. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Edward Sypinski, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman