HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-11 Zoning Commission MinutesZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Sypinski called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Ed Sypinski, Chairperson
Nathan Minnick, Vice Chairperson
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:
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 Sypinski closed this portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2011
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to approve the minutes of May 3, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski,
Mr. Peck, and Vice Chairperson Minnick. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM
1. WORK SESSION - U.D.O Edits ZCA #Z-11021 – possible City initiated code changes to amend Sections 18.28.010.A - Intent and Purpose, 18.28.040 - Certificate of Appropriateness, 18.28.070
- Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements, 18.28.090 – Appeals, 18.42.170 – Trash and Garbage Enclosures, 18.50.030 - Cash Donation In-lieu of Land Dedication, 18.64.160 - Violation
- Penalty - Assisting or Abetting - Additional Remedies, 18.66.030.C - Filing of Notice of Appeal, 18.66.040.A – Administrative Interpretation Appeals, 18.70.030 -
Public Hearing Procedures and Requirements, 18.80.1945 – Mural, 18.80.3210 – Window Sign, and 18.34 - Site Plan Review. Additional sections may be discussed which are relevant to the
same topics if a need to do so is identified during the public review process. (Saunders)
Chairperson Sypinski introduced the discussion and noted which proposed ordinances were being discussed. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Memo noting Staff
always kept an eye out for things that weren’t working or could work better; improvements can be identified by Staff or the community. He stated that many of the amendments in #1804
were clean-up edits. He stated most of the Zoning Commission’s parameters were set in statute, but there were some items that were flexible such as membership numbers. He stated the
only two things that would be different than current practice would be that the terms would expire on February 28 instead of January 31 in a given year as there were so many boards/commissions
to be staffed simultaneously and the language providing for an alternate member from the Planning Board to serve on the Zoning Commission. He stated sections 2-5 had been discussed
internally with Staff as well as with the Historic Preservation Advisory Board and a conclusion had been reached that there were certain elements that could be excepted; certain kinds
of work that would not be historically detrimental. Chairperson Sypinski suggested that under section 4 the language “more appropriate” would provide more clarity if it read “as appropriate”;
he added it was difficult to support a project under the review criteria when using the word “more”. Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff would meet with the HPAB in the future
to provide for wording and clean-up changes in those sections to make them more understandable. He added the intent of the “more appropriate” language was that the applicant was asking
for relaxation of a standard and code was asking for a public benefit in return; he understood it was not a cleanly identified criteria.
Mr. Mehl stated he and Planner Kramer had discussed the language and in some areas the requirements were to maintain the historic character; he added the language was tripping some people
up and it seemed you could never modify the site. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff looked at alternate materials within the neighborhood and Bozeman had always taken the
approach of not putting things under glass though it had caused disagreements with the Preservation Advisory Board. Mr. Mehl asked if there were examples of a project being tripped
up by the language. Assistant Director Saunders responded a lot of changes could be made to a building that made it less or more historic without a deviation; enhancing the historic
character would be more historically consistent. Mr. Mehl suggested the inclusion of the word “shall” would provide more clarity to an applicant. Assistant Director Saunders responded
he would discuss the proposed language with Historic Preservation Staff and noted the language did not even come into play unless a deviation had been requested.
Chairperson Sypinski asked if the Board of Adjustment would still review requests for deviations. Assistant Director Saunders responded Chapter 64 dictated approval authority based
on the type of project under review while the amendment gave a pointer to the location of the approval authority language.
Assistant Director Saunders directed the Zoning Commission to the language proposed to address construction debris and would be required prior to Final Site Plan approval. He stated
Staff had met with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board to discuss subdivision review; a perceived burden to the downtown area would be relieved by creating a policy for cash in lieu
of parkland downtown as well as delegation of the execution of the policy to the Planning Director. He stated the City Commission would make a separate action, such as a resolution,
to make sure those funds are directly benefitting the downtown developers through improvements to the area. Chairperson Sypinski asked if Staff had investigated applying these incentives
to other districts. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was something that could be considered though most areas had more flexibility on their sites than downtown Bozeman; he stated
discussions with the Urban Renewal Districts had not happened yet.
Assistant Director Saunders stated the proposed amendments regarding signage had been identified after discussions with the City Commission; the wording had been modified to allow much
larger window signs than previously allowed. He stated a change had been proposed to allow smaller businesses the opportunity for larger signage despite the linear square footage of
the front of the building but would not substantially affect larger scale stores. Chairperson Sypinski asked for clarification of no parking between the building façade and the primary
entrance. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the difference was that there could be an allowance for additional signage if there parking was located on the side of the site.
Chairperson Sypinski stated it seemed the proposed language would allow a big sign. Assistant Director Saunders responded that if there was a narrow building with very little frontage,
counting the additional area along the edge of the parking would allow an increase in signage. Assistant Director Saunders noted the limits on maximum sign area overall and for free
standing signs remain as they presently are.
Assistant Director Saunders stated an overall change included multiple buildings on the same lot; a maximum allowable amount per building would be identified. He stated there would
also be a sign area maximum per building user to maintain parity with other establishments within the district. He stated the City had an existing code for addressing signs and a reference
to that had been proposed to be included as well. He stated section 12 were clean-up items identified by the City Attorney. He stated section 13 was primarily clean-up as well, but
would give people more time to submit their appeal. Chairperson Sypinski asked why the word “subject” had been slated for removal. Assistant Director Saunders responded that language
was referencing the intent to appeal and not the appeal itself; he suggested a cross reference to the pertinent section would be included to link with the description of what the applicant
would need to provide. He stated section 15 reflected recent changes in State statute. He noted most of the rest of the sections of the draft ordinance were procedural.
Moving on to Ordinance #1809, Assistant Director Saunders stated the draft ordinance would be replacing the current chapter 18.34. Chairperson Sypinski suggested consistency between
approval authority references instead of using both the “City” and “Board of Adjustment”. Assistant Director Saunders stated the general standards had been retained, but the Design
Review Board criteria had been amended to lessen those instances where parking triggered Design Review Board review. Chairperson Sypinski suggested the DRC, DRB, and ADR had been included
as advisory bodies and asked if they would be part of the formal review process. Assistant Director Saunders responded their advisory capacities had been established for years
prior and the requirement for review by them was included in a separate section.
Assistant Director Saunders stated the current Special Temporary Use Permit requirements had no current limit and the proposed language would cap the approval at one year with the opportunity
for the applicant to ask for another year of approval. He stated sketch plan review had remained largely the same, but re-use/further developments had been included in the sketch plan
review section. He stated site plan review procedures listed in section A and some of section B was required by State Statute; a new item had been included in section B3 to include
the phasing of projects during zoning review.
Mr. Mehl asked where Master Site Plan had been included as it had been stricken. Assistant Director Saunders responded the site plan process was the same as the master site plan process
though on a larger scale. Mr. Mehl pointed out discrepancies where the master site plan language had been included. Assistant Director Saunders responded a master site plan was still
described as a generalized development plan that would allow a first phase with more detail while the rest of the phases could be more generalized. He stated Staff had included criteria
#22 for phasing of the development and would be included as specific review criteria.
Assistant Director Saunders stated that under current code and practice, a modification to a Conditional Use Permit would require a new Conditional Use Permit application be submitted
and approved while the new language would provide for the option of submitting a Modification application instead of requiring a whole new CUP. Mr. Mehl asked where the language was
located in the Staff Report and asked what would trigger going through the whole CUP process again. Mr. McHarg responded a determination of the severity of the amendment would be gauged
on a case to case basis for determination of whether a new CUP would be required. Assistant Director Saunders added that some proportionality had been included to account for different
sizes of proposals. He stated in section 2 the Planning Director would review a master site plan while currently the City Commission reviewed those proposals. He added that in Section
18.34.160 there was an allowance for an applicant to do enhancements to the sites without triggering the site plan review process.
Chairperson Sypinski stated it seemed some of the proposed language seemed to provide less clarity with regard to the approval authority and their decisions. He stated there also seemed
to be a lessening of public involvement in the process which raised a red flag with him. Director McHarg responded it was a well established “best practice” in zoning codes to have
a separate procedures section that is cross referenced throughout the code; the one stop shopping approach instead of having to parse through individual sections. Chairperson Sypinski
stated the definitions and descriptions seemed to be lacking but he could have been missing the intent. Mr. McHarg added that, as a matter of policy, it was an effort to expand the
approval authority and expedite project approvals. Chairperson Sypinski cautioned that not defining the roles of advisory or authority entities could be read as subjective without vetting
the process with the rest of the advisory bodies; he agreed with the policy, but was concerned with the public’s perception of the process. Mr. McHarg stated all the advisory board
meetings were public and were well noticed so the public could participate; notifications would not change with the proposed amendments. He added the underlying assumption behind the
administrative decision making
authority is the ability to appeal the decision to the City Commission. Assistant Director Saunders added that a variance or deviation request would move the proposal to the public
hearing forum automatically and would not be affected by the changes.
Mr. Mehl suggested he thought it would be great if the outline of the approval authorities for each type of project could be included with the formal packets. Assistant Director Saunders
responded he would include that information. Mr. Mehl asked if there would be a decrease in the number of public hearings. Assistant Director Saunders responded the master site plan
process would no longer require a public hearing. Director McHarg responded all code provisions would be met with a master site plan under the approval authority of the Planning Director
and deviations or variances were separate. Director McHarg suggested the members could forward any comments to Planning Staff.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Edward Sypinski, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman