Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZC-011513.MinZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2013 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Garberg called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Randy Wall, Vice Chairperson Trever McSpadden Erik Garberg, Chairperson David Peck City Commission Liaison: Carson Taylor Members Absent: Guests Present: Brian Gallik Greg Kindschi Cindy Kindschi Carolyn S. Powell Deb Stober Kate McFee Mark Burg Staff Present: Steve Worthington, Interim Community Development Director Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Doug Riley, Associate Planner Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary 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 Garberg closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2012 MOTION: Mr. McSpadden moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to approve the minutes of October 16, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Garberg, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Peck, and Vice Chairperson Wall. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12298 – (Pine Meadows) A Zone Map Amendment requested by the owner Lorie L. Hovanec, P.O. Box 240886, Anchorage, AK 99524 and representative Madison Engineering, Chris Budeski, 895 Technology Boulevard, Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718 to establish an initial zoning classification on approximately 0.58 acres of land on the corner of Durston Road and Valley Drive as R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) and approximately 3.44 acres on the east side of Valley Drive as R-2 (Residential Two-Household Medium Density District) contingent upon annexation of the property and is legally described as Tract 7, Smith Subdivision located in the NW 1/4 of Section 11, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. (Riley) Associate Planner Doug Riley presented the Staff Report noting the location of the site and which portions were proposed to be zoned R-3 and which were proposed to be zoned R-2. He noted the Growth Policy Designation was Residential and added that all the property surrounding the site was also slated for residential development. He noted the white areas depicted were still within the County jurisdiction and had not been annexed. He noted that the Zoning Commission had previously reviewed the property directly to the east of the subject site. He noted the Leep and Christenot Annexations and Zone Map Amendments had been previously approved. He noted there had been a reference to the north .58 acres proposed as R-O zoning, but Staff had not been supportive due to the Land Use Designation and the potential for incompatible uses. He noted Staff was supportive of the proposal as presented with Staff conditions. He noted there may be covenants, though it was uncertain at this time, which could be more restrictive than the zoning district itself. He stated DRC had also recommended approval of the proposal with conditions. Vice Chairperson Wall asked about the zoning districts to the west of the property. Planner Riley responded the County jurisdictions were Zoning District 1 zoning, and there was R-3 with R-1 to the south. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if regular City infrastructure would be required with development of the property. Planner Riley responded that Vice Chairperson Wall was correct and site improvements would be required with development. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if the properties were currently served with septic and well. Planner Riley responded Vice Chairperson Wall as correct. Vice Chairperson Wall noted there was a big chunk of land to the south that was still developable. Planner Riley responded Vice Chairperson Wall was correct. Vice Chairperson Wall clarified that whatever utilities that would be required to be extended would also serve the vacant chunk of land. Planner Riley responded the applicant would only need to extend the services along the length of their property as part of their approval requirements. Chairperson Garberg clarified that the Zoning Commission could make recommendations for different zoning districts and the original proposal for R-O would not be supported be Staff. Planner Riley responded Chairperson Garberg was correct. Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, stated he was representing the applicant. He stated the applicant had requested the R-3 for future development of a four-plex on the corner with the R-2 designation being for future development of single-family and duplex development. He stated the requirement for parkland would also be met on the property and in addition Villard Street would be required to be extended to Valley Drive and the water would likely loop into Villard Street for at least the first phase of development. He stated he concurred with Staff that the proposed zoning would be in keeping with the Growth Policy and the adjacent land uses. Mr. Peck asked if the land owners to the west would have to pay for hooking up to municipal services. Mr. Budeski responded that it would be up to the applicant to pay for the initial costs of hookup. He presented a letter from the property manager. He noted the house had been rented as a duplex since 1998 and had separate entrances with a shared garage. He entered the statement into the record. He stated that members of the public had a copy of the covenants for the neighborhood but, they were unsigned and unrecorded. Vice Chairperson Wall asked about the purpose of the proposed R-3 zoning on the north end of the site. Mr. Budeski responded the applicant’s were an elderly couple that was intending an apartment (4-plex) building within the R-3 zoning district with single family development to the west, east, and north while the apartment building would be retirement income and buffer the single family locations to the south. Planner Riley added that part of Staff’s rationale was the un-annexed parcel to the immediate east of the subject site where R-3 would be supportable at the time of annexation if the owner so desired. Chairperson Garberg opened the item for public comment. Brian Gallik, Goetz Law Firm, 35 N. Grand Ave., stated he was here on behalf of the residents to the west of the subject site that were still located within the County; he presented a letter to be included as public comment for the proposal. Vice Chairperson Wall suggested a recess of 10 minutes to review the letter and any other information that was to be presented at the evening’s meeting. Deb Stober stated she had a petition protesting the application and it could be presented at a later date. The Zoning Commission took a ten minute recess to review the new materials. The meeting was reconvened. Mr. Gallik noted his clients felt the proposed zoning was inconsistent with the covenants, the surrounding zoning districts, the existing land uses, and the Growth Policy. He stated the owner of the subject property had been provided at least constructive notice and noted the covenants had been recorded; filed March 1, 1967. He noted his exhibits contained the necessary details that were valid and reiterated that the covenants had been recorded; the owner of the subject property had been given constructive notice. He noted none of his clients had constructed anything other than single-family dwellings for single-family use. He quoted the covenants and noted the proposed development would not meet the intent of the covenants and restrictions as outlined. He stated Staff’s review criteria were used across the country for zoning review and he had included cases that were proposing a higher density had been found to not be in keeping with the existing neighborhood; the application of zoning principles were not in force to make the owner profitable and it would be inconsistent. He noted his clients were seeking an R-1 zoning designation for the property. Mr. McSpadden stated he had a question for Mr. Gallik regarding his public testimony. Assistant Director Saunders suggested all questions of public comment be addressed at once and after testimony had been held. Mr. McSpadden agreed. Cindy Kindschi, 505 Valley Drive, stated she and her husband were in opposition to the proposed zoning. She noted they had purchased their home in 1986 and the covenants had been set forth to assure that the platted lands be developed into beautiful, harmonious lands. Carolyn Powell, 315 Valley Drive, stated she had purchased her property in 1984 and moved into the house in 1985. She stated the property had never been zoned for a duplex and had not been used as such until the rental management company had taken over administration of the property. She stated she believed a covenant was a covenant until hell freezes over and noted the owner had bought the land with the same covenants in affect. Greg Kindschi, 505 Valley Drive, stated he was disappointed that R-2 and R-3 zoning was even being considered and he was more supportive of R-1 zoning. He noted the properties to the east had been approved for higher density which would provide enough density for the area. He stated higher density would not lessen street congestion or the crowding of the land. He asked the Zoning Commission to support R-1 density. Kate McFee stated she had bought her property in September and she had been attempting to verse herself in zoning requirements. She stated she was opposed to the current requested zoning and was supportive of the R-1 zoning district. Vice Chairperson Wall confirmed the location of her property in relation to the subject site. Mark Burg stated they had moved into Smith Subdivision two months ago and had chosen the site for the single family development in addition to the large lots. He stated he and his wife were supportive of R-1 zoning for the property. Deb Stober, 395 Valley Drive, stated she was here in opposition to the proposed zoning. She stated a few years back the Hovenac’s had intended to annex into the City and the HOA had informed them that it was not allowable within the covenants. She stated she understood that the enforcement of covenants was a civil issue, but she thought that the City should help enforce the integrity and character of the neighborhood and uphold the covenants. She stated the legal protest requirement of 150 feet had been met with the exclusion of one Valley Drive resident that could not be contacted. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Assistant Director Saunders stated that if members of the public did not want to answer questions, they were not obligated to do so. Planner Riley suggested that the Commission offer the applicant the opportunity for rebuttal of the public comments. Chairperson Garberg concurred. Mr. McSpadden asked why the site wasn’t subdivided with the approval of the first plat. Planner Riley responded he saw no intent specifically listed on the Final Plat. Vice Chairperson Wall suggested that now would be the time to specifically address the public comment made at the evening’s meeting. Mr. Peck asked if the southern portion of the map for that area contained an existing four plex. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was an existing four plex that was annexed in 1999 or 2000 and was a legal, nonconforming four plex in an R-1 zoning district. Mr. Budeski stated he did not want to try to act as an attorney, but typically when covenants were in force, they were signed and recorded; nothing indicated that the covenants had been signed or recorded. He suggested the City Attorney may want to review the document to reveal whether or not the covenants were legally binding. He suggested opening and continuing the review until such a time as the City Attorney had reviewed the legality of the covenants. Vice Chairperson Wall stated the Zoning Commission’s purview was not covenants; period. He stated that the discussion of covenants was not a City government issue, but a Civil issue and suggested the discussion be geared to whether or not the land use would best be served by the proposed zoning designations. He suggested a motion be set forth specifically in regard to the proposed zoning. Mr. McSpadden added that the Zoning Commission had just received what sounded like a request from the applicant to open and continue the item until the legalities of the covenants had been determined. Chairperson Garberg responded it was not an issue he had come across before and deferred to Staff. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City Commission hearing would be held in February and there would be opportunity to comment and present new information at that time. He suggested opening and continuing the public comment portion of the hearing if the Zoning Commission intended to hear the item at a later date. He noted there were certain things that could not be done with covenants, the covenants could not override the zoning, and whichever was more restrictive would prevail; unless it was something directly in conflict, the City would not involve itself. He stated the question of the character of the neighborhood was explicitly in their purview. Chairperson Garberg stated that there was well defined criteria that would enable the Zoning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Commission. Vice Chairperson Wall suggested asking the applicant if they wanted to open and continue the item. Chairperson Garberg responded that given the hearing had been publicly noticed he thought the item should move forward; he suggested the covenants were not part of their review criteria and purview. Mr. McSpadden stated his only concern was that they might move forward without having all the necessary information and noted the applicant had mentioned continuing the item because of the covenants. Vice Chairperson Wall suggested he felt as though he had enough information to make a decision this evening. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Wall moved, Mr. Peck seconded, that having reviewed and considered recommendations from the Development Review Committee and Planning Staff as contained in the Staff Report, and after evaluation of the proposed zoning against the criteria set forth in 38.37.020 of the Unified Development Code and Section 76-2-304 Montana Codes Annotated, the Zoning Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the City Commission of the requested Zone Map Amendment with Staff contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. McSpadden stated this was a tricky application that he attempted to consider “in a vacuum”. He noted the application was not inconsistent with the Growth Policy and added he was not going to get too in depth with regard to the property not being subdivided. He stated that Valley Drive provided a buffer to the Valley Drive residents on the west side.. He stated another problem he had was that he was a huge proponent of annexation and they had to consider an initial zoning designation; the ones proposed being as suitable as any. He added that if the covenants were more restrictive than the zoning, the owner was bound by developing in keeping with those covenants. Mr. Peck stated he agreed with Mr. McSpadden though he did read in Mr. Gallik’s letter that the character of the proposed development and Valley Drive was not just single family residences, it was more rural due to the size of the lots. He noted he was of the same mind as Mr. McSpadden with regard to the covenants being more restrictive. Vice Chairperson Wall thanked everyone in attendance for coming to the hearing. He stated part of the City’s purpose was to eliminate all of the un-annexed properties within the City which had a lot to do with the protection of the health, safety, and welfare to the community at large; wells and septic systems were not protecting the health, safety, or welfare of the community as a whole. He stated it was standard practice to step the zoning districts down and use them as a transition to lower density. He stated he agreed with Mr. Peck that the character of the neighborhood was out of character with the City; more rural than urban density. He stated the enforcement of covenants would have to be civilly handled though he was intrigued by a legal document that was not signed and had not been recorded. He stated he concurred with Assistant Director Saunders that there would be time for further comments and information. Chairperson Garberg stated he was in favor of the proposal as submitted and he hoped the public understood that infill development was as difficult for them as it was for the public. The motion carried 4-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Garberg, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Peck, and Vice Chairperson Wall. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Assistant Director Saunders noted that Steve Worthington was the current Interim Community Development Director. Mr. Worthington stated his primary task was to investigate better methods by which the Planning Department could operate and to help train his successor for the position. He noted he was retired and only did this a few months out of the year but he also came out of it knowing much more about the community. Chairperson Garberg noted many of them had attended the planning 101 training session with the County and suggested they get training regarding Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Carson added he thought it was a good idea. Vice Chairperson Wall stated Robert’s Rules had a specific purpose which was to get things done and he thought Chairperson Garberg had done a good job. Assistant Director Saunders asked if the Commission would object to partnering with another board for the training. The Zoning Commission concurred that they would not object to training with another review agency. Planner Riley asked if recommended motions in the Staff Report were helpful to the members. Mr. McSpadden responded he thought they were helpful. Chairperson Garberg concurred with Mr. McSpadden though he couldn’t make a formal motion. Mr. Carson suggested the motion be provided. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Erik Garberg, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman