Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZC-121713 MinZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2013 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Garberg called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. and took attendance. Members Present: Erik Garberg, Chairperson Trever McSpadden George Thompson Julien Morice City Commission Liaison: Carson Taylor Members Absent: Guests Present:  Chris Budeski Linda Kesler Lloyd Mandeville Staff Present: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None forthcoming ITEM 3. MINUTES OF December 03, 2013 Approved unanimously with updates to minutes of 11/19/2013 ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Simmental ZMA #Z-13255-Zone Map Amendment application as requested by the property owner, First Montana Bank Inc, 1336 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT 59718, applicant American Simmental Association, 1 Simmental Way, Bozeman MT 59715, and representative Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd, Ste 203, Bozeman MT 59718 to zone 4.309 acres as R-O (Residential Office District) in conjunction with annexation. The property located is located southeast of the intersection of Campbell Road and Springhill Road. The property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 2 of the Walker Property Subdivision Planned Unit Development. (Saunders) Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: This is an unusual property in that it was originally approved with residential Office zoning back before 1997 when the city and county divided the planning jurisdiction. Prior to that from 1972-1999 the city exercised zoning authority outside city limits. In 1999 this property remained in county and the county took over responsibility and oversight for it and also zoned it residential office which was consistent with the PUD. Now however, the property is being annexed so we have to put a city zoning back on it. So it will be rezoned three times for same thing under the same project. Hence, it is a little strange. On the other hand it is a fairly straight forward project. Saunders described location and typography of property. Project seeking to be zoned Residential Office, the one piece that is unusual, when they went through original Walker PUD they specifically designated the property for exclusively office use. Normally, in the city’s regulations as you see them today, in a residential planned area we would normally see a blend of residential and commercial uses. Staff looked into this original question. Staff concluded that there is not a requirement for Planned Unit Development for this property to be zoned R-O and to be solely developed as offices within the city. So that is a little different but the intendment that was attained through PUD persists since city originally approved it in the first place. This property is located in an area of planned mixed uses, industrial property, residentially planned area, open space, Public Lands and Institutions (Sewer Plant), golf course, railroad and interstate go through here and commercial development to the south. So we believe that the purposed zoning is reasonable for the character of the district, that if you look at the Staff Report pages 5-6 shows staff findings as it applies to this particular application with an explanation of the history of this project, we feel that is consistent with the Growth Policy, we believe that it satisfactorily complies with the 13 required criteria and staff is necessarily favorably on this application before you this evening. At this we have not received any public comment. We did go through and look at this with the Development Review Committee and have found no impediments to this project and therefore, we’ve indentified appropriate contingency of approval and those contingencies are the necessary steps of approval to execute the administrative and legislative work to complete this application and city commissioner desires. So at this point, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. The applicant and representative are here and will be happy to speak to you as well. Chairperson Garberg: Is there any other question for staff? Mr. Thompson: What driving the trapezoidal shape of this property? Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: It is an interesting shape, that was developed with the original Walker PUD, not sure why they ended up with this particular shape. Mr. Thompson: Ok, thank you. Chairperson Garberg: At this time I would like to hear the applicant, please state your name and address for the record. Chris Budeski: I am representing Simmental application for ZMA, Chris Saunders did a nice job of summarizing project. We are not purposing a change in zoning, but city R-O zoning be implemented as we go into the city. Do you have any questions? Chairperson Garberg: Are there any questions? No questions, at this point I would like to open up the public hearing for comment. Would any one of the public wish to speak to this issue? No, we will close public hearing and bring it back up here for a motion. Motion: Mr. McSpadden moved to hereby adopt the findings in the staff report for application #Z-13255 and move to approve of The Zone Map Amendment with identified contingencies. Mr. Morice seconded the motion. Chairperson Garberg: Do you want to speak to your motion? Mr. McSpadden: It seems pretty simple to me. I actually had some questions about the PUD and the need for ZMA but after reviewing materials and hearing Chris Saunders summary of project those have been pretty well cleared up. Just to clarify, the thought would be the PUD will override that 50% requirement of the underlined Growth Policy designation? Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: That’s correct. Typically, what happens is in a Planned Unit Development if someone identifies a relaxation or standard to be adopted with a PUD then it perseveres through time. If the PUD is silent then their subject to whatever modifications to the code, whatever that may be. In this case an office designation was specifically called out in that lot with original Walker PUD. Chairperson Garberg: I will call for the question, all those in favor of the motion as stated please indicate by saying aye. Motion carries unanimously. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Garberg: I believe there was some discussion on the ZMA and GPA that came before the commission last night. Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: I will review project as the commission would like me to. Mr. Saunders reviewed application for Laurel Glen Subdivision Phase 1. The commission heard both the GPA and ZMA for the Laurel Glen Subdivision Phase 1. Mr. Taylor: The Growth Map Amendment was passed by the city commission and approved with R-2 zoning. Chairperson Garberg: I received 2-3 comments how and why we came to the decision we made. Mr. Taylor: One resident came and stayed until after 10pm to support the project. As did all the party’s that were involved in it. There was some discussion on how we got to this point. Wasn’t it in 2002? Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: Yes, right about that time. Mr. McSpadden: Not to linger that whole minute thing. In that discussion portion of that item before this board, I wrestled with that one on the planning board level on the growth policy because there was that one..the growth policy criteria is subjective, there is no two ways about it. It is just really hard to work with at times. And there is that last one criteria, that’s all about harming thy neighbor. So the whole time I keep going back to that, and I see where they are coming from and I don’t think this is a bad move, these guys threw out the sixplex option and the people came up and said that it’s just not good. So it would be difficult to work around that, because if there is one specific criteria, there is a list of criteria that lacks specificity, but there is one that kind of has it. People came up and said I expected something different, and this is bad for me so there you have it. That was the sentiment that I was try to convey at the zoning hearing. That change was simple, from commercial to residential that zoning element gave everybody a comfort level that was ok, but at that point it was that simple and the Planning Board unanimously said no keep it commercial. Policy and Planning Manager, Saunders: and one of the things that were unusual was how the applicant approach it the way that they did. Where they came in just with the growth policy amendment and not with the companion Zone Map Amendment, so it got a little out of whack. The discussion with the commission revolved around how did we get there, did we really follow our plan originally, you may recall some discussion on where to these kind of nodes normally go? This is an unusual position and so there was a lot of discussion around that. Are we really losing anything by making this change? Is it a matter of timing? More so than substance, we are still having this funny guy to the south what is going on with that? So there were questions asked and ultimately they did decide that to make the change and did approve the R-2. They will either subdivide it or go through a site plan. And either way will continue to involve the neighbors through the review process. Mr. Taylor: to the extent that there are consequences to your actions. So if you look at it in a grand philosophical way forgetting the law, someone talked the commission in 2002, a plan that was not going to work, and to the extent that there are consequences to putting out a plan that will not work, the error in the first place took away some of their rights to change it the way they wanted to and it was much more of a give and take. Mr. McSpadden: That was what was so difficult about that one, fundamentally I thought that was tough to vote against, because from a planning perspective, I agree that it was a PUD by zone, it is bizarre. They were trying to create this mosaic of uses and cool stuff was going to happen, but how often do we see that, and the rooftops necessary to support even a small portion of commercial. It was hard form a planning perspective to go through that hearing and at the end of day there is that criteria. Mr. Morice: Given that criteria, couldn’t you not argue that any new zoning, planning, annexation, somehow adversely affect somebody else and in their own opinion or what they dreamt or wanted for that area. The reality of it is it is dead without a rezoning and it is not exactly lawn, its weed grass hilly area with utility steps sticking out of it, I don’t think it would change in the next five years. I think you have to do it, but it obviously wasn’t the best of ideas, given the fact that you just need so many rooftops for these nodes, and most of those nodes are vacant or partially vacant and those that are not vacant, they are not services so much as they are offices they had multiple change of hands, so its tough. Chairperson Garberg: What’s most interesting to me is you take this project and look at Oak where we add before and we are looking at adding commercial and how much we are going to add and its probably somewhat subjective . it’s obvious that the density and ADT is there for commercial so will it also at some point in future make sense to have the residential there to create that nexus. I don’t have the answer. Mr. McSpadden: I thought on this both uses were appropriate, you got the facilities and infrastructure to handle high density commercial or residential. But at the end of the day they are asking us to pick one and those two works just fine. Mr. Taylor: In my mind it is inevitable that the change was going to happen. The neighbors did have voice in it and I think that’s right. If they bought something there and they moved in that this gives them some power. The other thing that is interesting is that there is a lot of good faith reliance on one another and I am always curious as how that plays itself out. There was conversation between developer and neighbors about what would happen and the promises and the developer obviously wants good will and it will be interesting to see how that plays itself out. Mr. McSpadden: I think if one can get past the zoning and look at this cool site plan. It is about those guys will develop it to the extents that are to will bear. And that’s it. The commission has to be ok with it, we’re ok with it. There was conversation about them (developers) coming back and getting that pink out of there at a later date. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Happy 2013, The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:34p.m.   Erik Garberg, Chairperson City of Bozeman Zoning Commission Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager City of Bozeman DCD