Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-12 Zoning Commission Minutes ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2012 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Garberg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Randy Wall, Vice Chairperson Trever McSpadden Erik Garberg, Chairperson City Commission Liaison: Carson Taylor Members Absent: David Peck Staff Present: Tim McHarg, Planning Director 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 JULY 31, 2012 MOTION: Mr. McSpadden moved, Vice Chairperson Wall seconded, to approve the minutes of July 31, 2012 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Garberg, Mr. McSpadden, and Vice Chairperson Wall. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Unified Development Code Text Amendment Application #Z-12064 – (Fair Housing) A Zone Code Amendment requested by the applicant City of Bozeman, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771, implements the City’s policy and commitment to Fair Housing practices to ensure that housing opportunities are available on an equal opportunity basis.  Specifically, this application is a request to amend the text of the Unified Development Code to revise the table of residential uses regarding community residential facilities; to amend the definitions of community residential facilities, cooperative household, and household; and, to establish a reasonable accommodation process to ensure compliance with applicable laws relative to persons with disabilities or within other protected classes.  The application may also amend additional sections which are relevant to the same topic if a need to do so is identified during the public review process. (McHarg) Planning Director Tim McHarg presented the Staff Report noting that Staff had initiated the series of Unified Development Code (UDC) amendment issues to housing. He stated the amendments would ensure the city’s zoning would be compliant with Federal and State law as well as case law. Planning Director McHarg noted that as part of ongoing litigation brought by Montana Fair Housing (MFH) against the City, Judge Christianson had recently decided that the Authorized Uses section of the UDC “discriminates against the handicapped on its face.”  Because of that ruling, we must correct the UDC.  A small portion of the amendments proposed as part of Ordinance 1838 were to provide these required corrections. However, the majority of the amendments have been initiated at the sole discretion of the City in the interests of improving compliance with applicable laws and expanding equal housing opportunities. The City has been in discussion about these amendments with MFH and has obtained a level of agreement with them. Planning Director McHarg stated there were three main components to the proposed amendment: 1) changes related to regulation of Community Residential Facilities (CRFs); 2) creation of a reasonable accommodation process; and, 3) changes to applicable definitions. Regarding changes related to regulation of CRFs, Planning Director McHarg directed the Zoning Commission members to the language of the state statute. He stated that CRFs with 8 residents or less must be regulated as residential occupancies pursuant of the statute. Regulations for CRFs with 9 or more residents were provided with greater levels of discretion. He noted the use tables and definitions would be specified to clearly identify the two discreet land use categories of CRFs with 8 residents or less and CRFs with 9 or more residents. He noted the assisted living category would be eliminated as it would be addressed with the amendment to the CRF definition. He noted which zoning districts would allow the community residential facilities either principally or conditionally, including residential, residential emphasis mixed use, commercial, and urban mixed use. Director McHarg explained the Reasonable Accommodation Procedure and noted it was similar to a variance request but was instead tied to an individual or household instead of to the land. He stated the process was applicable to the disabled and to members of a protected class (such as race, color, religion, sex, etc.). He noted that again, the accommodation would not be tied to the land but to a specific person or household; once that use of a property was discontinued by the individual with a disability or from a protected class, the accommodation would as well. He stated the individual group or household would make application to the Planning Department; if it was a Conditional Use Permit with a reasonable accommodation request it would require a public hearing and approval by that authority, otherwise it would be an administrative decision. Director McHarg stated no notice would be required unless the accommodation request was in conjunction with another application, in which case, the noticing requirements would default to the other type of application. He stated the ordinance was specific in identifying which records would need to be kept confidential or information would be redacted as necessary to protect the privacy rights of the applicant for the reasonable accommodation. He stated the information was outlined with a specific set of criteria within the code and could include ongoing verification and/or conditional approval of the request provided it was all tied to the underlying criteria for the reasonable accommodation. Director McHarg noted which definitions would be modified with the proposal. Director McHarg stated the Zoning Commission needed to make findings that the proposal was in keeping with the review criteria as well as all applicable state and federal law. He stated Staff found the proposal to be in keeping with the review criteria and recommended approval of the proposal. He noted no public comment had been received. Chairperson Garberg opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. MOTION: Mr. McSpadden moved, Vice Chairperson Wall seconded, that after having heard and considered public comment, to hereby adopt the findings presented in the Staff Report and to recommend approval of the text amendments to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code as included in draft Ordinance 1838 as requested in application #Z-12187. Mr. McSpadden noted he found the application complied with the 13 review criteria as outlined in the Staff Report and he adopted those findings as his own. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Garberg, Mr. McSpadden, and Vice Chairperson Wall. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Mr. McHarg confirmed that he will be in touch with the County Planning Director as the Zoning Commission had discussed; likely not this week due to a planning conference. Mr. Wall noted the South Wallace ZMA had been approved and asked for clarification of the public testimony in opposition and if there were comments in support of the proposal. Mr. Taylor stated there was public comment in support and though he did not think there was an individual from the public in support there had been a representative from the library. He noted there was a lot of talk about the entrance from Main Street with regard to right and left turning and removal of the pork chop was being discussed; those that lived east of town had to go the wrong way and turn around to get to the correct side of town. He noted there was a proposal to put a light in at Main Street and Broadway Avenue but a light at that intersection had not met the required MDT warrants. Director McHarg stated that any significant development on the South Wallace properties would require a traffic study. He also noted that there had been discussions with the owner of the Town Pump property that were coordinated with MDOT; if the site were redeveloped with the intensity proposed, the signalization of the Main/Broadway intersection would be required. Mr. Taylor added there were also discussions about parking related issues and how that would come about in addition to height discussions; he noted the lots were very narrow and noted he thought it would be interesting to see what was developed in that location. Mr. Wall stated he was concerned about the developers of the limited amount of developable properties on South Wallace if the City was not a party to the traffic study that would be required in that location. He stated the potential traffic issues could be attributed to the access to City property; he suggested the City should consider sharing the expense of the study. Director McHarg responded the traffic study was beyond the scope of the Zone Map Amendment discussion and suggested future discussions would include opportunities for cooperation and building a relationship to work together in the long term to mitigate those impacts whether it was parking or access or whatever other issues were identified. Mr. Wall asked if when a use was going into a space, there would be DRC review and a certificate of appropriateness from the Planning Department. Director McHarg responded there would be a requirement for review and approval from the Planning Department. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if any administrative decision could be appealed by an aggrieved neighbor. Director McHarg responded that any decision could be appealed. Chairperson Garberg suggested the Zoning Commission was going off task and suggested Director McHarg could finish the answer, but he thought it was outside of their purview. Vice Chairperson Wall respectfully disagreed that the discussion was off task and suggested the application they were discussing had already been reviewed by the Zoning Commission; he added that it was good for the community to see that the Zoning Commission was asking the questions identified through public comment, should they be watching. Director McHarg responded that it was a germane discussion as the more the Zoning Commission understood procedural requirements, the more effectively they would be able to consider zone map amendments and zone code amendments. Mr. McSpadden stated that Staff had done a really good job incorporating the Zoning Commission discussion into the City Commission discussion of the item. Director McHarg thanked Mr. McSpadden and indicated that presenting a full set of information to the City Commission was the task of Staff and the Zoning Commission. Mr. Taylor added he was pleased at the way the hearing had turned out. Mr. Wall stated that, in conclusion, he had struggled with a number of the 13 review criteria during the project’s review and he was still struggling with the traffic concerns in the area. He stated there was no doubt Bozeman had a beautiful library, but the adjacent properties were taking the impact. He would hope that when the City would be sensitive to the traffic issue and participate in the study. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:39 p.m. Erik Garberg, Chairperson Tim McHarg, Planning Director Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman