Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-12 Zoning Commission Minutes ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2012 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Garberg called the meeting to order at 6:14 p.m. and ordered the Recording Secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Randy Wall, Vice Chairperson Trever McSpadden Erik Garberg, Chairperson City Commission Liaison: Members Absent: David Peck Guests Present: Cheryl Smith Bud Smith Paul G. Newby Al MacSween Virginia MacSween Staff Present: David Skelton, Senior 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 SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 MOTION: Mr. McSpadden moved, Vice Chairperson Wall seconded, to approve the minutes of September 18, 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. Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-12219 – (First Baptist Church) A Zone Map Amendment requested by the owner First Baptist Church of Bozeman, 120 S. Grand Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715 and representative Madison Engineering, Chris Budeski, 895 Technology Boulevard, Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718 to change the urban zoning designation on 12.3 acres from R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) to R-4 (Residential High Density District). The property is generally located southeast of the intersection of Fowler Avenue and Ravalli Street and is legally described as Tract C, Van Horn Subdivision, Lots 3 & 4, MiSub #223, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton) Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was to allow a change in urban zoning designation on 12.3 acres from R-3 to R-4 and noted the location of the property. He noted the Community Plan Land Use designation had also been adhered to with regard to what the proposal was requesting. He noted the site was within two major transportation corridors as well as a local street designation to the east of the subject property. He noted Pond Row would be tied into the extension of Ravalli Street eastward from where the street currently ceased. He noted that when the property was under the jurisdiction of the City/County Planning jurisdiction they had always been slated for residential development. He noted the property had been annexed under three separate annexations which had been commenced in the mid to late 1990’s. He noted the adjacent properties and their zoning designations. He stated there was a mix of annexed and un-annexed lands to the east which included County jurisdictional areas. He stated the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts were located immediately to the west, but there was a lot of parkland in the area; there was an eclectic collection of land use patterns. Senior Planner Skelton directed the Zoning Commission to the Land Use map which indicated adjacent duplex and single family uses as well as some multi-family uses that existed. He noted the majority of existing development in the R-4 district was single family development. He stated Staff could not identify an existing farm stead relative to the site, but noted the property included native grasses with a watercourse that essentially bisected the property. He noted the stream was somewhat intermittent and there was substantial vegetation on the south end of the site. He noted it was questionable what would happen to the mature Cottonwood Trees on Fowler Avenue and it would remain to be seen. He stated the primary uses in the area were single family and duplex uses and he had noted the Staff Report contained a comparison between the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts and had included building heights (a two foot difference). He noted the differences were two fold; the uses including apartments and apartment buildings as well as offices and clinics that would not be allowed within the R-3 zoning district. He stated the allowable density per building would have a varying mass and scale with regard to those allowed within the R-3 zoning district. He stated Staff had visited the site on three occasions and had identified the watercourse as an opportunity to make a physical demarcation between the proposed land uses. He noted there were enough physical features and design possibilities that the site would lend itself to the approval of a Planned Unit Development. Planner Skelton stated there were large suburban residential lots adjacent to the site and noted Staff felt the R-3 zoning district was appropriate for the east half of the property while the west half was appropriate for the R-4 zoning district. He noted there had been no written public comment and there had been one phone call expressing concern with regard to the density of the proposed zoning. He noted Staff was supportive with Staff contingencies as outlined in the Staff Report and noted a recommended motion had been included. He noted the waiver to the SID had been submitted but it would be reviewed with further development of the subject property. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if a trail was included through the site. Planner Skelton responded there was a trail and there were also trails included but there were no easements depicting those locations; he noted the paths paralleled the existing watercourse. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if there would be restrictions placed on the watercourse. Planner Skelton responded there was a 50 foot setback required on either side of the watercourse; he noted the applicant could ask for a variance to those requirements. Vice Chairperson Wall clarified that the west parcel would be approved for R-4 and the east parcel would be approved for R-3 zoning designations. Planner Skelton responded Vice Chairperson Wall was correct. Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, addressed the Zoning Commission. He stated Planner Skelton had done a good job of laying everything out and noted the applicant was amenable to the contingencies and conditions of approval as outlined by Staff. He noted Fowler Lane would require major improvements (35 feet with a raised median and tapers on both ends) and noted the R-4 zoning district on a portion of the land would allow funding for those required improvements. He noted the irrigation ditch would fall under the jurisdiction of the ditch company and could be piped; he noted the stream corridor would likely become an amenity on the site and would enhance the site. He stated the location would be great for multi-family development. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if there was any discussion of changing the zoning designation on the teardrop shaped parcel to public parkland. Mr. Budeski responded it would not be dedicated, but it would potentially be available to the public for use; he added they would need to discuss it with the City Parks Department and added it would be a great location for a north south trail corridor. Vice Chairperson Wall asked why the applicant was not holding a harder line for the R-4 zoning district. Mr. Budeski responded it was a simple response; there was adjacent single household development. Vice Chairperson Wall suggested the teardrop shaped parcel being dedicated as parkland while the stream corridor contained a trail should be considered as it was a logical piece as a connection. Mr. Budeski responded that in reality an R-3 zoning was four-plexes while an R-4 was as many units as could be possibly fit on the site; the difference being three stories or less with regard to number of units. He noted the stream would provide a corridor down the middle and the site plan would include a parking lot down the center of the site with buildings on each side. He noted the east side of the site abutted single family homes while the west half could be higher density and fill both needs. Planner Skelton added that all the uses allowed in the R-4 zoning district needed to be evaluated not just the possibility of apartment buildings; he noted Staff was trying to respect the land uses that were currently there which had prompted their recommendations. Vice Chairperson Wall stated he would like to see the infill parcels used to their best and highest use and suggested the easternmost portion of the parcel could be zoned R-4. Chairperson Garberg opened the item for public comment. Virginia MacSween, 342 Wilda Lane, stated she had no problem with the existing single family units, but they had problems with the density of the condo units adjacent to them due to loud parties. She suggested there should be consideration for the neighbors and adequate space with parking for the newly constructed properties. Vice Chairperson Wall asked if Ms. MacSween was familiar with the “unruly party” ordinance for the City of Bozeman and recommended she look into the enforcement that would get progressively worse for the offenders; he suggested calling the police. Ms. MacSween responded she had already attempted that method but there was a constant change in tenancy in those units. She added she would like to see the occupants have adequate space inside and out. Cheryl Smith stated she had property on Wilda Lane directly to the east of the subject property. She stated she had a problem with the number of units that could be allowed on the property; she noted she had a duplex but everyone else had a single family house. She stated she would hate to see a three story building with up to 32 units per acres when right behind them was a duplex on an acre; she suggested a more gradual zoning change and noted she supported maintaining the R-3 zoning on the eastern portion of the lot. Mr. MacSween, 314 Wilda Lane, stated he had lived on Wilda Lane for 35 years. He stated if you looked in the paper there were a lot of places for rent including houses and apartments. He stated the high density was the wrong thing to do and R-3 should be the maximum for the area. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Chairperson Garberg called for Zoning Commission discussion on the item. MOTION: Mr. McSpadden moved, Vice Chairperson Wall seconded, that having reviewed the application materials, considered public comment, and considered all of the information presented, to hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application #Z-12219 and to recommend approval of the requested Zone Map Amendment to the City Commission of R-4 for Tract C of Van Horn Subdivision with contingencies listed in the staff report; and denial of the R-4 request for Lot 3 and Lot 4 of Minor Subdivision No. 233, with recommendation for approval of alternative R-3 zoning. Mr. McSpadden stated that though there were density considerations and allowable use considerations, he was supportive of the R-3 on the eastern portion of the lot and given that the applicant was amendable to the recommended conditions of approval. He suggested the concerned public keep their eye on the development of the subject property and he agreed with Staff with regard to the land use trend and transition in that location. He stated he agreed with Staff and found the application to be in keeping with the review criteria as set forth in the U.D.C. Chairperson Garberg stated he appreciated the applicant being amenable to Staff’s recommendation to provide transition with regard to the proposed zoning district and the R-3 zoning on the eastern portion of the lot. 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 No items were forthcoming. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Erik Garberg, Chairperson David Skelton, Senior Planner Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman