Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Commission Meeting of Bozeman, Montana Agenda Packet 2007-01-22 18-00 - 3_2-21_Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments, #Z-06263 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, AICP, Assistant Director Lanette Windemaker, AICP, Contract Planner SUBJECT: Amendments to Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, of the Bozeman Municipal Code, City of Bozeman, #Z-06263 MEETING DATE: Monday, January 22, 2007 (City Hall) BACKGROUND: Please refer to the information packet distributed at the last City Commission meeting, January 16, 2007. The Planning Board and Zoning Commission joint hearing minutes of December 5 and 19, 2006 have been attached to this packet. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Public comment was received on January 15, 2007, regarding Sections 18.42.080.H and 18.50.020. Staff has reviewed the comments and offers the following: Edit new Section 18.42.080.H to read as follows: Stormwater retention/detention ponds facilities in landscaped areas shall be designed as landscape amenities. They shall be an organic water feature with a natural, curvilinear shape. The ponds facilities shall have 75 percent of surface area covered with live vegetation appropriate for the depth and design of the retention/detention facility, and be lined with native grasses, indigenous plants, wet root tolerant plant types and groupings of boulders to create a functional yet, natural site feature. A cross section and landscape detail of each ponds facility shall be submitted with the final landscape plan for review and approval. Facilities with a slope up to and including 10% grade may be grassed and irrigated to blend into the adjacent landscaped area. Do not edit Section 18.50.020. The current language establishes the default provision for cash in lieu of park land for density in excess of 8 dwelling units per acre (up to the maximum density for park dedication). The current language allows the subdivider the option of asking the Commission to allow the dedication of additional land instead of the cash in lieu of land. This allows the Commission to make an informed decision as to whether in the specific instance they want the larger park being offered or the cash for park improvements. This decision should not be at the subdivider’s discretion. RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission approve application #Z-06263 with the draft text attached to the staff report, as amended in the Commission memo of January 16, 2007, and as amended in the Commission memo of January 22, 2007, with the amendment to Section 18.14.010 held in abeyance until a final decision is made on the proposed UMU district. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. 34 CONTACT: Please email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or Lanette Windemaker at lwindemaker@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to the public hearing. APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager 2 35 ** MINUTES ** JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION AND PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 5th, 2006 7:00PM 0:09:17 [18:57:53] ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair JP Pomnichowski called the joint meeting to order at 7:09PM and directed the secretary to record attendance. Zoning Commission Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, Chair Nicholas Lieb Nathan Minnick Warren Vaughan Sean Becker, Commission Liaison Zoning Commission Members Absent: Peter Harned (excused) Planning Board Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, Chair and President Brian Caldwell Caren Roberty Edward Sypinski Erik Henyon Steve Kirchhoff, Commission Liaison Planning Board Members Absent: Randy Carpenter (excused) Dave Jarrett (excused) Staff Members Present: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Joe Batcheller 0:09:38 [21:32:28] ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) Seeing none, JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 1 36 0:09:56 [18:58:02] ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21ST, 2006 Zoning Commissioner Warren Vaughan noted that on page 9, second paragraph he wanted to clarify that he was not giving blanket support, but his support of the project was for the change in zoning from industrial to residential zoning. Erik Henyon stated he submitted a change via e-mail to the recording secretary and wanted to get clarification that Ms. Kenney-Lyden was in receipt of this to which she confirmed. Chair Pomnichowski motioned to accept the minutes as edited. Ed Sypinski moved and Brian Caldwell seconded. Motion passed 8-0. 0:11:36 [19:01:47] ITEM 4. JOINT REVIEW Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance - Proposed Amendments. Revisions include suggestions collected during the open public comment process and amendments proposed by staff, directed to move to formal amendment by the City Commission. This is the completion of the UDO edits from 2004. (Windemaker/Saunders) 0:11:44 [19:11:55] Staff Presentation Assistant Director Saunders presented the staff report. He noted these edits started back in 2004 with a total of 306 submissions. There were nine advisory boards solicited to review the edits and make recommendations to the Planning Board and Zoning Commission. Mr. Saunders stated the scope of the edits were from every aspect; from grammar to punctuation, significant changes in policy, to rephrasing or adding an item. A total of seven bills came forward from the state legislature which made additional revisions to our land use program. He added Planning Board and Zoning Commission will hold two public hearings on this in December 2006 and then the City Commission will hold the final two public hearings in January 2007. To date, the city has not received any public comment. Mr. Saunders noted he will now present only the edits of substance arising apart from the initial UDO edit suggestion process and noted these are all from Title 18 and will reference only chapter and section number. 1. Chapter 16, section 020: This clarifies that a pair of attached townhomes be a principle use in the R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-O zoning districts. This was a practice by the city for ten years; however it needed to be clarified in our ordinance. 2. Chapter 36, section 090: There is a proposal to add two additional options for acquiring performance points that all Planned Units Developments are required to obtain. This proposal would increase the weighting for affordable housing so one could accomplish more. Secondly, there would be an option for historic preservation of brown fields. 2 37 Mr. Brian Caldwell noted that since townhomes are now principle uses in R-2 zones, table 16-2 needs to state clearly what the minimum lot area is. Mr. Saunders noted the minimum lot area for this is 3,000 square feet and stated this will be clarified. Mr. Caldwell also noted the lot width will need to be clarified as well. Mr. Saunders stated the general practice has been a minimum of 25 feet, but R-2 has been 60 feet allowing 30 feet for each townhome lot width. 3. Chapter 40, section 130: This section describes the standards to put a manufactured home on a freestanding lot. Right now, there is a reference to the color of the home being part of the evaluation criteria. The City is suggesting to drop the word color from this section as it is not a matter the city should be regulating. 4. Chapter 42, section 080: There has been a longstanding practice in the engineering department to limit the slide slopes of drainage facilities to establish how they are vegetated and for the safety of individuals. This is being put specifically into the ordinance to state that the slopes shall not exceed a 25% grade. Ms. Pomnichowski noted there seems to be a discrepancy in this section that states a 33% grade and asked Mr. Saunders to replace any reference of 33% with 25%. It was clarified that slope occurred in two different contexts and therefore two different standards existed. 5. Chapter 42, section 100: There are two edits; there is some reorganization of the watercourse language and an amendment to some of the standards making this a more functional standard requirement. 6. Chapter 42, section 140: Regarding loading docks, this edit provides an exemption for motels that do not have restaurants or conference centers in it. They do not receive large deliveries that would be expected from a food service provider. 7. Chapter 46, section 040: Regarding parking and since the City has a transit system, it would be legitimate to increase the allowed reduction for proximity to a transit stop. For several years, there has been a 5% allowance so with a hundred parking spaces, one could provide 95 spaces and still meet the code. However, with the bus system, the proposal would change the allowance to 10% so with a hundred spaces, you could provide 90 if this parking area is close to a transit stop since driving is not the only means of transportation. Chair Pomnichowski stated that with future development, it is difficult to project where a transit stop will be located at and asked how this will be predicted. Mr. Saunders replied that there is limited ability to predict where and when, however the City will work closely with bus operations in conjunction with any new development to coordinate this. 8. Chapter 48, section 050: Regarding landscaping, this edit will establish the maximum allowed slope and how it has to be stabilized. 9. Chapter 48, section 060: This edit will specify how you measure the diameter of the caliber of certain types of plants to achieve consistency and standardized with nursery practices. Also, there are a certain amount of points to achieve with landscaping and the 3 38 City is looking at adding two more options; landscaping roofs and adding sculptures to help achieve these points for overall urban design. 10. Chapter 50, section 020: This edit is a clarification. The City Commission put an explicit cap on the amount of park land required with development and this edit ensures the language is consistent throughout the UDO. 11. Chapter 58, section 140: Regarding flood plains. This edit specifies how many sets of plans are required so the engineering department can conduct their review. They needed one more set than what was originally required in the ordinance. 12. Chapter 74, section 020: A wording change, but will change the word collateral to surety in regards in reference to financial guarantees. The City wanted to use a more descriptive term. 13. Chapter 76, section 030: The table that specifies what kind of noticing needs to be provided. This edit is due to the state statute changes of recent. There was a modification stating that anytime you have to notice due to a public hearing, you must publish it twice. The City will be in compliance with state requirements that means some noticing will require more publishing and some will require less. 14. Chapter 78 regarding submittal materials: The edit is to add a requirement for digital submittals. This is a direction the City Commission is heading towards because it provides greater public access since these can be posted on the web and it simplifies staff requirements. 15. Chapter 78, section 080: When someone submits a drawing as part of a site plan, this edit ensures all the on-site utilities are labeled clearly. 16. Chapter 80, sections 1010, 1310, 1850, and 2270: These are definitions and certain elements required clarification. The proposed amendment will state vacation homes are now considered to be extended stay lodging for the purpose of fitting into the regulatory program in the city. They are specified in certain districts and specific manner to gain approval. Mr. Saunders noted these are not the standard residences. They are also distinct from hotels and are an emerging element in the hospitality industry because they have a mini-kitchen included, but lack the considerable turnover of standard hotels. This definition was created to fill the gap between a hotel and a residence. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how the city can determine whether or not a residence is being used as an extended stay facility. Mr. Saunders noted the owner would have to acquire a permit as well as a business license. He added that the neighbors along with advertisements for vacation homes in the paper lead the public to call our code enforcement officer who will issue violations to those who do not comply. Ms. Pomnichowski stated her concerns with the city's capacity for enforcement. Mr. Saunders noted that the City cannot interfere with the landlord/tenant agreement, however if, for example, a resident rented out for multiple short periods of time, it is no longer a 4 39 residential use, it becomes a commercial use and the City can enforce that. 0:51:43 [19:13:02] Public Comment Seeing none, JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 0:52:05 [19:13:30] Discussion Brian Caldwell wanted to know what the rationale was behind requiring an applicant to get a conditional use permit for a restaurant in the NEHMU district in chapter 24. He noted this makes it such a challenge. Chris Saunders replied when this issue got to the City Commission, the public said the Historic Mixed Use is not what they are opposed to, but were opposed to extended hours of operation bothering a small community including delivery trucks making their deliveries at 3:00 AM right behind a residence. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the number of tables, hours of operation, parking spaces, and deliveries were part of the criteria. Mr. Saunders confirmed, but also noted the City looks at overall square footage and business hours as determining factors for conditional use permit approval. Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff asked if one could make hours of operation a subsection of the restaurant use. Mr. Saunders noted that hours of operation was only one of the issues of concern brought forward to the Commissioners. Mr. Caldwell stated he feels that restaurants in this HMU district should be permitted as a principle use since M1 district uses are included in this area. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she supports restaurants as a conditional use in the NEHMU district because restaurants are permitted in an M1 district. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated that NEHMU district is a special district of its own. Warren Vaughan noted if the HMU allows trade schools, health establishments, or car washes in this area, it seems logical to have a restaurant within walking distance to these establishments. Chair Pomnichowski noted that in the past, a restaurant was not allowed in this district at all and now it is a conditional use. Steve Kirchhoff stated both sides could be argued evenly, however CUP's are more difficult because of the higher standards and requirements that need to be met. Zoning Commissioner Vaughan asked Mr. Saunders about section 18.06.040. He noted the language is being changed from sufficiency to adequate. Mr. Saunders replied the state passed two bills; one for subdivision and one for zoning. They both used the term adequate and sufficient in the reverse order, so instead of having dual meanings, the City has edited this to reflect each time the word adequate is used in this section, it will mean the same thing to decrease the confusion. Mr. Vaughan stated he is satisfied with this edit. Caren Roberty noted in section 18.36.090, item 7A; this edit confuses the issue of donating a dwelling or a 20 year restriction. She asked Mr. Saunders if he has seen this used very much. Mr. Saunders replied there are points gained in a PUD for affordable housing; however he has not seen it used very much because it has not been in the UDO for very long. He added this option and how to achieve performance points is completely 5 40 at the discretion of the developer. Ms. Roberty stated the 20 year minimum could be deleted from this edit and maybe add the option of 1 point for each lot donated to the City for affordable housing with some added standards for lot size for multi family lots. This edit would be clearer. She noted this will allow for some flexibility in case the developer wanted to donate some lots for tax credit purposed if the project is 'for profit'. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated that with the input of CAHAB, the developer could come up with an alternative plan, or put the words "as approved by CAHAB" in there plan since the City cannot think of eventuality. Chris Saunders asked the boards to please submit their suggestions to the planning department and it will be distributed. Erik Henyon stated on page 16-4 where it mentions lot area and width, he thought the City was trying to create more density, yet the break down of apartment lots by increasing lot sizes seems to defeat this purpose in R-4 and R-O zones. Mr. Saunders noted developers were looking at total area and only thinking about the end count of total units per acre without allowing for parking, height, or other thresholds. This edit allows for a realistic expectation of what can really happen on the land. Mr. Henyon then referenced page 16-6, 18-5, and 20-5 dealing with density in regards to height requirements. He suggested adding some relaxations in height requirements in the B-1 and B-2 zones; this will allow for a more walkable community and not have buildings so spread out. Mr. Saunders responded that the community as whole has had issues with building height because of the feeling of being 'loomed over' and building character is important as well. He added there are districts that allow for four story buildings, but there is no right answer, there is a large range of preferences and it could be looked at again. Mr. Sypinski stated he is not opposed to putting a cap on building height, but to allow this across the board would not be acceptable and it is only possible to judge each project on a case by case basis. Mr. Caldwell noted the City of Bozeman will not approve a seven story building, but it does make sense to do this. Mr. Saunders noted that in the B-2 district, the developer can pursue a Conditional Use Permit to add another 30% to the building height. He added that putting in structured parking is where one can truly get density. Brian Caldwell stated that in the conservation overlay district, building height is a challenge in getting approval, but if you meet all the other checkpoints it should be easy to get approval. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted that he feels Mr. Henyon is asking for the boards to come up with a response to density in regards to height because the City Commission is struggling with this. He closed by stating that it truly doesn't matter whether height or density seems to be the center of discussion, but there does need to be a strong effort and presentation to the Commission. Chair Pomnichowski stated she feels Bozeman has accomplished greater density without adding greater height. With this, it still feels livable because there is not a 'towering' building. She closed by noting she will not be in support of relaxing the height requirement. Mr. Henyon referenced page 16-4 and asked why the city is measuring stream setbacks from two different places; the high water mark or the bank. Mr. Saunders answered this edit states the default position is the high water mark, but if there is no high water mark, 6 41 you would have to move to the stream bank. Mr. Henyon wanted to know if measuring the setback from the center of the stream would be more feasible and Mr. Saunders responded the center changes just as much as both of the above which is why this edit has been added. Erik Henyon referenced 18.78.030 of the UDO edits and asked how many copies of the plan are given to the planning department for a plat application submission. Mr. Saunders stated this is one reason why we are now asking for digital submittals, however we currently ask for 20 copies. He added that if the city asked for one copy for everyone who participates in the review process, we would be looking at 40 copies, but most of these can be passed on to the next user after each advisory board meeting. Mr. Saunders stated that the number of paper copies required per each submittal is not set by City ordinance; it is set by the planning department. With this edit, our department will be sure to get at least one digital copy. Caren Roberty noticed there was nothing in the edits regarding green building. She asked Mr. Saunders if the planning department could add a section in the PUD chapter that states a developer could acquire points if they adapted a LEED certified program into their project. Chris Saunders stated this was not listed in the original advertisement, but can be looked at as an option. Nathan Minnick noted that in section 18-020 regarding table 18-1, the edit states to remove the option for ground floor offices in downtown referring to the core area. He asked Mr. Saunders if this is just a clarification or is this intended to encourage high volume in the area. Chris Saunders responded this edit was suggested by the downtown business association who made their points to the City Commission of what they want to see changed to encourage a high activity area. He noted this area covers the area of Mendenhall to Main and Babcock to main and stated this was the core area. JP Pomnichowski stated that on page 34-12, the edit makes a change so that final site plans which used to be approved by the City Commissioners will now be approved by the Planning Director. Mr. Saunders noted this was only for granting an extension to final site plans. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted this has not been a problem for the commission and is in support of this edit because it reduces the volume of work for the City Commissioners. He added this will end up being the job for the Board of Adjustments and to date, no one has been appointed. Chair Pomnichowski that on page 16-4 on table 16-2 footnote one makes reference to additional area. She asked Mr. Saunders if there is a way to have a formula here to define the additional more space. Chris Saunders noted there is no automatic formula, but the City can look at the specifics and advise them on a case by case basis. He closed by stating there are too many unknowns and clarified in noting the numbers change when you look at a townhome or condominium versus a single family residence. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the property owner now receives formal notification on a pre-app for a subdivision because it should be the applicant and not the property owner. 7 42 She read from page 6-2 and noted it says the property owner will not receive formal written notification of the acceptability or adequacy of a subdivision pre-application submittal and asked Mr. Saunders to clarify. He responded this edit is in compliance with state law due to a change during the last legislative session. He closed by stating there are different procedural steps in the preliminary plat application than in the subdivision pre- application and these notices are by statute, for acceptability and adequacy of the submittal materials at the time of preliminary plat. JP Pomnichowski noted that on page 14-1, the edit is the addition of an urban mixed use district to the zoning map. Mr. Saunders stated this is because the Commission has preliminarily approved the idea of the new district, but it has not been finalized yet. The final draft has been prepared and is under legal review. He added it will be its own chapter; Title 18, chapter 19. Ms. Pomnichowski asked why these boards do not have a copy of this document and wanted to be on record that the Planning Board/Zoning Commission would like a copy of the entire the Chapter 19. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated both boards forwarded a recommendation of denial to the City Commission, but noted it would be a good idea to have the board review it. Mr. Saunders responded that legally, the Zoning Commission and Planning Board had their opportunity to review this proposal at two hearings, recommended denial, and the Commission has decided that though they have approved it, they will not send it back through to the advisory boards. It is at their discretion and is now in the hands of the legal staff. This Planning Board/Zoning Commission motion was to recommend denial because there were too many unanswered issues at that time. Mr. Saunders added the City Commission did not want to wait for the 2020 update and every process has been taken. Mr. Ed Sypinski asked if this new zone is going to be an overlay district. Mr. Saunders replied it will not, however it has not been determined where it will go, but it has been preliminarily authorized. Mr. Henyon noted the City needs to look at the transportation plan update and capital improvements update in order to determine where this UMU district will go. Mr. Saunders noted the Delaney mixed use proposal had more of a B2 zoning function than a BP would, for higher intensity of uses. Ms. Pomnichowski stated her concern with this is that some of the aspects of the original adaptive use proposal, Edit 19 could be blended in with the new UMU district to make it more appealing and applicable as to where the City will put this. She closed by stating if the Commission wishes to not pass this back to the advisory boards again; she will forward her recommendations to the Commission along with Chapter 19. Ms. Pomnichowski noted that on page 18-2, it used to be that extended stay lodges were permitted in B-2 zones and not B-3 zones, but now they are. Mr. Saunders noted this was an independent, self supporting amendment. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if they are okay in downtown and Mr. Saunders confirmed. JP Pomnichowski stated she would like to see a copy of Chapter 19. Warren Vaughan noted that since this will be on the agenda one more time, he asked if the process will be the same. Mr. Saunders responded that all members from both 8 43 advisory boards should think about these issues and next time around, there will be a need for a formal motion to forward a recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Vaughan added that Commissioner Kirchhoff's comment regarding the City Commission needing guidance on building height and density and wanted specificity on this boards charge. Mr. Saunders commented the next agenda is full and the City Commission will get the final vote and reminded each board member to send all their suggestions and recommendations within the next week and forward them to either himself or the planning department so it can be easily addressed during the next session. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she would like these issues addressed and voted on during the next joint meeting; building height, density, and affordable housing. 2:25:22 [19:13:37] ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Chair Pomnichowski looked at next year's meeting dates and noted that the boards will meet at City Hall for both meetings in February 2007. 2:26:18 [19:54:40] ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Kirchhoff noted he will e-mail his suggestions to the planning department and to all other board members. Ms. Kenney-Lyden noted that the zoning commission and planning board will meet on Wednesday, January 17th due to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. JP Pomnichowski noted that the next meeting will be on December 19th and asked all members to advise her of their absence if they will not be able to attend due to the holidays because the Planning Board is down a member until a county representative is appointed. She also reminded them that they will convene on January 2nd for electing officers for both Zoning Commission and Planning Board. Mr. Brian Caldwell informed all board members that he will be absent for the January 2nd meeting. 2:29:21 [21:29:53] ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair JP Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 9:47 PM. _________________________________ _________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chair of the Zoning Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Commission and President of the Planning and Community Development, Planning Board, City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 9 44 1 ** MINUTES ** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19TH, 2006 7:15 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 8:57PM and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Planning Board Members Present: Members Absent: JP Pomnichowski, President Erik Henyon (excused) Brian Caldwell Ed Sypinski Caren Roberty Dave Jarrett Randy Carpenter Steve Kirchhoff, Commission Liaison Zoning Commission Members Present: Members Absent: JP Pomnichowski, President Peter Harned (excused) Nicholas Lieb Nathan Minnick Warren Vaughan Sean Becker, Commission Liaison Guests Present: Bonnie Secor Brian Hamer Lisa Ratto Donald M. Price Mary Price Jami Morris Monte Baker Blair McGavin Karen Sheady Keith Belden Dennis Foreman Emily Perkins Cordell Poole Bill Louis Alfred Scheer Ty Traxler Jessica Jellison Steve Roderick Marty Lambert Stacy Jackson Ron Slade Ray Van Hall ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing none, JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 45 2 ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5TH, 2006 Seeing there were no changes or addition to the minutes for December 5th of the Planning Board, President Pomnichowski stated the minutes will stand as written. ITEM 4. JOINT REVIEW WITH THE ZONING COMMISSION Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance – Proposed Amendments. Revisions include suggestions collected during the open public comment process and amendments proposed by staff, directed to move to formal amendment by the City Commission. This is the completion of the UDO edits from 2004. (Windemaker/ Saunders) 1:28:36 [20:20:19] Staff Report Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker gave the staff report. She stated there has been no written or verbal comment submitted. She closed by stating the advisory boards will only be voting on the changes requested from the last session. 1:30:24 [20:28:09] Public Comment Seeing there was none, Ms. Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 1:42:43 [20:28:47] Discussion Commissioner Kirchhoff noted that to his recollection, there was no decision made during the last session as to whether or not restaurants in the M1 district become a permitted use instead of a conditional use. Ed Sypinski stated it was the consensus of the board last week to keep restaurants in the NEHMU district, not M1, as a conditional use. Warren Vaughan asked Mr. Caldwell to elaborate on his view points during the last meeting regarding this issue. Brian Caldwell noted that if the city were to keep this as a conditional use in that district, the applicant would have to go before the Board of Adjustments. If the City were to make it a permitted use, it would only have to go before the City Commission. Mr. Vaughan stated that in order to stay in compliance with the walk-able communities described in the 2020 plan growth policy, the board would have to be in favor of approving a restaurant as a permitted use in this district. Warren Vaughan motioned to amend Chapter 18.24.020, Section B of the UDO, to allow restaurants under 1,500 square feet as a permitted use in the NEHMU district. Motion seconded by Steve Kirchhoff. Those in favor being Warren Vaughan, Steve Kirchhoff, Brian Caldwell, Ed Sypinski, Caren Roberty, Dave Jarrett, Nicholas Lieb, Nathan Minnick, and Randy Carpenter. Those against being JP Pomnichowski. Motion passed 9-1. Caren Roberty stated she wanted to make a decision on the point system in Section 18.36.090 in regards to affordable housing. She commented she would like the language to state developers will receive 4 points for each donated residential unit, 1 point for a 'build ready' donated lot, and 1 point for each dwelling that will maintain its affordability status in 20 years. The change would give the developer more points if they donated a home for affordable housing. JP Pomnichowski motioned to adopt these changes, seconded by Ed Sypinski and Steve Kirchhoff. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski, Brian Caldwell, Ed Sypinski, Steve Kirchhoff, Nicholas 46 3 Lieb, Nathan Minnick, Warren Vaughan, Randy Carpenter, and Caren Roberty. Those against being Dave Jarrett. Motion passed 9-1. Warren Vaughan motioned to adopt all the changes to chapter 16 of the UDO, seconded by Brian Caldwell. Those in favor being Warren Vaughan, Nicholas Lieb, JP Pomnichowski, Nathan Minnick, Brian Caldwell, Dave Jarrett, Caren Roberty, Ed Sypinski, and Randy Carpenter. Those against being Steve Kirchhoff. Motion passed 9-1. JP Pomnichowski noted she would like to amend Section 18.14.010, Section B which references the new UMU district and since it does not exist yet, she would like to have that new Urban Mixed Use District removed from that section of the UDO until it becomes a standard zoning district. Brian Caldwell stated he was of the opinion this should stay as a new edit to the UDO since this is the direction the City Commission is moving towards. Ms. Pomnichowski responded this does not mean she is not supportive of this, but there is no definition and it would be difficult for the public to understand. Chair JP Pomnichowski moved to strike the UMU District from Section 18.14.010, Section B from the UDO, seconded by Ed Sypinski. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski, Steve Kirchhoff, Ed Sypinski, Warren Vaughan, Randy Carpenter, Caren Roberty, Dave Jarrett, and Nathan Minnick. Those against being Brian Caldwell and Nicholas Lieb. Motion passed 8-2. Ed Sypinski motioned to accept all the recommended changes to the UDO edits and to forward these to the City Commission, seconded by Dave Jarrett. Those in favor being Ed Sypinski, Dave Jarret, JP Pomnichowski, Steve Kirchhoff, Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell, Randy Carpenter, Warren Vaughan Seconded. All in favor, motion passed unanimously 9-0. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Preliminary Plat Application #P-06056 (Saccoccia). A Preliminary Plat Application requested by the owner and applicant, Saccoccia Lands II, LLC, and representative, Keith Belden from Morrison-Maierle, Inc., to subdivide 23.23 acres into 5 lots for commercial uses and 1 open space lot. Three variances are requested. This property is legally described as Tract 2B, COA 1215G, located in the northwest one-quarter of Section 1, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Sanford) 1:51:18 [20:51:30] Staff Report Senior Planner Jody Sanford presented the staff report. She noted the applicant is requesting three variances; a variance from private access, a variance to terminate Tschache Lane west of the Walton stream ditch, and a variance from installing sewer main improvements. The applicant wants these improvements deferred to site plan approval for the designated two lots. Ms. Sanford noted the Planning Staff does not support any of the variance requests. No public comment has been received to date. Staff and DRC are recommending conditional approval as listed on pages 15 and 16 of the staff report. 1:54:58 [20:51:48] Questions for Staff Dave Jarrett asked staff that according to his recollection, the applicant was going to go all the way 47 4 to the Walton Stream Ditch to which Ms. Sanford replied that was for a different applicant, PT Lands and could not comment on that. 1:56:42 [20:51:52] Applicant Presentation\ Keith Belden representing Dr. Phillip Saccocia Jr. and MMI in Missoula. He stated they have no disagreement with the conditions listed by staff, however he clarified that the variance regarding the Walton Stream ditch by stating this issue will be addressed only after everything else is completed with this project. He added this is just the mechanics of getting the improvements agreement in place. The City will be assured this bridge and completion of these improvements will be done. Regarding condition four, he added that with the Lowe's project, they did build a gravel path and noted his applicant only wants to continue this through their property. Mr. Belden stated on condition three, it is problematic for the City because there is a lack of open space and what they would like to do is modify the open space and shift it around on this parcel to allow the open space to be in proportion to the parcels. He is hoping that some of these conditions can be modified as the project develops. 2:00:39 [20:55:36] Questions for Applicant Dave Jarrett asked if there will be access on the South side of this property to enter Lowe's. Mr. Belden noted there will be no joint shared access, but they will share utilities. 2:01:41 [20:57:23] Public Comment Seeing none, Chair JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 2:01:53 [21:01:38] Discussion Randy Carpenter asked how Planning Staff feels about the suggestion of the open space lots by sliding the alignment of these lots. Ms. Sanford stated that staff can work with Mr. Belden on this matter. She noted that with the trail along Tschache, staff is only recommending a ten foot wide shared use path which normally the applicant would be required to put in a city standard sidewalk therefore putting in a gravel path instead, would be another variance and they did not advertise for this. Keith Belden stated they will follow the gravel path that is in place currently and want to continue it's meandering route through their property. Brian Caldwell asked Planner Sanford about the issue with the intersection at 15th being a level of service D and asked if this application will help with improvements needed at this area. She responded that a traffic impact study was conducted and noted there are intersection issues. Ms. Sanford stated the engineering department added a condition that will make all property owners adjacent to this intersection rectify this so each applicant will receive equal treatment. 2:02:55 [21:01:45] Motion and Vote Steve Kirchhoff moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat Application #P-06056 with conditions outlined by staff and modifying condition three at a later time. The motion was seconded by Randy Carpenter. Those in favor being Steve Kirchhoff, Randy Carpenter, JP Pomnichowski, Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell, Dave Jarrett, and Ed Sypinski. Motion passed 7-0. 48 5 Chair Pomnichowski noted this application will go before the City Commission on January 8th, 2007. 2. Preliminary Plat Application #P-06063 (Ridge). A Preliminary Plat Application requested by the owners Gallatin Valley Health/Fitness and Bozeman Deaconness Health Services, and applicant, Ridge LLC, and representative, Jami Morris, to subdivide 11.26 acres into 8 lots for Planned Unit Development and 1 open space lot. This property is legally described as Lot1, Minor Subdivision No. 295, Spring Creek Village Resort and Lot 2-D, Minor Subdivision No. 365A, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Knight) 2:09:02 [21:02:27] Staff Report Planner Martin Knight gave the staff report. He stated the proposed uses are medical offices, daycare center, restaurants, car wash and potential residential space. He noted there are no unresolved issues and have not received any public comment to date. He closed by noting City Staff is recommending conditional approval as outlined in the staff report. 2:11:41 [21:02:40] Applicant Presentation Jami Morris representing the Ridge Athletic club noted the applicant is looking at having a cohesive development between these two zoning designations; commercial and office space. This application is running concurrently with a PUD proposal. Ms. Morris noted the larger lot is the proposed open space and common parking area. She closed by stating both she and the applicant are in agreement with the conditions given by City Staff. 2:13:15 [21:09:54] Public Comment Seeing there was none, President JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 2:13:26 [21:09:58] Discussion Mr. Dave Jarrett asked Jami Morris if the applicant has any problems with the conditions and Ms. Morris replied the conditions given were standard and her client does not have any problems with the staff recommendations. Mr. Randy Carpenter noted the relaxations in the PUD proposal seem to be quite significant. He asked Ms. Morris if the applicant had discussed seeking a zoning designation like the new UMU zoning district being proposed in the UDO update. She responded by noting she has worked with the applicant to remove the proposed restaurant and car wash. The other uses do not vary dramatically and have chosen to now not do any large scale retail, but rather on a smaller scale. Planning Director Andy Epple stated the applicant asking for relaxations is a tool to get to the place of the new UMU district. These applicants were willing to come forward with a PUD that had a mix of uses that compliment each other and mix well with the rest of the community. 49 6 2:13:26 [21:12:52] Motion and Vote Mr. Jarrett moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat Application #P-06063 with conditions as listed by staff, seconded by Brian Caldwell. Those in favor being Dave Jarrett, JP Pomnichowski, Brian Caldwell, Caren Roberty, and Steve Kirchhoff. Those opposed being Ed Sypinski and Randy Carpenter. Motion passed 5-2. 3. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-06064 (Mandeville Creek). A Major Subdivision Pre- Application requested by property owner, Edward Wachs, and applicant, Tracy Poole, and representative, Ron Slade to allow the subdivision of 79.98 acres into 194 single household lots, 32 multi-household lots, and 9 lots of dedicated park/open space areas on property legally described as SW4 NW4 & NW4 SW4, Section 24, 2S 5E, Less RW 79.27, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Saunders) 2:19:49 [ ] Staff Report Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders gave the staff report. He noted this Pre-Application is an opportunity to look at concepts and issues in advance of a formal application. This property is adjacent to the City on the East and West and City Services are close to the area but this project would require some extensions to serve the site. Mr. Saunders stated the parkland proposed is adjacent to park property in the Allison Subdivision. There will be a need to look carefully at the intersection crossing at Graff as this development progresses because it is of significant concern. The comments from DRC and PRAB submitted comments but none that would substantially change this project. He noted that since this is a pre-application, there has been no formal public notice and therefore no public comment. This property has been approved for Annexation, but it has not been finalized and confident this will happen prior to the final application. 2:26:14 [21:14:28] Questions for Staff Mr. Ed Sypinski asked Mr. Saunders if the park depicted in the application be considered to be a regional park due to its size. Mr. Saunders answered it will be a local park for this subdivision, but not a regional park. Mr. Randy Carpenter asked what the building code restrictions were from the DRC comments submitted. Mr. Saunders replied these restrictions did not change the block configuration, but added there was a recent change in the international building code that the entire state adopted which detailed how one can build, but not over a lot line. It was simpler to plat it this way at this point. This will not change the total number of dwelling units in this application. Mr. Carpenter asked if staff liked the original layout. Mr. Saunders stated it gave some flexibility to the developer and owner for lot sizes and that worked for the planning department. Mr. Brian Caldwell noted that modular lotting in previous applications were an issue due to fire safety. Mr. Epple responded they were a fire safety hazard only because the number of water/sewer lines are unknown at this time, but keeping this modular lotting concept could be worked out before the final platting process. He noted the applicant is only exploring this option at this time. Mr. Jarrett added that these city service issues are easy to resolve and there are many options when the streets have not been paved. 50 7 Ms. Caren Roberty noted she favored the first plan layout with the octagon shaped park and noted she was not a big fan of the grid layout. She asked Mr. Saunders if there was some flexibility in designing this with the possibility of adding some curves. Mr. Saunders replied that with an 80 acre site, changing the design would have its ripple affects. He noted this has potential and drivers can easily move in traffic with a 90 degree turn instead of being blind-sided. He stated that with nice square blocks, you end up with nice street frontages. 2:38:43 [21:20:13] Applicant Presentation Ron Slade from Bechtle Slade Architects thanked Mr. Chris Saunders for his professional and accessible contribution to this project. He noted they are comfortable with the preliminary design as well. Most early century homes were platted within a grid system under 25 foot lot width. Mr. Slade stated that at DRC, if they changed this layout, it would be a conflict due to the building code. This grid gives them a chance to mix in the affordable housing issue. His client did not want to argue the fact the octagon shape would not work. He closed by stating the City has done an outstanding job of directing applicants on how to build a great community. It is our contribution to the Bozeman's grid system with front porches and garages in the back. 2:52:00 [21:20:17] Questions for Applicant Brian Caldwell stated it seems somewhat unfortunate that the design portion was washed away for safety reasons in this application. He noted he liked the original octagonal shape concept and design of this development. Ron Slade commented the octagon design has helped them achieve their goals, but although we lose the original design, the grid system is what Bozeman was originally started on. Their thought is to add 10% of this project would be an affordable housing contribution and the way to achieve this is by grid system with 25 foot lot widths. Randy Carpenter referenced comments from the DRC and asked if Mr. Slade disagreed with the breaking up of blocks 8 & 16 with cross streets. Ron Slade replied this is the one condition he would like some flexibility with and possibly reconsidering this condition in the next application, but is generally in agreement. Mr. Caldwell noticed the longer block lengths than what is allowed with the UDO. He asked what their feeling is about the traffic speed connected with these longer block lengths. Mr. Slade responded that some of these blocks will work with traffic and some will not. He added that the street standards in this application follow the allowable UDO requirements. Mr. Carpenter asked what sort of creek flow would the City be looking at with this project. Mr. Cordell Poole, civil engineer for this project noted this has a buffer of wetlands. It will be a wide meandering strip and the watercourse setbacks start from the wetlands and is the kind of feature they are looking at. He noted that at the north end are three storm water detention basins and could slightly infringe on these watercourse setbacks though slight. All the rest of the storm water will drain into the sewer system. 2:52:52 [21:27:32] Public Comment Seeing there was none, JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 51 8 2:53:05 [21:40:16] Discussion Chair Pomnichowski really liked the redesign. She noted that although the original street layout was interesting, it seemed very dangerous for children in the park who would be likely to run across these streets to meet up with their friends. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she is in favor of the grid layout because it is like the area around 3rd and Koch. She stated she is hopeful that they keep in alignment with the Allison Subdivision. She is very concerned with the double fronted lots along 19th Avenue and was not sure how livable these residences this would be. Cordell Blue responded those homes will have access to their garages off of 18th. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the stream corridor right through the middle is a nice feature, but suggested it should not become a 100 foot hallway of eight foot fences on both sides. She added this should be put into the covenants and home-owners agreement stated they could put natural shrubbery or three foot high fences. She noted they could plant along side of the double fronted lots along these arterials so traffic is not looking into someone's backyard. She would like to see more space added between the intersection of Graff and 19th from 18th be larger and should be watched. She asked Mr. Slade how wide the alleyways are and he replied they are 20 feet wide. Ms. Pomnichowski closed by noting this project is very nicely done. Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff commented that when looking at the original octagonal plan, it seems that even though this is not perfect yet, it doesn't seem that it would be a difficult traffic area since it connects to South 19th Avenue. He noted that allowing these long blocks would be fine, however he prefers the first plan and surprised to see the additional submitted new plan. Mr. Kirchhoff noted it was unclear which plan the GVLT comments were in reference to. GVLT suggested they add some pedestrian islands in order to navigate children and bicycles. Mr. Saunders noted the GVLT comments were directed to the original plan. Mr. Kirchhoff hoped there is a way to allow modular lotting to occur because it is what the city is looking for, but closed by stating he is not sure how it will work out with the DEQ and the City's building codes. Ron Slade noted he would be happy to participate on any level to help the City get to this point. He agreed with both Ms. Pomnichowski and Mr. Kirchhoff's comments to revise the plan and will incorporate GVLT's comments into their formal application. Dave Jarrett stated he liked both plans. He is concerned about the trail going across 19th as this is a problem with the Allison Subdivision project and noted he is not sure how to resolve this issue. Mr. Jarrett liked the larger lots and the big regional park. Overall, he thinks this is going to be a good project. Randy Carpenter liked the original octagon design and was somewhat disappointed when he saw it was revised, but agreed with Ms. Pomnichowski in hopes that they will be able to incorporate more of an organic appeal with the waterways. He noted he was excited about the opportunity to have this park, but there were some issues with safety and feels these can be dealt with. Mr. Carpenter liked the 25 foot lot widths. He asked the applicant to please make an attempt to incorporate more storm water run off into the detention ponds so it is not all going into the stream. Brian Caldwell commented about the redesign, asking if it their decision was due to fear versus the design. Mr. Carpenter responded that most applicants design on hope, not on fear. Mr. Caldwell stated the large regional park up north is the better place to put your children, not the original central park. It seems to make more sense to put the parks along Graff and Arterials however. Mr. Caldwell closed by noting his advice would be to pick the right one from the design aspect of the project and this will ultimately be the right one. 52 9 Ed Sypinski stated he liked the idea of designing this in the original fashion, but the City does have a code that needs to be followed. He applauded the idea of building this community in the layout that the original city of Bozeman was done in, the grid system. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS President Pomnichowski made a motion to elect officers for the next term of the Planning Board. Ed Sypinski moved to reappoint JP Pomnichowski as President and Chair of the Planning Board, seconded by Caren Roberty. All in favor, motion passed unanimously. Ed Sypinski moved to reappoint Dave Jarrett as Vice President, seconded by Steve Kirchhoff. All in favor, motion passed unanimously. Ms. Pomnichowski made a motion and moved to excuse her absence for the 2007 Legislative Session, seconded by Ed Sypinski. All in favor, motion passed unanimously. JP Pomnichowski noted that since this was the only item on the agenda for January 2nd, there will be no meeting until January 17th, 2007. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 10:16PM. _______________________________ _________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, President & Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director City of Bozeman Planning Board Planning and Community Development 53