Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board - 03-22-2016 MinutesPlanning Board and Zoning Commission Meeting Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016, 6:00pm, Stiff Building 2nd Floor Conference Room – 20 E. Olive St. A. Call meeting to order – Erik Garberg calls meeting of the Zoning Commission to order. Jordan Zignego – Present – Zoning Commission and Planning Board Erik Garberg – Present – Zoning Commission Chair Paul Spitler – Present – Planning Board Dan Stevenson – Present – Zoning Commission George Thompson – Present – Zoning Commission and Planning Board Lauren Waterton – Present – Planning Board Julien Morice – Present – Zoning Commission Brianne Dugan – Present – Planning Board Jerry Pape – Present – Planning Board Chris Mehl – Present – Zoning Commission liaison and Planning Board member B. Changes to the Agenda – no changes to the agenda. C. Approval of Meeting Minutes: Zoning Commission 7/21/2015 and 3/1/2016 George Thompson moves to approve minutes. Julien Morice Seconds motion. Board unanimously approves. D. Public Comment – No public comment. E. Action Items A. 15579 – Downtown East Main ZMA (Saunders), Continuation of public hearing from March 1, 2016. 608-777 East Main Street, 24 North Wallace Avenue, and 710-714 East Mendenhall Street Rezone 25.82 acres from B-2 Community Business and R-4 High Density Residential District to B-3 Central Business district and PLI Public Lands and Institutions district. Applicant and representative is the Downtown Bozeman Partnership for multiple landowners. Chris Saunders begins presentation of the Downtown Zone Map Amendment. He begins by building context of the space looking for a zone map amendment by displaying various photographs of the area. Mr. Saunders discusses current zoning of the area proposed for amendment. Mr. Saunders indicates that the staff’s findings for the zone map amendment criteria are in favor of the amendment or neutral. No negative findings were made. Mr. Saunders indicates what is permitted in each zoning district to see how it may affect current projects. Mr. Saunders addressed the public comments and Zoning Commission questions that were received at the March 1, 2016 public hearing. Response is included in the staff report. Mr. Saunders discusses changes to the zone map amendment that were suggested, but it would require additional noticing and delay the project, so that piece will not be included in the application. No questions for staff from the board. Chris Nauman begins presentation by the applicant. He states that the goal was to change zoning in the district to align with the rest of the downtown area. Mr. Nauman states that when individuals go to develop or do upgrades in the area they have to go through the zone map amendment process. He states that they are hoping to rezone the whole area instead of piecing it together over time. No questions for the applicant from the board. No public comment on the zone map amendment. Jordan Zignego abstains from the vote and steps away from the deliberation. Julien Morice states he researched concerns regarding the change in property value and discovered that it would not have an effect on property value as the Department of Revenue do not look at zoning. Dan Stevenson states questions if the concerns presented by Empire Building Materials were addressed. The board states that they are no longer testifying, so it appears their concerns have been addressed. Dan Stevenson moves to approve the Downtown Zone Map Amendment Julien Morice seconds Dan Stevenson states he feels these are good changes for the city. He feels the changes seem to be appropriate and the concerns previously discussed have been alleviated. Board unanimously approves 4-0 with 1 abstention. F. Call meeting to order – George Thompson calls joint meeting of the Zoning Commission and Planning Board to order. G. Approval of Meeting Minutes: Planning Board – 2/2/2016 Paul Neubauer moves to approve the minutes Board unanimously approves the minutes. H. Public Comment Erik Semish – 622 North Grand Ave. – states that he is concerned with the amount of notice he has received with regards to tonight’s meeting. He received the public notice last night for Commissioner Mehl states that this is the first of two meetings for the Planning and Zoning Board and two meetings of the City Commission. Tom Rogers states that this is an informal work session and gives an overview of the time line that will follow. Peter Mc Nair – 309 North 10th – States that it would have been helpful to know the timeline in advance as it would have alleviated some immediate concern. E. FYI/Discussion A. Presentation from Tom Rogers regarding the UDC Update Tom Rogers begins presentation of the UDC Update. Provides insight on what he will cover in his presentation and advises the public on where they can find materials on the web. Mr. Rogers states that they are wrapping up phase 1 of a 2 phase project. Mr. Rogers states that the goal is to implement the North 7th plan utilizing the building code. The plans were prepared 10 years ago and have not been implemented. Mr. Rogers displays the current zoning of the midtown district. He states all properties are within the city – there are no county holdings. Mr. Rogers states that the city is looking to change the B2 zone to a B-2M which will allow a residential component. He also indicated that there will be an R-5 zoning district – which will be primarily residential with the ability for some commercial properties, like a local coffee shop. Mr. Rogers indicates some PLI properties to match what is currently in place. Dan Stevenson questions what the difference would be between R-5 and REMU. Mr. Saunders states that the REMU has a much broader range of uses – hotels, etc. R-5 on the other hand is much more specific to small commercial. Mr. Rogers indicates the overlap with the NCOD. Mr. Rogers displays map and explains the block frontages for each property. Mr. Rogers explains how the mixed use areas will work and that on the street level, it will be commercial. He indicates that they will be decreasing the setback on North 7th, but maintaining the landscaped yards on the side streets. Mr. Rogers states that the district ends at Oak because the character changes as you go up Oak and allows for manufacturing. Mr. Rogers states that the B-2M will be allowed to be applied outside of North 7th using a zone map amendment, but the block frontages will need to be established for those areas. Jerry Pape questions the thought behind some of the zoning and connectivity. Mr. Rogers elaborates on Aspen being a Festival street and how the city will work to make that happen. Mr. Pape states that he believes the festival street should be further to the North where there is more of a chance for connectivity. Board discusses where the festival street should be located. Community member states that they currently uses that street for connectivity to North 7th. Mr. Rogers mentions that the goal was to be able to allow Aspen to be shut down for events, where you couldn’t shut down North 7th. Mr. Rogers discusses the difference with landscape frontage and that buildings are permitted to be a little taller. Mr. Rogers discusses how current setbacks inhibit the ability to have additional parking in the rear of buildings. He provided examples of how it affects development for certain buildings. Mr. Rogers begins discussing how parking is the biggest impediment to commercial buildings. He states that they are not proposing any changes to the residential parking requirement, but there are options for changes to parking. Mr. Garberg states there should be less parking required. If the consultants are already telling him that parking is one of the main deterrents to developing, that Mr. Pape adds that we should move towards parking structures instead of parking lots. Ms. Waterton states that all parking should be on the rear to create the connectivity and to generate activity. Putting parking between buildings Board continues discussion regarding parking and concerns. Julien Morice states that we should explore a pedestrian strip before determining that Aspen is the right strip for the festival street. Discussion regarding whether Aspen will constrict the festival street from expanding or if that is the goal – to keep it constricted. Mr. Thompson states that the City needs to explore parking further before moving further with a festival street. Mr. Pape said that they need to be proactive about parking unlike they have been Downtown. Mr. Neubauer stated that the area needs to develop before they determine parking. He is not sure how a festival street will work – as retailers do not like those events, they are advantageous for bars and restaurants. Board suggests incentivizing the first handful of businesses in the area to create a zone to draw people in. Mr. Rogers moves conversation to building height. He states the proposed height for R5 is 4 stories – currently 3 stories are permitted. He states that B-2M proposes 4 stories with a setback 5th floor. He discusses encroachment into height limit by 10% of the ground floor space. Mr. Saunders states that it is worth noting that there is currently the same provision in place currently, it is just worded different, with regards to height. Mr. Rogers states that there was a thought to remove height limits all together, but the City was not comfortable with that. Mr. Rogers discusses density for proposed new zoning districts. Mr. Rogers states that the design objectives plan still stands and will be addressed in Phase 2. Mr. Rogers discusses Departures from the norm and what changes R-5 will bring to residential space and changes that B-2M will allow. Mr. Rogers indicates that in B-2M, all residential space needs to be built to 13 foot ceilings and 20ft deep to accommodate future commercial use. The board discusses whether the 20ft minimum is enough. Mr. Pape says it needs to be more than 20ft. Mr. Morice states that the market will build to larger. Mr. Rogers wraps up his presentation of the rezoning of North 7th. Mr. Thompson questions if anyone has any further discussion on the zoning aspect of the proposal. Mr. Saunders mentions that each project and site is different. With regards to minimums, it is to allow different project to work on different sites. Public Comment – she feels that the City stating that setbacks and landscaping are not valuable is risky. Public Comment – Comments that the requirement for parking is encouraging the sprawl that is happening. He proposes density downtown and parking will happen – in cities all over the country people walk 10 blocks to get to events. Public Comment – Questions if there is any plan to update biking and pedestrian traffic on North 7th. David Fine states that they are working currently to set back the sidewalks to make it more pedestrian friendly and next time the road is paved to address bike lanes. They are also working to improve the BMX park. Public Comment – it’s important to make it pedestrian friendly as there are many individuals without vehicles in the area. Public Comment – Questions regarding continuing roads. Mr. Rogers responds that they are trying to develop street grids and complete roads as properties get developed. Mr. Rogers states that street right- of-ways are required to move forward with development of certain properties in the area. Mr. Pape mentions that the two large properties bordering North 7th have no interest in developing, so the plans may be counterintuitive. We should however think forward. Mr. Rogers discusses the other components to the Phase 1 of the Update. He mentions that we currently have designated Entryway Corridors – he discusses changes to designated Class 1 and Class 2 corridors. Main change by adjusting Class 1 vs. Class 2 is the size of the setback from 50 foot to 25 foot. Board seems to approve of the change from Class 1 to Class 2. Mr. Pape discusses issues with current issues with the entry way corridor. Mr. Pape feels that consumers prefer parking in the front for easier access. Mr. Rogers discusses the changes to the UDC with regards to the Wetlands Review Board. Proposal is to remove the Wetlands Review Board and turning it over to a consultant. Mr. Pape comments that he would supports the change, but that he feels it should be required on the Planning Board that appointees be qualified as the WRB members needed to be. Mr. Rogers discusses changes to plan review. Mr. Rogers states that the proposed plan requires complete project being submitted and that staff will no longer be filling in the blanks along the way. They will be holding the development community to do their work prior to submission. He states there are some exceptions. Presents the three main changes to the review process: noticing, DRC will not make a recommendation until the project complies with City Code and Concept Plan Review required. Mr. Pape states we should change noticing to reach a broader audience. Mr. Rogers states that we currently exceed state minimums for noticing. We are always trying to improve. Mr. Rogers stated that to some extent being acutely aware of the zoning and city plans currently in place, any future development should not be too surprising as there are certain things that are inherently permitted in certain zones. Board discusses adjustments to the DRC process. Mr. Rogers indicates that the goal is streamline the process and to have developers come forward with complete projects. Mr. Pape mentions that the current DRC process is based on negotiating. Mr. Rogers discusses the requirement for a concept plan review being required. Various departments would review projects and provide written feedback. Mr. Rogers states that we are currently doing this process, we are looking to update the code to match it. Mr. Rogers discusses how it will improve efficiency and save time for applicants. Board continues to discuss changes to development review. Mr. Pape suggests creating a flow chart – Mr. Saunders advised him that we just completed one. Public Comment – It would be beneficial to have comments that come back from various departments be routed in code so that there is an understanding why it is required. Mr. Pape suggests testing the new process to avoid getting multiple answers from different people. Noted to include election of new officers for planning board at the next meeting. F. Adjournment – Mr. Thompson adjourns the Planning Board. Mr. Garberg adjourns the Zoning Commission. For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 6:00pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 406-582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).