Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board 10-03-17 Minutes DRAFT City Planning Board Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 7:00 PM City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue A. 07:08:13 PM (00:00:04) Call meeting to order Present at meeting:  Lauren Waterton  John Lavey  George Thompson  Henry Happel, Chair  Brianne Dugan  Paul Spitler  Chris Mehl B. 07:08:40 PM (00:00:31) Changes to the Agenda C. 07:08:51 PM (00:00:42) Minutes  06-06-17 (PDF)  06-06-17 Video Link 07:09:00 PM (00:00:51) MOTION: Board Member Dugan moved to approve the minutes of June 6, 2017. 07:09:10 PM (00:01:01) MOTION SECONDED: Chair Happel seconded the motion. 07:09:16 PM (00:01:07) VOTE: Motion carries unanimously to approve meeting minutes (6-0).  09-05-17 (PDF)  09-05-17 Video Link 07:09:30 PM (00:01:21) MOTION: Board Member Waterton moved to approve the minutes of September 5, 2017. 07:09:31 PM (00:01:22) MOTION SECONDED: Dugan seconded the motion. 07:09:34 PM (00:01:25) Chair Happel stated that certain meeting minutes claimed that a statement was made by him, but in fact, it was made by Board Member Thompson. He proposed that “Happel” be replaced with “Thompson”. The statement to be changed as: “Happel Thompson stated that the board members were aware of what was being voted on and that it was a choice whether or not to be present for the meeting. He suggested that they move forward with the vote.” 07:10:40 PM (00:02:31) VOTE: Motion carries unanimously to approve meeting minutes with proposed changes (6-0). Happel stated previously he would approve the minutes under the assumption that the September 5, 2017 minutes were updated. D. 08:38:47 PM (01:30:38) Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes. E. Action Items 1. Growth Policy Update (Saunders) Presentation of draft report from Economic & Planning Systems on economic trends and demographic trends for Bozeman. This work is a foundation information for development of the growth policy.  Cover Memo for Draft Market Report  Draft Demographic & Market Report 07:11:17 PM (00:03:08) Board Member Waterton explained the potential conflict of interest with this discussion due to her position at Sanderson Stewart and the company’s connection to this project. Since this presentation is informative only, she believed it would be appropriate to stay and listen. No Planning Board members had an issue with this. 07:11:55 PM (00:03:46) Brian Duffany, Vice President at Economic & Planning Systems, introduced himself and colleague Dan Guimond. An introduction to the presentation and its format was presented. 07:13:11 PM (00:05:02) Duffany showed the presentation outline. 07:13:50 PM (00:05:41) Demographics and Economy section of presentation commenced with an introduction highlighting the strength of growth Bozeman has seen in population and economic growth due to migration of population (including from students of MSU) and the diverse nature of the local economy. 07:15:32 PM (00:07:23) Duffany described the three main themes identified in the housing market: affordability (renting vs owning), supply of multi-family housing (for students and labor-force) and shifting preferences (Baby-Boomers vs Generation X/Millennials and their desired lifestyles). The pressure of affordability and infill pressure on established neighborhoods. 07:18:59 PM (00:10:50) Opportunities for the housing market and growth were described. 07:19:45 PM (00:11:36) Office market trends and growth policy inputs were discussed. Trends in Bozeman are following similar patterns of National trends and Bozeman will maintain its share of the office market. Challenges include feasibility and size of market (still small), while opportunities include existing areas around town that can facilitate small and larger office spaces. 07:22:18 PM (00:14:09) Industrial market shows an inverse trend to the office market (Office market is receiving 80% of new construction and industrial market is receiving 10%). Trends and growth policy inputs, and challenges and opportunities were described. 07:25:21 PM (00:17:12) Retail market trends and growth policy inputs were discussed. Bozeman serves a large trade area (in the Valley and another 150-mile radius outside of the City). Another major wave of “Big Box” retail growth is not anticipated moving forward and that surrounding communities are likely not large enough to receive their own large retail stores. Food, Beverage and Entertainment sector is still growing and is expecting to continue to grow. 07:28:24 PM (00:20:15) B-1 Zoning District discussion began. Growth Policy states a desired spacing of ½ mile between each B-1 node. Duffany stated that the intent of the B-1 is good, but adjustments should be made with the concept of it. He presented math on what it would take for the current application of the ½ mile spacing between the districts to work and concluded that the spacing must be larger and provided a few other recommendations for it to work. 07:31:22 PM (00:23:13) B-2 Zoning District discussion began by describing their complexity and the evolution of the application of this format of commercial zoning. Duffany said that this format is no longer functional today. The concept of what B-2 should serve should be revised (not only retail). There will be significant overlap of B-2 areas the City continues to put a node every 1-2 miles. 07:35:34 PM (00:27:25) Board Member Spitler asked that Duffany describe the Housing Market Growth Policy Inputs slide more (specifically, the demand for multi-family housing). 07:36:02 PM (00:27:53) Duffany explained that wage growth trends and the growth in students are driving factors of why the multi-family housing demand is increasing. Infill development is influenced by Baby-Boomers housing needs (lower maintenance and small houses) and by Millennials wanting to live in a mixed-use and walkable city. Duffany does not expect the infill trend north and south of Main Street to slow down (the market is supporting this trend). Middle density of unit types due to wage discrepancy in the middle class and the housing types that have been built in the past five years. 07:39:27 PM (00:31:18) Planner Chris Saunders explained the trends from the private sector that influence the middle density unit types. Lots being created through the subdivision process are not conducive to creating lots that support these types of housing. He explained that some dynamics the City has no control over, and while legally creating these types of housing is possible it is not what developers are doing. 07:40:27 PM (00:32:18) A Board Member stated that the Commission sees developers asking for R-3 zoning because it allows for single-family developments and multi-unit development. He explained that R-3 provides the greatest flexibility; whether or not it is too flexible must be determined. 07:40:52 PM (00:32:43) Board Member Thompson asked a question regarding the number of MSU students in comparison to the number of permanent residents. He wished to clarify which category permanent residents who attend MSU were counted towards. When Duffany described that 50% of renters are cost-burden, Thompson wondered what percentage of those could be students. He inquired about what proximity middle-income housing areas should be to grocery stores, day care centers, etc. Thompson has observed that while the City is putting up many apartments, they are not necessarily within proximity to other important services which add to the burden on the City’s transportation systems. 07:43:24 PM (00:35:15) Dan Guimond of Economic & Planning Systems stated that this supports the concept of neighborhood commercial centers to address the spacing between each facility (like day care facilities). 07:44:12 PM (00:36:03) Thompson asked if there are numbers that can be used to identify what number of people are required to support a type of service. 07:44:20 PM (00:36:11) Guimond stated that they can do more research to find out what it takes to support a day care facility. 07:45:21 PM (00:37:12) A Board Member asked if they have researched what potential the City has to meet future housing demand from infill development. 07:45:40 PM (00:37:31) Duffany stated that they have not put the numbers to that yet, but they are intending on doing so. 07:45:47 PM (00:37:38) Guimond mentioned that the City has a good database of the acreage of vacant and under-utilized land to be able to quantify that. 07:46:10 PM (00:38:01) Saunders explained that there are hardly any properties in the City that have been built to the maximum density that their zoning would allow. He stated that the zoning is very generous in the density it allows and therefore properties are almost all under built. The amount of square feet built per person today is almost four-times more than 40 or 50 years ago (family sizes were twice as big and homes were half as big). From a raw legal standpoint, the zoning would allow for at least an increase in 50% density without touching the lots that have no buildings on them. 07:47:36 PM (00:39:27) A Board Member sought to confirm that the current Community Plan encourages infill before annexation. 07:47:40 PM (00:39:31) Saunders responded by stating that it does encourage infill and that the 2001 Plan had a target of 20% growth into existing neighborhoods (including by redevelopment and accessory dwellings units); however, the current Growth Policy did not have an explicit target. 07:48:01 PM (00:39:52) A Board Member asked if the City has data on what level of infill the City is achieving. 07:48:07 PM (00:39:58) Saunders was unable to provide an estimate with confidence and therefore did not speculate and answer to the previous question. He did not believe that the City was reaching close to the 20% target from the previous Growth Policy. 07:48:22 PM (00:40:13) A presenter from Economic & Planning Systems stated that redevelopment is a difficult trend to measure and it is policy-driven forecast. 07:48:58 PM (00:40:49) Saunders explained that a property owner’s willingness to sell land is also a factor to consider. He highlighted that another challenge of having this discussion is that the City has never adopted a formal discussion of what “infill” means and how it is defined. 07:49:47 PM (00:41:38) A presenter from Economic & Planning Systems added that a forecast of redevelopment would only be able to identify the demand for infill and redevelopment and that it would be up to policy makers to make the decision to address this in the plan. 07:50:31 PM (00:42:22) Commissioner Chris Mehl inquired about the B-1 and B-2 zoning section of the report (page 47) and wished to confirm that the report concluded that some of the B-1 zoned areas should be changed to a high-density residential area in order to make other B-1 districts more viable. 07:51:28 PM (00:43:19) Guimond explained that the B-1 areas serve a much larger area than the ½ mile radius show in the current Growth Policy. He said that the comments were made to encourage considering moving the B-1 areas further apart in new development areas. Comments regarding B-2 were to express an importance of allowing for highest density residential development in the zoning district. 07:52:46 PM (00:44:37) Mehl confirmed that the B-1 statements in the report were applicable to future development and not retrofitting existing B-1 areas. This was confirmed by Guimond and Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems. Mehl asked if there was a need to retrofit or if development was moving forward sufficiently. 07:53:03 PM (00:44:54) Presenter from Economic & Planning Systems responded by saying they could look in to it, and that their initial reaction is that it is difficult to tweak zoned properties. 07:53:51 PM (00:45:42) Mehl followed up asking if B-2. 07:54:00 PM (00:45:51) Saunders explained that the new (future) high school has not shown up in the activity list yet but it will have major influences on the dynamics of the surrounding area. 07:54:47 PM (00:46:38) Mehl posed a question to the representatives from Economic & Planning Systems asking if the report was implying that the preferred zoning should be B-2M more often due to its mixed-use, intensity and flexibility. 07:55:09 PM (00:47:00) Presenter from Economic & Planning Systems explained that the B-2M zoning designation is something they will consider in the future and look more in to. 07:55:55 PM (00:47:46) Mehl inquired about what potential incentives are there to could encourage a more mixed-use development to have more areas in Bozeman serviced. He asked what has worked in other cities and what practices should our city avoid. 07:56:33 PM (00:48:24) Presenter from Economic & Planning Systems stated that overregulation of retail and commercial markets in a city should be avoided. He stated that the reality of most planned neighborhoods, the “town/village center” retail does not get developed for another 10-20 years as it is generally the last piece of a project to be built out. The other presenter stated it was a question of housing and that incentivizing retail so much ahead of housing would not be recommended. 07:58:51 PM (00:50:42) Mehl asked if zoning around the new high school should be high density residential (R-5 and R-4) closest to the school and then step-down the zoning as you move further away. The discussion of this concept continued. Duffany from Economic & Planning Systems explained that stepping-down the zoning is not always the correct answer and it depends entirely on the context. He stated that an out-of-town consultant cannot make those fine grain policy decisions. He concluded that housing density helps retail and B-1 and B-2 districts. Dan from Economic & Planning Systems added that B-1 zones are serving neighborhoods with basic small services; more dense retail nodes are serving a much larger area of the City. 08:01:05 PM (00:52:56) Board Member Lavey inquired about the context of this report and asked why it was completed. 08:01:25 PM (00:53:16) Saunders explained the history of the Growth Policy documents, and the development over the past 10 years in Bozeman and the surrounding area. He described that since the 2001, trends (such as housing preference and employment) have changed significantly. The general purpose of this report is to be able to open discussion with the City Commission and the Community and to have help (from the consultant) to identify how many acres of land should be allocated to different zoning types. 08:04:30 PM (00:56:21) Presenters from Economic & Planning Systems stated that they are trying to help set reasonable bounds on the aspirations set out in the Community Plan with some market-based data giving reason for these zoning decisions. The report is to help try to anticipate trends and forecast predicted future growth patterns. 08:05:37 PM (00:57:28) Lavey asked how this specific report helps complete that larger process of writing the Growth Policy. 08:05:59 PM (00:57:50) Saunders highlighted that this report can be used as a key foundation piece that can be used in discussion around the Growth Policy. The information presented in this report can help guide discussion with the community and with policy makers in an informed manner. 08:07:49 PM (00:59:40) Lavey asked if there will be another study or if there is other information available that looks at housing needs, poverty, transportation and other broad metrics that can help when looking at a Growth Policy. 08:08:17 PM (01:00:08) Saunders described the City’s more specific plans that are adopted, including the Transportation Plan. These plans traditionally feed into this process and consider how these policies will interact with land use. He stated that the City is working on a Strategic Plan and explains the variety of components that can be added to a Growth Policy Plan. 08:10:09 PM (01:02:00) Mehl mentioned to Lavey that the American Community Survey data available and how local knowledge can supplement the data due to its margin of error and size of the geographic area for a tract of research/study. 08:11:18 PM (01:03:09) Board Member Dugan inquired if there is a lack of competitiveness in the industrial application and if there are important sources of revenue that the City is potentially missing out on. 08:11:52 PM (01:03:43) Guimond responded by saying they have not looked at this industrial subject in- depth and are unsure. He stated that there is no compelling fiscal argument to make saying the City should try to gain a larger share of the industrial market. The discussion continued around the construction trade and flex-industrial markets. 08:14:29 PM (01:06:20) Dugan asked what the City has as M-1 zoning aside from North Park. 08:14:40 PM (01:06:31) Saunders described the areas around the City that are zoned M-1 and how the current regions of industrial zoning are reflective of the 1930s industry was concentrated around the railroad. 08:15:33 PM (01:07:24) Dugan inquired about the zoning of the MMAC behind the Stadium. 08:15:37 PM (01:07:28) Saunders stated it was zoned BP Business Park. 08:15:56 PM (01:07:47) Presenters from Economic & Planning Systems responded stating that a smaller segment of the market is interested in Bozeman. It is a competitive market for companies that pay higher rent on lands of higher value. 08:17:03 PM (01:08:54) Saunders followed-up on the North Park area and explained the implications of the area since the State owns the majority of the area. Site improvements and access to the site are major deterrents of continuing any development on site due to the limited revenue source. 08:18:52 PM (01:10:43) Board Member Thompson asks about how other cities in the Rocky Mountain area have pushed for commercial nodes. 08:19:45 PM (01:11:36) Presenters from Economic & Planning Systems explained that incentivizing neighborhood scale retail has not been identified as a mechanism. 08:22:09 PM (01:14:00) Thompson expressed that he sees a maturity issue with the neighborhoods and putting commercial centers in place. 08:22:34 PM (01:14:25) Guimond stated he believes that the best the City can do is place these nodes to the best of our ability and to be patient about their development and the time it takes for a community to mature. 08:22:53 PM (01:14:44) Board Member Waterton commented that research shows people want walkable neighborhoods but placing neighborhood centers on arterials does not seem like an area that is pedestrian-friendly. The concept of placing these nodes on arterial streets seems contradictory to the idea of creating walkable neighborhoods. 08:23:59 PM (01:15:50) Guimond stated that these neighborhood center concepts are meant more for minor arterials such as Willson/College. North 19th is not a neighborhood center, but it is a regional center and that is not where these nodes were intended for. 08:25:09 PM (01:17:00) Duffany continued the discussion by stating the importance of permeability and connectivity of a land use pattern. He also stated that the type of business mix in each of these zoning districts is unknown and arterial streets or collector streets help with visibility for businesses. 08:26:07 PM (01:17:58) Chair Happel asked if there is there are any known anchor businesses that help solidify a community when developing commercial in the middle of residential. 08:26:53 PM (01:18:44) Guimond was unsure if there was any data on this subject, but he believed a coffee shop appears to play that role. 08:27:58 PM (01:19:49) Happel identified the importance of a neighborhood gathering place (such as a coffee shop) and pondered over whether there were ways the City could contribute to creating a “cornerstone” establishment. 08:28:35 PM (01:20:26) Saunders explained different mechanisms the City has put in place to help businesses. One example is mobile vending (food trucks) to help small business owners start their venture with a non-permanent option to see if it is viable prior to making it permanent. He detailed a couple examples of how the City could help facilitate this. 08:30:05 PM (01:21:56) Happel inquired whether the changing housing preferences of the population are being manifested on the ground in terms of what is being built in Bozeman or in other cities. 08:30:33 PM (01:22:24) Duffany, followed by Saunders, explained why they believed that this was the case. 08:32:15 PM (01:24:06) Happel discussed the percentage of population that is MSU students in Bozeman, the types/classifications of them, and asked how the data may be skewed from this unique population. 08:34:33 PM (01:26:24) Presenters from Economic & Planning Systems responded by stating that students do skew that statistics (including the income, percentage of housing types). 08:35:38 PM (01:27:29) Happel stated he did not believe the report addressed public sector employment (other than MSU employees). Presenters from Economic & Planning Systems informed Happel and the Board that they will use a different data source in their report moving forward to address this issue. 08:37:12 PM (01:29:03) Guimond responded to Happel’s question regarding next steps. Next steps for this report (another iteration, land demand analysis and policy recommendations) was estimated to be within 30 days from this presentation date. 08:40:33 PM (01:32:24) Lavey asked Saunders if there is a known sense of timing of when development applications will be brought to the Board. 08:40:50 PM (01:32:41) Saunders explained the process and general timelines of application review. He stated that there were not many subdivisions in active review at the moment. 2. Growth Policy Update (Saunders/Happel) Discussion of prior Planning Board review of existing growth policy and discussion of process for advancing growth policy development.  Memo  Bozeman Plans V.2017.9 08:42:39 PM (01:34:30) Chair Happel suggested that there be an open discussion, dispensed of formalities of speaking order. 08:43:20 PM (01:35:11) Board Member Spitler suggested to focus the discussion tonight on what specific questions the Board wants to address at their subsequent meeting where there will be more time. 08:43:58 PM (01:35:49) Happel stated he circulated a memo to the Board Members with some suggested questions but was open to other suggestions. 08:45:38 PM (01:37:29) Board Member Dugan asked Planner Saunders for specific examples of when the Growth Policy has been used to help make decisions or lead directions. 08:46:33 PM (01:38:24) Planner Saunders answered Dugan’s question with examples and chapter references of the Growth Policy. 08:49:24 PM (01:41:15) Commissioner Mehl stated that he sees the document plays a big role in the community, from the Commission’s level. He described where he believes the scope of the Strategic Plan will lead and how it will help limit the scope of the growth policy. 08:50:48 PM (01:42:39) Happel asked how broad of a scope will they undertake with the new growth policy. 08:51:06 PM (01:42:57) Saunders advised the Board to have this discussion and report to the Commission on their thoughts and findings. He explained why he believes there is value in the Board taking a hard look at the different elements of the growth policy and discussing. 08:52:40 PM (01:44:31) Lavey suggested that perhaps the Board should start by educating themselves on the strategic plan. 08:53:39 PM (01:45:30) Mehl described the format and main sections of the strategic plan and offered suggestions of where the growth policy would overlap in response to Lavey’s comment. 08:56:47 PM (01:48:38) Happel stated that the strategic plan draft contains a set of specific proposals and what will be done to implement them and is referenced in the memo he provided. 08:57:55 PM (01:49:46) Board Member Waterton asked if or when the strategic plan will ever be completed. 08:58:10 PM (01:50:01) Mehl responded stating it is up to staff and he believed it would change every year. Many sections of it have been adopted and some are in flux. 08:58:35 PM (01:50:26) Waterton discussed how she envisioned the hierarchy of the strategic plan in the overall structure of plans. Lavey followed up with his interpretation based on his conversation with the Community Development Director regarding the mind-map of plan structure. Saunders confirmed that it does not establish any hierarchy of plans and it is a very high-level set of groupings. 09:00:27 PM (01:52:18) Lavey asked if there were different versions of the strategic plan. 09:01:12 PM (01:53:03) Saunders confirmed that the City Commission looked at it at a number of different occasions. Mehl discussed the take away for the document. 09:01:58 PM (01:53:49) Dugan stated she believed a true hierarchy of plans (document showing how each plan feeds in to the next and how it has impact on the ground) would be beneficial to the Board Members for their next meeting. 09:02:21 PM (01:54:12) Saunders explained the different between the strategic plan and growth policy. Mehl followed up on the discussion of the hierarchy of plans. Happel discusses the legal requirements of each the strategic plan and the growth policy. 09:06:03 PM (01:57:54) Board Member Thompson discussed the need for tools to have flexibility in the growth policy so that it can be representative of the conditions as they change throughout the years. 09:07:19 PM (01:59:10) Mehl suggested the Board to report to the Commission on their thoughts and findings on the questions outlined in the memo Happel prepared. 09:09:38 PM (02:01:29) Saunders recommended that the Board take a look at other plans adopted by the City (the PROST plan, for example) to help identify how in-depth the Board wishes to go. 09:10:34 PM (02:02:25) Happel recommended that the discussion be resumed in two weeks. 09:11:44 PM (02:03:35) Waterton asked what the purpose of answering and/or asking questions from the memo is and what the intent of the Board is. Happel stated that the intent is to indentify as a Planning Board how they ought to proceed at a high-level. 09:13:39 PM (02:05:30) Saunders discussed the variety of formats the previous growth policies have taken over the years. He advised to address the question by asking “how do we want to communicate with our public” and what the method of communication. 09:14:51 PM (02:06:42) Spitler suggested to convene the subcommittee to formulate questions to be discussed at the next meeting in consultation with Staff. 09:15:32 PM (02:07:23) Lavey asked if the sub-group is a formal body. Happel stated that it is not a formal group and that the Planning Board appointed the members. 09:16:28 PM (02:08:19) Lavey stated he believes that city Staff should do research work for the Planning Board and provide a recommendation so that Board Members do not have to do the research and can expedite the Board’s process to formulate recommendations that are not redundant. 09:17:32 PM (02:09:23) Happel referred back to the memo he created that touches on some of the items Lavey recommended they identify, as a Board or sub-committee, such as priorities and scope. F. FYI/Discussion G. 09:18:23 PM (02:10:14) Adjournment For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm 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 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).