Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board 10-17-17 Minutes DRAFT City Planning Board Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:00 PM City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue A. 07:04:21 PM (00:00:08) Call meeting to order Jerry Pape John Lavey Jordan Zignego George Thompson Henry Happel, Chair Chris Mehl Lauren Waterton Paul Spitler B. 07:04:53 PM (00:00:40) Changes to the Agenda (None) C. 07:05:02 PM (00:00:49) Minutes (None) D. 07:05:08 PM (00:00:55) 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. No public comment. E. Action Items 1. 07:05:29 PM (00:01:16) Growth Policy Update (Saunders/Happel) Discussion of process for advancing growth policy development.  Memo  Public outreach options 07:06:45 PM (00:02:32) Chris Saunders, Planner representing Community Development, introduced the nature of the growth policy and the elements relevant to the preparation of the growth policy. He summarized the content of the memo that has been drafted for the City Commission. 07:10:46 PM (00:06:33) Public comment. Randy Carpenter, 1108 South Black, spoke about his work with “Gallatin Ahead “ (a Future West project) and the public participation initiatives his company is working on throughout the Valley. He commented on the memo and the scope of the growth policy (not a broad enough scope). Gave a handout to the Board he took from the American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report called “Sustaining Places, Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans” and summarized the article and how it should apply to Bozeman’s growth policy. Another handout was passed to the Board (regionalism) sections of State code that encourage and incentivize regional and intergovernmental planning. He expressed his desire to have a neighborhood plan that is agreed upon by Bozeman, Belgrade and the County. 07:23:10 PM (00:18:57) Commissioner Chris Mehl discussed the scope of the growth policy and the strategic plan and their differences. He also discussed the comprehensiveness of the strategic plan and the evolution of these plans thus far and the process that has been taken to get to this point. 07:27:47 PM (00:23:34) Board Member Lauren Waterton wanted to add to the discussion the view that a growth policy should be looking at issues through the lens of land use planning and addressing broad-picture issues. She wanted to bring the idea up for discussion if that is a direction that is worth going in. 07:31:31 PM (00:27:18) Board Member Paul Spitler asked Commissioner Mehl what the City Commission expects and desires of the Planning Board in community plan update process and the how the interface (if any) between the Commission and Planning Board would take place. Mehl responded by clarifying that the sending the memo to the Commission should be the first priority and then a discussion between the groups could be scheduled between the groups. 07:34:14 PM (00:30:01) Board Member George Thompson asked how and to what extend community engagement will be addressed. Chair Henry Happel deferred Thompson’s discussion point until later in the meeting . 07:35:44 PM (00:31:31) Board Member Jerry Pape expressed his displeasure with the process – the expectation that the Planning Board should be seeking guidance for what the City Commission is wanting from them. He discussed the contents and purpose of the Montana Land Use Planning Handbook and how there is a reciprocity for setting expectations between the Commission and the Planning Board. Pape stated that the Planning Board being able to set expectations of the Commission is important because most of the Commission does not have land use planning experience, unlike the Planning Board. He entered into the record the definition of a neighborhood, and continued to discuss the downfall of high-level planning in the City and the creation of “neighborhoods”. He stated he wants to see the growth policy be measurable and contain metrics, and should not be a document of aspirations. 07:41:38 PM (00:37:25) Happel asked if the Montana Land Use Planning Handbook was available online. The response was inaudible. Pape stated that due to state law, there are detailed indications of how the Planning Board should interact with the public. Pape elaborated further about his discontent and embarrassment for how the Unified Development Code was created, the Planning Board’s lack of interaction with the UDC consultants, the language of aspiration in a growth policy, and the process being followed for the creation of the growth policy. 07:45:07 PM (00:40:54) Happel followed up with Pape and confirmed that the Montana Land Use Planning Handbook was created in 1998. He stated that in 2009, the State of Montana put out a Montana Growth Policy Resource Book and asked Pape if the Resource Book was meant to supersede the 1998 document. Pape responded that the document from 2009 does have similarities and deferred to Planner Saunders for a more detailed understanding of the differences. Pape discussed at length his perception of the importance of the growth policy and the intended outcomes of a growth policy. 07:48:49 PM (00:44:36) Waterton requested the Board refocus on the memo and brought up a discussion of economic development and paragraph four of the memo. She wished to see the information provided by the consultants (featured in the last Board meeting) be used to guide the next growth policy document; specifically, the details of creating neighborhood nodes and how to create density to support the nodes. She stated that she believes the Planning Board is in agreement that the focus of the growth policy should be to address the big issues that affect the City and the objectives should be measurable. She stated she does not believes that parking should be considered one of the big issues affecting the City and has no place in a growth policy, rather it is a smaller policy-level issue. 07:51:46 PM (00:47:33) MOTION: Board Member Waterton made a motion to approve the draft memo and that it be forwarded to the City Commission for discussion with the following changes: amend paragraph four (4) to acknowledge that there is an economic consultant working for the City and that they will continue to use the data being received in helping provide guidance; and, to strike the word “parking” from our big issue. 07:52:44 PM (00:48:31) MOTION SECONDED: Commissioner Mehl. 07:53:05 PM (00:48:52) Waterton stated that her employment is a sub-contractor to the economic development consultants (Economic and Planning Systems) hired by the City. 07:53:33 PM (00:49:20) Happel requested to amend the intent of the economic section of the memo is to utilize the information received from them economic consultant in developing the policies set forth in the growth policy. Waterton agreed. 07:54:10 PM (00:49:57) Board Member Lavey discussed the importance of partnerships and specifically that between the Planning Board and the City Commission. He supported moving the memo to the Commission in order to open the avenue for conversation between groups, but not specifically the contents of the memo because the strategic scope and process scope has not been addressed. 07:57:29 PM (00:53:16) Board Member Zignego agreed with Waterton’s comments regarding density and commercial nodes, and supported the amendment to the memo regarding economic development as suggested by Waterton and Happel. He also agreed with Pape’s comments that quantitative measurements are important. 07:58:18 PM (00:54:05) Thompson was in agreement with Waterton’s comments regarding economics, and Lavey’s comments regarding the strategic process and scope. He explained his challenges with the amount of time is takes to discuss the scope and process compared to when it will be accomplished and gave the example that in two years of discussion over this document, the City will have grown by around 10% which will render the work they have done to be out of sync. He exclaimed his own challenge of understanding where to draw the line between scope/process and action. 07:59:59 PM (00:55:46) Spitler the Strategic Plan is the place to address broader issues (arts and humanities) as discussed 6 months ago. He believed it is time to send the memo forward. Spitler disagreed with Waterton’s motion to eliminate parking from the memo as an issue, since the Board already talked about it 6 months ago and as a Board agreed that parking is a major issue. He wants to keep it in the memo at least to have the discussion at the City Commission level to identify where parking concerns should be addressed. 08:02:46 PM (00:58:33) MOTION: Board Member Spitler moved to leave parking in the memo as a big issue. 08:02:57 PM (00:58:44) Mehl stated that there is a parking plan (passed last summer) and will be discussed tomorrow. There are deliverables due by the end of the year. The discussion will likely come to this Board from the Commission to discuss. 08:03:51 PM (00:59:38) Spitler requested that the maker of the motion withdraw the portion of the motion that strikes “parking” from the memo. 08:03:56 PM (00:59:43) MOTION SECONDED: Board Member Pape seconded the motion. 08:04:17 PM (01:00:04) Pape stated that when reviewing the UDC the issue was brought up as to why parking was not being considered and they were told that were two other studies that were coming in to identify what needed to be done. He maintain that this was a subterfuge to avoid the Board being involved in the process. He spoke about the Olive/Black apartment project and their parking requests as well as other infrastructure-related issues the City faces when trying to set reasonable goals. 08:06:09 PM (01:01:56) Lavey proposed that the issue is irrelevant and that the memo does not limit the Board from talking about any subject. He asked that the Board discuss any subject (poverty, parking, etc.) within a larger strategic framework in a methodical way. 08:06:47 PM (01:02:34) VOTE: All in favor of the amendment (leave parking in the memo): motion passes 5-3. 08:07:21 PM (01:03:08) Board resumed discussion on the main motion from Waterton to send proposed memo with one amendment (economics). 08:07:50 PM (01:03:37) Pape acknowledged Lavey’s point and stated that he might consider a more favorable view of the memo if it did not say “big issues” but stated these were more jumping off points or “things to consider” because they are not the biggest issues. Pape does not want to hear about a consultant’s preliminary report until the Board has a part in choosing the consultant or meets them when they are chosen, and gets status reports on a more regular basis. These expectations are from three terms of experience. 08:09:19 PM (01:05:06) Pape and Mehl discussed the Montana Land Use Planning Handbook Pape brought to the meeting and the how the Board can delegate authority. 08:09:57 PM (01:05:44) Lavey discussed his opinion and interests with the Strategic Plan and how it has been embraced and if it has resonated by the larger community. Knowing this will help provide a strategic framework and identify reliability of input for this process. 08:11:50 PM (01:07:37) VOTE: All in favor of sending the draft memo to the City Commission with one amendment (regarding economic consultants – see Waterton’s Motion) : motion passes 7-1. 08:12:09 PM (01:07:56) Happel introduced the second main item on the agenda – the extent to which the Board would extend to obtain public input for the Growth Policy. 08:13:24 PM (01:09:11) Planner Chris Saunders Strategic Plan is not the only public outreach that has been ongoing that have received significant amounts of public comment. He explained the layers that public comment arises from and the different type of public input that is received at each of the different levels as well as their successes within the community and the challenges. Saunders described different public input techniques that have been used recently and over the years and that they have received good, broad-based feedback thus far and recommended a way forward with engagement he believes would be most valuable. 08:18:05 PM (01:13:52) Mehl responded to Happel’s question regarding what input was solicited in connection to the Strategic Plan and how it could overlap with what they might do now. He described the robust nature of the public engagement strategies and events that were held. Mehl seconded Saunder’s comment that they need more detailed comments now. It would be up to the Board to decide how they will received public comment. 08:20:55 PM (01:16:42) Public comment. Randy Carpenter wished to seek feedback on his public comment earlier in the evening regarding using NGOs. 08:21:32 PM (01:17:19) Pape gave feedback to Carpenter. Pape stated that economic growth that contributes to economic resilience should be item number one and be a higher priority. 08:23:55 PM (01:19:42) Waterton stated that planning and process is very important and community engagement and using organizations to engage and solicit information is going to be very valuable. She agreed with Saunders that it needs to be very focused and encouraged that they partner with organizations to help engage in this specific conversation. She asked all of the public comment received from the Strategic Plan regarding a well-planned city could be provided to the Board and also public comment received for other similar projects (i.e. economic strategic plan). Saunders stated that staff could make it available. 08:27:15 PM (01:23:02) Pape stated that we must be able to consider things outside of our own box and that a repeated mistake by this organization, in particular the Commission, is think inside the wrong box. He described the west side of town and how their needs are not being met. 08:29:11 PM (01:24:58) Carpenter recommended a public engagement software called MetroQuest and briefly described its qualities. He spoke with MetroQuest and they agreed to let the County, Belgrade and Bozeman split the cost of one membership ($21,000 per year). 08:30:08 PM (01:25:55) Lavey talked about different platforms for public engagement but explained that asking “why” are we engaging people and “for what purpose” is very important, including how it relates to scope. He stated that we do with the public comment received is vital to successful engagement. 08:32:23 PM (01:28:10) Thompson reflected on his experience at a public engagement session at the High School and his enthusiasm with the ideas that public had. He explained the importance of sharing the information with the public and that people should know that a continual conversation has been happening and that there has been a process. He stated that the goal should be to educate the whole community to alleviate the divisiveness and to communicate the work that has been done. 08:34:34 PM (01:30:21) Lavey explained a game from Emerson Labs, “Stake” and then discussed the difference between “vision” and “values” and their places n the process. Pape commented on Lavey’s statement of vision and values and elaborated on housing affordability as an important economic driver. Pape concluded that affordability is a growth policy issue. Happel stated that affordability is item 2 of “big issues” in the memo and is not being ignored. 08:38:07 PM (01:33:54) Happel stated that a public policy that has legitimacy is one where the public must be involved – the extent to which the major questions have been asked and answered may have already been done and he could agree that the information is sufficient. However, he said that some new outreach must be done for the Growth Policy because he does not believe that just going off of the Strategic Plan outreach findings would not pass muster with the community. 08:39:42 PM (01:35:29) Waterton said that using the findings from the public outreach efforst from the Strategic Plan should be the starting point for the Growth Policy and be used as a framework. She explained that the intent was not to use exclusively the outreach information from the Strategic Plan. 08:40:37 PM (01:36:24) Saunders gave an idea of how many pages of public comments that were received to advise the Board Members what the scale of public comment is to expect. Mehl gave his advice on how the Board could help keep this process moving. 08:42:44 PM (01:38:31) Pape commented on archetypes being identified through the received public comment, land use policy, and how it affects people. Lavey recognized the size and extent of the growth policy and the massive public outreach efforts that it would take to have a successful engagement strategy. Lavey volunteered to draft a one-page letter, building from the memo, that outlines how they might approach this, the resources they might need, tools they might use and he would like to do it in concert with city staff to understand limitations. Happel took Lavey up on his offer. Happel recommended he seek help from staff and from Happel himself. 08:48:13 PM (01:44:00) Lavey inquired about forming a steering committee outside of the Planning Board (people on staff, on the Board, outside community leaders). He decided that it would be addressed in the letter he will draft. 08:49:02 PM (01:44:49) Waterton asked if there will be a consultant working on this project. Saunders said there has been some funding set aside but the determination for how it will be used has not yet been decided. Pape suggested to think forward and work backward. 08:51:56 PM (01:47:43) Mehl discussed the budget available. Waterton said that the framework for engagement is dependent on whether or not there will be a consultant. Mehl recommended the Board develop more concrete ideas and questions in order to the look at the available budget and how best to spend/divide the funds and open discussion with the City Commission. 08:54:46 PM (01:50:33) Happel summarized the discussion from the night’s meeting. Saunders offered to make time in his schedule to meet with some Board Members to do some brainstorming. 08:57:55 PM (01:53:42) Happel requested that anyone with interest should provide something in writing to the members of the Planning Board and Saunders (to pass the Community Development) regarding how they believe this process should be run. F. 08:59:03 PM (01:54:50) FYI/Discussion Planner Chris Saunders stated that the City Commission has created an appointed “alternate” Zoning Commission position for a maximum of two members of the Planning Board. Members would be available to generate a quorum and not intended for a regular meeting attendance. G. 09:00:52 PM (01:56:39) 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).