Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB FLUM memo 8-20-2019 TO: BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER RE: COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE – FUTURE LAND USE MAP DISCUSSION DATE: AUGUST 20, 2019 The Planning Board began discussion on the future land use map on August 6th. The memo from that meeting has been included again for reference in this week’s Board packet. Staff met with Gallatin County Planning Staff on August 7th to discuss the development of the FLUM, the draft land use descriptions, and principles outlined for preparing the map. The conversation was productive and contact between departments will continue as the plan and FLUM develop. Several questions from the Board were raised regarding the meaning and application of some of the draft land use designation descriptions. Each question and answer follows. 1. The first, which may have been answered, is when does the planning board discuss and modify each category? Sounds like that is what will start next meeting. Ans: Discussion is on August 20th after the initial overview on August 6th. 2. Suburban Residential: * How will the growth policy ensure that “any further development within this area should be clustered to preserve functional open space or ability to develop at urban densities in the future”? (I had thought we were getting rid of this category entirely, and see that it is intended to be very limited (see p. 1). But this question remains unanswered. * How will the growth policy ensure that “individual septic and well services are discouraged”? Ans: The growth policy is explicitly not a regulatory document, therefore, it has limited ability to ensure any policy statement will be carried out. The growth policy does influence various regulatory and other action policies such as zoning and annexation policy. These have greater influence. There is no ability of the City to regulate land use beyond the City limits without partnership and consent of the County. We are working with Gallatin County through the Planning Coordinating Committee to develop an interlocal agreement that will help Gallatin County apply its regulatory authority in ways that will be supportive of the FLUM and associated policies. The review and revisions to the FLUM itself may or may not ultimately include any areas designated as Suburban Residential. If there are none then the designation can be dropped entirely. As a statement of policy, the document itself gives direction to the City to emphasize continued development of its water and sewer systems. Availability of municipal systems is a strong argument as to why individual water and sewer systems are not appropriate. Further, the plan itself by its statement that individual systems are discouraged acts to discourage their use. The City is a part of the City-County Health Department who oversees permitting for individual septic systems. The Health Department regularly works with staff on questions of sewer and water availability in lieu of onsite systems. 3. PLI/PRLOS – I recall the development we approved near Bozeman Beach on land that was under either PLI or PRLOS. Following up on (1) above, when do we discuss what activities are allowed under each of these land use categories? Allowing subdivision and development on land shown as PLI or PLROS makes no sense. We should either not put the land in that category, or not allow those uses. Or both. Ans: The description of each designation includes illustrative uses. The regulatory uses occur with the applied zoning districts. The following table shows the correlation between the current land use designations and the zoning districts which typically implement them. Table C-16 Zoning Correlation With Land Use Categories Zoning Districts Plan Category R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 *** R-O REMU** RMH B-1 B-2 B-2M *** B-3 UMU M-1 M-2 BP NEHMU PLI Residential ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Residential Mixed Use Emphasis ● ● ● ● ● ● Suburban Residential ● ● ● Regional Commercial and Services ● ● ● ● Community Core ● ● ● Community Commercial Mixed-Use ● ● ● ● ● Business Park Mixed Use ● ● ● ● Industrial ● ● ● ● ● Public Institutions ● Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands* ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Golf Courses ● ● Present Rural ● *Parks are depicted on Figure 3 in almost all zoning districts. Open spaces for a variety of purposes are created under all zoning districts. Indication in this table does not create an allowance for uses other than parks and open spaces that are not already included in the zoning district. **The Residential Emphasis Mixed Use zoning district was created by Ordinance 1802 with final adoption on April 11, 2011. ***The R-5 and B-2M zoning districts were created by Ordinance 1942 with final adoption on May 25, 2016. Reevaluation of the table will be part of the plan development. For example, a suggestion has been received to amend the table to remove R-3 from the REMU land use designation implementing districts as it does not have enough mixed use opportunities. Public Institutions and the association Public Lands and Institutions zoning district covers many public uses from fire stations to landfills to MSU. The nature of the public purpose often requires development the property for quite intensive development. Public and Recreation lands may be developed with swim facilities or other structures. The Board can consider how the descriptions are written. Most properties developed as parks originally began with a different designation, such as Residential. After final locations of the park were set by the subdivision process we update the FLUM on the next cycle to more accurately describe the actual as well as planned use of land in the community. 4. Present Rural – I assume this is county land and outside city limits. If so, why are we including it at all? The Present Rural seems a meaningless category. Despite the language here, my experience is that it’s just a placeholder (i.e. meaningless) that we modify the moment a developer comes in with a proposal to reclassify and rezone. If so, what is it’s purpose? * If it is to remain, how does the city ensure that it’s “preference” that the land “remain as currently utilized” is met? Hope that no developer proposes a reclassification? Or some other means? * Ditto for the other two “preferences” listed. * Also, why is developing at urban densities the last preference? Doesn’t this contradict the city’s intention, repeated throughout the plan, to have all lands within city limits developed at urban densities? Ans: Present Rural and its ancestor designations have been largely placeholders to show where the City has not yet been ready to expand. It has mostly been outside the City but the annexed portions of the Story Hills have this designation. As discussed on Page 1 of the August 6th memo, it does have limited use with the change in FLUM approach which separates the FLUM from the development projections. As discussed under question 2 above, the ability to compel Present Rural to remain is limited. We can choose not to change the map if asked. However, we have amended when there is a genuine interest and ability to convert to an urban use. As noted this is consistent with the intent for urban development to be in the City and not outside of it. The City’s stated preference does influence both municipal and private actions. The Present Rural designation was often placed where it was thought it unreasonable to expect ability to extend municipal water or sewer in the next 5-10 years. This is not the same approach being used with this update to the FLUM. Urban density was listed last in the description because if it is designated as Present Rural either there are very difficult municipal infrastructure service issues or if urban density was proposed it was likely to have been on a non-municipal central water or sewer system which is not desired by the City. Ultimately, the Board may not use the Present Rural designation on the FLUM in which case the description can be deleted. The 2001 growth policy called the same category by a different name, Future Urban. The name was changed by Commission preference in 2009 as I recall. It can change again if desired. 5. Finally, still on present rural: how, if at all, can the city discourage or prevent the development of these lands? Do the “facility plans which address the provisions of services within all the planning area” provide an opportunity? Partnering with GVLT on easements? Partnering with the county on the expenditure of open space bonds? Something else? Ans: If an area is designated as Present Rural then not extending municipal water or sewer will make it harder to change to another use. However, the areas outside of the City remain under the control of Gallatin County who has their own growth policy. The County can approve whatever development meets their adopted standards including subdivision layouts that make it very difficult for the City to expand. The City can encourage use of County open space money within the planning area. The County only works with willing parties so there must be both public and private interest. The City has cash-in-lieu of parks funds it can use to acquire land for parks and open space or to improve such both inside or outside of the City. This is a small amount of money at any given time and any use must be shown to benefit the development that provided the money which limits how and where it can be used (this is a state law requirement). The City can work with any private or public entity. However, its park emphasis has been within the City and focused on active parks rather than passive open space or agricultural preservation. Future Land Use Map Staff is continuing to try to pull together a draft of the map for discussion on the 20th. A draft will not be prepared in time for the packet but Staff will attempt to have physical copies for the meeting. If possible a PDF draft will be sent out in advance. This will be very much a working draft.