Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-20 City Commission Packet Materials - WS1. Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Supplemental Materials 3 Public Comment Response1 TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION FROM: TOM ROGERS, SENIOR PLANNER CHRIS SAUNDERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER RE: BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN 2020, RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT – G. POOLE DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2020 The City has received a variety of questions and comments during the public review of the draft Bozeman Community Plan 2020 by the City Commission beginning on August 25, 2020. The Commission will review all comments. Staff has provided written responses to various questions to aid the Commission during the legislative adoption process. A set of questions was received as public comment from G. Poole. The City Manager passed to Planning Staff a request from a member of the City Commission that Staff provide a written reply to the questions. This memo is that reply. These questions are related to oral comment submitted by G. Poole at the City Commission’s October 6th public hearing. Staff provided with the initial packet for the October 20th City Commission meeting responses to the G. Poole and other public comments. Staff in some cases refers to that initial response rather than duplicating statements. There is some but not exclusive overlap in subject matter. References to page numbers are to the draft Bozeman Community Plan 2020 unless noted otherwise. Some themes repeat in the questions. For efficiency, Staff has provided single responses to address once the same subject for multiple questions. Themes in Questions: Role of a growth policy: Adoption of a growth policy is a legislative action. It addresses matters of public concern in a generalized manner and sets overall policy. This is distinct from a quasi-judicial action where specific criteria are applied to a discrete property through an individual application. A growth policy is not a regulation. It supports and guides adoption and implementation of regulations. Legislative actions do not include all details for all future decisions relating to execution of policy. Assurance of desired outcome: A growth policy demonstrates community priorities and expectations. Accomplishment requires partnership and participation with many other parties including landowners. If landowners wish to keep the existing use of property they may for as long as they choose. The growth policy supports and guides future changes in use or degree of development. The growth policy as a legislative action necessarily looks at issues at a high level and in broad terms. Therefore, there is no stated or implied guarantee of an individual detailed outcome within a certain time frame; especially as personal preference of outcome varies widely. 2 Alternative is superior: The implication of many of the questions is that having land at the NE corner of S. 19th and Goldenstein Lane now proposed be designated as Industrial to be instead designated as Urban Neighborhood would result in a more desirable outcome. This is a viewpoint where personal preference plays a strong role and makes many assumptions as to what would likely occupy the land in the future. The Urban Neighborhood has many implementing zoning districts. These include residential zoning districts that would allow taller building heights and generate more vehicle traffic than industrial zoning. The plan as a whole favors more intensive residential uses. Under either future land use designation, the PLI zone allows uses such as emergency services, jails, solid waste transfer stations, and other uses which may be perceived as undesirable by adjacent properties. Distinctiveness of area: The questions repeatedly refer to South Bozeman as a distinct location and implies a distinctive character. No geographical description of what area is meant by the term is described beyond an implication that it encompasses the proposed industrial area for which there are objections. Does South Bozeman begin at Babcock Street, College Street, Kagy Boulevard, Graf Street, Goldenstein Lane, or some other point? No description is provided as to its east and west extents. Given the maximum potential size of the area (e.g. everything south of Main Street and east and west to the edge of the Planning Area) the questions seem overly narrow in focus. The only reference in the growth policy to South Bozeman as a distinct location is on page 35. This reference is in relationship to a technology district which is far from the implied area of interest near S. 19th and Goldenstein Lane. The growth policy does not exempt any one portion of the Planning Area from the planning principles and goals of the plan. The planning precepts on Page 10, and the goals and objectives established in the Themes, are applicable to any portion of the Planning Area which could be described as South Bozeman. Q1: If the growth policy says that a parcel of land, in the midst of a residential area, is designated for industrial land use, is the city legally required to grant a request, at the time of annexation, for applicable zoning identified in the growth policy? For instance, on the industrial land slated for South Bozeman, if a developer requests M-2 at the time of annexation, under what authority and circumstance can the city have allow the annexation but deny the M-2 zoning but require, for instance, BP zoning? Reply: Amendments to the zoning map and zoning text are legislative actions. The City has legislative discretion in evaluating and applying the decision criteria. All decisions to amend the zoning map are subject to criteria and procedures set in state law beginning in 76-2-301, MCA. Compliance with the future land use map is one element of the criterion to be “made in accordance with a growth policy.” As stated above and shown on Page 48, Table 4, there are multiple districts which could potentially be “in accordance.” There are more criteria set in statute. If the Commission finds that a district does not meet the criteria, they are not obligated to approve an application to change the zoning map. The City Commission also has discretion to approve if they find that, on balance of all the criteria, the benefits 3 outweigh drawbacks even if some criteria are not met. See also the discussion in the public comment memo in the October 20th packet materials. The question’s characterization of the area as residential alone is inaccurate. As noted above, South Bozeman is an undefined area. There is residential but there are also various institutions, agricultural uses, and commercial uses near to the questioned site. There is also potential (but not compulsion) for further diverse uses in the Residential Mixed Use areas to the north. Q2: Given the proposed industrial parcel is within a 5-10 minute walk of Sacajawea Middle School, why does "industrial" designation better serve the goals of the land use plan than "urban neighborhood" -- especially the goals of "walkable neighborhoods" and "a sense of place" and "neighborhood identity" for South Bozeman Residents? Reply: A legislative decision to adopt a growth policy balances all of the priorities in the growth policy. The goal is to find an outcome considered best for the overall community, not only one portion of the community. The terms Neighborhood and Walkable are defined in Appendix F of the draft growth policy. Both terms are expansive in application. Both terms explicitly include non-residential elements. The definition of Walkable explicitly includes workplaces in proximity to homes so that walking to or from work is realistic. Therefore, a large solely residential area would fail to be walkable and would meet the definition of sprawl in Appendix F. The plan seeks to avoid sprawl. Beyond the items mentioned in the question, the draft plan includes policies to establish and support districts, place housing in proximity to employment and services (as described in the Basic Planning Precepts on page 10, Theme 2 Importance statement, Theme 5, and the description of Urban Neighborhood), and encourage distribution of growth and employment (see Goal DCD-2). After consideration of the plan as a whole, the Planning Board found the intersection of S. 19th Avenue and Goldenstein to be an appropriate area for an employment district. This is shown with their recommendation of the future land use map (FLUM) to the City Commission. The FLUM includes industrial and commercial planned areas at that intersection as well as mixed uses to the north. See also the discussion in the October 20th packet materials regarding public comment. See also the reply to Question 5. Q4: If the industrial land use in intended to provide walkable jobs for the residents, what safeguards are in place to be sure that high-paying light industry jobs will occur on the land rather than, e.g., big-box retail (providing low paying jobs to people who will have to commute into South Bozeman) or mini-storage (no jobs)? Response: See general response for role of a growth policy and assurance of outcome above. The implementing zoning districts for the Industrial future land use designation are shown in Table 4, page 48. The uses allowed in the listed implementing districts are in Section 38.310.040 of the municipal code. Per Table 38.310.040.A, retail uses are a conditional use or are prohibited if over 40,000 square feet in the BP, M-1, M-2 zoning districts, and 4 prohibited in the PLI district. Warehousing, residential storage (mini-warehousing) is an allowed use in the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts, see Table 38.31.040.D. Staff disagrees with the implication that commuting will only be inbound to the questioned area. Outbound existing residents of the area, or residents of the questioned areas if they were changed to housing, needing to commute elsewhere for employment and services is not materially different from others commuting into the area. Either way the same streets are affected and in essentially the same ways. Further, recent development trends in the surrounding area are providing a diverse mix of housing types meeting the needs of a variety of residents. The area immediately north of the planned industrial area also enables a range of housing options. The question does not acknowledge the corollary of commuting required if the services and employment options supported by the proposed future land use map are far from the area instead. Q5: Given that the municipal code states that REMU development is intended to "provide options for a variety of housing, employment, retail and neighborhood service opportunities within a new or existing neighborhood," how does the reclassification of residential land use to industrial land use help ensure the success of businesses that will eventually be established in the adjacent Blackwood Groves REMU zone? Reply: See the comment above regarding the role of a growth policy and assurance of outcome. A future land use designation indicates a general outcome rather than a particular character. A zoning district implements the future land use with greater but still broad terms. Both the growth policy and zoning provide a framework for uses such as those listed in the question. Neither the growth policy nor zoning guarantee success of a business anywhere in the community. As noted earlier, the term Neighborhood as defined in the growth policy is not limited to a grouping of homes but can include businesses and institutions. The definition was carefully considered by the Planning Board to support a wide meaning and application. The REMU and any future industrial development have an opportunity to be mutually supportive. Industrial uses can bring a different group of users/customers to proximity of the REMU area than may be present from only homes. An as applied example would be additional lunch time customers for a restaurant in the REMU area from employees in the industrial area. The zoning district used to implement a future land use is evaluated by specific criteria establish in State Law, see Chapter 5, page 64. Specifically, “this criterion gives the Commission latitude. Zoning map amendments’ are to correlate to the future land use map. Beyond that, policy statements such as goals and objectives are weighed. In a text amendment, policy statements weigh heavily as the standards being created or revised implement the growth policy’s aspirations and intent. The City must balance many issues in approving urban development. Therefore, it is not unusual if there is some tension between competing priorities, even if there is no explicit contradiction of policy.” 5 The land use map sets generalized expectations for what goes where in the community. Each category has its own descriptions. Understanding the future land use map is not possible without understanding the category descriptions. Future land use categories are not regulatory. Each category description can be implemented by multiple zoning districts. The land use categories provide a guide for appropriate development and redevelopment locations for civic, residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses. The Future land use designations are important because they further the vision and goals of the City. These include promoting sustainability, citizen and visitor safety, and a high quality of life that will shape Bozeman’s future development. Residential development needs goods and services, and employment for viability. Currently the industrial land use is implemented by the five zoning districts identified in Table 4. The districts support provision of needed goods and service. The commercially designated area west of S. 19th Avenue provides additional opportunities. In all zoning districts standards for site development apply to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. Chapter 4, Implementation, proposes a variety of indicators to evaluate whether the City is progressing in adopted policies. One of those indicators is Walkscore, see Table 5, page 53, which is used to measure at a high level the ability to meet basic needs within walking distance. Walkscores for Emily Dickinson School (score of 56/100) and Morning Star School (score of 20/100) shows that the area around Morning Star is less in compliance with some policies of the draft growth policy. Both scores indicate room for improvement on this indicator. These locations chosen for this example are public facilities of the same type and style. As noted in the public discourse, the southwest boundary of the proposed industrial designation is at the intersection of a Principal Arterial and Minor Arterial streets, S. 19th Avenue and Goldenstein Lane respectively. There are fewer employment options for residents on the south side of the City (south of College Street for this response) with the exception of the Montana State University. Residents on the north side of Bozeman have a wide variety of employment opportunities. Areas of the community with greater diversity of uses see greater diversity of travel modes. Diverse travel modes supports sustainability and efficient transportation systems. Figure 2.10 Commute by Census Tract, page 44, Bozeman Master Transportation Plan, 2017 Update, suggests there is greater mode share between these areas of the City where more employment is available. This is indicative of a “…variety of housing, employment, retail and neighborhood service opportunities within a new or existing neighborhood…” 6 Census tract based data such as this can have unusual outcomes. The southwest area shows a relatively high multimodal commute rates. However, the northeast corner of this tract is directly adjacent to MSU and includes considerable housing. Q6: In the Commissioner's meeting this week, the planning department said that the community plan does not require any change to exiting land use, yet then cited "preventing Eagle Mount from having to move" as a reason for the industrial designation in South Bozeman. Under what circumstances would the city have to ask Eagle Mount to move if the current residential designation were maintained (as Urban Neighborhood) and how would reclassifying the designated land use as industrial protect Eagle Mount from this threat? Reply: The City would not ask Eagle Mount to relocate. The referenced staff response is applicable to existing conditions. The current (2009 Community Plan) shows this area as Residential. Eagle Mount’s use is not residential. A use that is not supported by the underlying growth policy and by extension future zoning, creates a “non-conforming” use situation. Expanding uses and buildings for uses that are not allowed by a particular zoning district is problematic for both the City and the landowner. The City strives to avoid creating new non-conforming situations. The success of Eagle Mount has necessitated growth of their facility. The only existing zoning district allowing agricultural uses for newly annexed property is an industrial district. In order to ensure a viable site for Eagle Mount to expand in the future, if they desire to do so, it is appropriate to include them in the industrial future land use. 7 Q7: With reference to the proposed industrial parcel in South Bozeman, how does designating industrial land within walking distance of schools and abutting REMU development further the goals of the 2019 community plan? Similarly, what is the city's position on how an Urban Neighborhood designation within walking distance of schools and abutting REMU development would support the goals of the plan? Reply: See the response to Question 2. See the public comment memo in the October 20th City Commission packet. The question implies that having a use other than residential within walking distance to a school is somehow improper. Repeating a portion of the reply to Question 5: Chapter 4, Implementation, proposes a variety of indicators to evaluate whether the City is progressing in adopted policies. One of those indicators is Walkscore, see Table 5, page 53, which is used to measure at a high level the ability to meet basic needs within walking distance. Walkscores for Emily Dickinson School (score of 56/100) and Morning Star School (score of 20/100) shows that the area around Morning Star is less in compliance with some policies of the draft growth policy. As noted in the October 20th memo, Hawthorne School is closer to zoned, constructed, and operational industrial areas than the area that is the subject of this question is to Sacajawea Middle School. Hawthorne shows no demonstrated injury from this proximity. The growth policy also interacts with other planning documents, see page 9. The City’s transportation plan (Section 1.3) and draft climate plan (Focus Area 3) encourage coordination with land use planning. Both documents support development patterns with mixed uses, multiple methods of travel, and compact development. Placement of employment and other intense development at major intersections facilitates access and lessens impacts on local streets. The description of Industrial on page 47 includes the statement “Development within these areas is intensive and is connected to significant transportation corridors.” As noted in response to Question 5, both S. 19th Avenue and Goldenstein Lane are arterial streets, the most intensive street class. Expansion of S. 19th Avenue is project MSN-46 in the transportation plan. Extension of Goldenstein Lane west of S. 19th is discussed in Section 4.1.3 of the transportation plan. This location has existing and planned transportation facilities well suited for intensive uses. The location also supports ready access to existing and planned residential areas by foot and bike and will make a good future transit stop once the routes expand. The Planning Board and Staff considered many factors in siting the commercial and industrial future land use designations at S. 19th and Goldenstein including: • transportation access, • physical characteristics of the land, • location and timing of access to water and sewer utilities, • walkability, economic expansion of the City, • service availability to the southern portion of the Planning Area, and 8 • Planning Precepts and Themes of the plan. Also considered was placement in relation to existing residential development. A review of the context map included with the October 20th City Commission packet will show that there are few locations outside of the City where large areas do not have existing residential development. Even fewer have good street and utility access. Relocation to another location will place the industrial and commercial uses further from functional roadways, further from municipal utilities, and closer to existing rural development. There is intervening property and major streets to provide a buffer and transition to constructed homes. Further, the Community Housing Action Plan, which is a related plan (see page 9) includes the action strategy of employer assisted housing. Major employers in town have limited undeveloped land near them for new housing. Planning a future land use map where both employment and housing can be constructed near each other supports this approach and similar concepts in the growth policy. Evaluating a change to the future land use map raises the question: What alternate location for an equal amount of industrial designated land exists that is equally or better suited to address the various policies, priorities, and factors which led to the corner of S. 19th Avenue and Goldenstein Lane being designated as industrial? Designating the property as Urban Neighborhood would facilitate additional housing which is a policy of the plan. Housing would be subject to the City’s development standards associated with the applied zoning district. The applicable zoning district would be determined at annexation and could be any implementing district shown in Table 4. The policies of the plan support higher intensity development at high visibility intersections. S. 19th Avenue and Goldenstein Lane is a high visibility intersection. Therefore it is probable that a higher density residential district would be applied. A higher density district could support greater housing type diversity in the surrounding area, support creation of affordable housing projects in an area where they are deficient, and provide some potential customers for potential non-residential uses in the adjacent REMU zoned area over time. While advancing housing is an important aspect of the plan, use of this area solely for housing is to the detriment of the other goals and precepts of the plan as described in the document, this memo, and the October 20th packet memo. There are more alternative locations for housing in accordance to the plan than where industrial/employment uses can be provided in accordance to the plan. Q8: The distribution of proposed reclassification of residential to commercial/industrial land in very uneven across the Community Plan Planning Area. 70% of the land use that would be reclassified from residential to commercial or industrial occurs in about 10% of the land area covered by the community plan. 47% of the reclassification occurs in a single 400-acre block in South Bozeman. How could the 400-acre block of reclassified land in South Bozeman be changed to 9 reduced the disproportionate impact in that area? Reply: The change in future land use designation, as explained under Question 7 occurred after due consideration of many factors. Various changes to the future land use map are the result of Planning Board decisions to consolidate or eliminate various future land use categories. Urban Neighborhood remains the largest planning designation throughout the planning area, including in the southern half of the Planning Area. The incidental differences expressed in percentages in the question reflect the existing large areas of non-residential uses in the north portions of the Planning Area. The future land use map, as noted on page 42, portrays a long term future not limited to the 20-25 year planning horizon of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. This is a change from prior growth policies which looked primarily at land consumption only over the plan time horizon. This approach is consistent with the approach used in the transportation, water, and sewer facility plans which examine needed facilities for the entire planning area. Applying the overall plan approach described in the paragraph above, the Planning Board considered the long term development of the entire Planning Area. The City has experienced substantial growth in the NW quadrant of the City in the past 20 years. Increasing growth is now occurring in the southern and southwestern portions of the City. The evaluation of future development in the southern portion of the Planning Area included consideration of a future urban character where it had not been previously considered. The Planning Board considered the policies already mentioned in this memo. The Planning Board also considered this statement from the description of the future land use map on page 43. “Community development oriented on centers of employment and activity shorten travel distances and encourage multi-modal transportation, increase business synergies, and permit greater efficiencies in the delivery of public services.” The commercial nodes identified throughout the FLUM implement this statement and the associated policies as noted above and throughout the growth policy. The Planning Board found that this pattern of development was in the best interest of the community. Therefore, the City Commission would need to articulate an alternate pattern of development consistent with the policies of the plan in order to substantially change them. If the City Commission finds the policies of the plan in error they may direct amendments or return the document to the Planning Board for revision. The 400 acres referenced in the question includes the REMU zoned area for Blackwood Groves, and the commercial and industrial areas on either side of S. 19th Avenue and north of Goldenstein. The REMU area was earlier adopted by the City Commission as an individual amendment to the future land use map and zoning map. In adopting these amendments the City Commission found it a superior outcome for the City as a whole and the vicinity if the REMU area were adopted. Therefore, there is no disproportionate impact from this action to be reduced. 10 As noted collectively under the prior answers here and the October 20th packet memo, the City has not identified disproportionate negative impacts. Rather, the Planning Board through recommendation of the draft growth policy, and the Staff through the findings in the staff report, found that the proposed future land use map meets all the applicable criteria and is a positive change. Q9: The plethora of water features in South Bozeman is often cited as a reason that the proposed industrial parcel was selected in South Bozeman. Implicit in this statement is that industrial classification is a risk for water quality, and that the parcel was chosen to mitigate that risk. Can you clarify why water resource protection cited by the planning department as a reason that the parcel was chosen for industrial land use, given that: 1) the City's on-line GIS system shows the same or even higher density of water features on the designated industrial parcel as on surrounding parcels, and 2) the creek on the selected parcel drains immediately into are area that is covenanted to be a park behind Sacajawea Middle School in the Blackwood Grove REMU development, and then runs through the park in the middle of the Alder Creek Subdivision? How was water quality in downstream parks and playgrounds, potential impacts on children from contract recreation, and the livability of downstream neighborhoods considered when industrial parcel was designated? Reply: The question does not correctly depict Staff’s statement on the influence of water bodies on placing the industrial designation. Any development in Bozeman is subject to storm water controls, wetland protections, floodplain controls, and watercourse protections. Detailed evaluation and standards are applied with both subdivision and site development and monitored by the City’s Engineering and Storm Water staff. The water bodies referenced will be protected regardless of development type or water destination. Therefore potential downstream impacts are addressed. The location of water bodies does influence street layouts, lot configurations, and amount of developable property. The water bodies shown in the GIS are primarily on the fringe of the area adjacent to the existing streets or on the far edge. One does cross to the northeast and will be subject to all applicable protections. The only known wetlands in the industrial area are associated with this crossing water body. Water quality concerns can be addressed with proper site design. Industrial is more affected by water presence than housing because industrial uses tend to require larger and more regularly shaped lots. The City restricts removal of wetlands or relocation of streams. Housing, which uses smaller parcels, can more easily reconfigure a development to accommodate existing water features. The western portion of the industrially designated area at S. 19th Avenue and Goldenstein lane has no known wetlands or streams crossing it. Therefore, the site design will be less restricted by water features. Q10: In the on-line city records of public comment on the Blackwood Groves subdivision and the Growth Policy, there are more than 70 citizen comments opposed to the REMU, industrial, and 11 Community Commercial land use designations in South Bozeman. Although two citizen comments were supportive of Blackwood Groves, no citizen comment supported the Industrial Land Use Designation. The wishes of the residents of South Bozeman are clear. Their wishes could largely be addressed by changing industrial land use on *just one parcel* of the future land use map in South Bozeman and reverting the parcel to the current residential (remapped to "Urban Neighborhood") designation. While some benefits to the community plan would change, a remarkable number of benefits for the goals of the community plan would be emerge: including walkablity between future residences on the parcel and the middle school, improved customer base for future neighborhood businesses on the adjacent Blackwood Groves REMU parcel, and improved neighborhood cohesion and identity in South Bozeman. If the Community Plan is intended to be responsive to public input, what is preventing the unanimous public request to remove the industrial designation from South Bozeman being incorporated into the Community Plan and Future Land Use Map? Why are the benefits of the industrial land use designation on this parcel so important relative to the obvious benefits residential land use that the existing classification on the FLUM should override extensive, unanimous public comment in favor of "Urban Neighborhood?" As the plan has developed, other parcels have been reclassified based on far less public input. Why aren't the wishes of South Bozeman residents being incorporated into the plan? Reply: On June 16, 2020 the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider revisions to the draft Plan and public comment. Comments from a variety of individuals were forwarded to the Board. These included 62 comments received at the time of publication of the Planning Board agenda concerning the Blackwood Groves growth policy amendment. The Planning Board considered the Blackwood Groves amendment on May 19, 2020 to amend the future land use map. Many commenters merged comments on the Blackwood Groves zone map amendment, the Blackwood Groves growth policy amendment application 20021, and the overall update to the 2009 Bozeman Community Plan application 16521. To honor the intent of the comments, the Planning Board was asked to review the 62 submitted comments along with all other submitted comments for applicability to the overall future land use map with the overall growth policy update. The Planning Board was provided a web link to the comments, http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/fol/210983/Row1.aspx. Therefore, the Planning Board received the comments for review not once but twice. First, as part of the Blackwood Groves application review and second as part of the overall growth policy review. The same comments were included in the Staff Report sent to the City Commission for their consideration of the Blackwood Groves growth policy amendment. Public comment and input has shaped the plan since its inception. In balancing all the issues and ideas in the growth policy, the Planning Board weighed comments for their effect on the plan as a whole. Throughout the plan development process and at the public hearing the Planning Board considered public comments and determined no change to the draft Plan was proper as applied to the area in question. The overall objectives of the Plan harmonize multiple goals and objectives for all residents and to meet other associated goals including sustainability, housing, resiliency, transportation, economic development, and others. The Planning Board determined having uses such as housing, commerce, employment, education near to each other, in total, furthers these goals.