Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApprove Commission Resolution No. 4152 Growth Policy Report compiled on March 2, 2009 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4152 MEETING DATE: Monday, March 9, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Commission Resolution 4152 declaring the City Commission’s intent to consider adoption of a revised and updated growth policy and set a public hearing date for April 13, 2009. BACKGROUND: The City of Bozeman has had an adopted growth policy since 1958. The City Commission directed the Planning Board to prepare an update to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan which was adopted by Resolution 3486 in 2001. The update was required both by the passage of time and the changes caused by very high rates of growth. The Planning Board has conducted public outreach, reviewed the existing document, prepared a draft document, and conducted public hearings on the draft. At their February 18, 2009, meeting the Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend an amended draft to the City Commission for adoption. The City Commission is required to pass a resolution of intent to adopt a growth policy and conduct at least one public hearing before taking action on the draft document. The resolution of intent both states the intent to consider the revised growth policy and sets a date for the public hearing. An adopted Planning Board resolution and minutes, as well as submitted public comments, will be provided to the City Commission prior to the public hearing. A draft resolution and minutes are provided with this memo. A revised draft of the growth policy will also be provided which incorporates all of the Planning Boards directed changes. We expect to provide the draft not later than March 9th. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. FISCAL EFFECTS: Budgeted funds will be used to advertise the public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please feel free to email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net if you have questions prior to the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager 48 Report compiled on March 2, 2009 Commission Memorandum Attachments: Draft Planning Board resolution and minutes Commission Resolution 4152 49 Page 1 of 2 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4152 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, STATING THEIR INTENT TO ADOPT AN UPDATE TO THE BOZEMAN 2020 COMMUNITY PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has had a comprehensive plan (growth policy) since 1958, and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman adopted the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan through Resolution 3486 on October 22, 2001, and WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission directed the Bozeman Planning Board and the staff of the City of Bozeman’s Department of Planning and Community Development to prepare an update to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has prepared an update, and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board conducted public hearings on January 21st and February 3, 2009 to accept public testimony, and WHEREAS, having considered the draft plan and the received public testimony the Planning Board has made a recommendation to the Bozeman City Commission that they adopt the draft document as amended by the Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the in accordance with 76-1-602, MCA, the City Commission must conduct a public hearing prior to taking any action to adopt or revise a growth policy, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, that: 50 Page 2 of 2 Section 1 In accordance with the requirements of Section 76-1-604 MCA, the intent to adopt an updated growth policy is hereby stated. Section 2 That a public hearing be set and advertised for April 13, 2009 for the purpose of receiving public testimony on P-07006, the Bozeman Community Plan, an update to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. DATED this 9th day of March 2009. KAAREN JACOBSON Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ STACY ULMEN, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ BOB PLANALP Interim Bozeman City Attorney 51 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 1 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:12 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Cathy Costakis Andrew Epple, Director of Planning Chris Mehl Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Quinn Erik Henyon Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Members Absent: Guests Present: Dawn Smith Dan Triemstra Donna Swarthout Dennis Carlson Mark Evans Jennifer Hart Al Lien Guy Alsentzer David Cook Sam McCalley Rebecca Musy Rob Pertzborn Chris Murphy Steve Ziegler ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} David Cook, 701 S. 7th Ave., stated he had previously made the comment that he was amazed and perplexed that resounding comments for the City were being made in the Growth Policy and very few from the public had attended the meeting. He suggested that the City should consider why no one had been involved in the City discussions and why there was a total lack of interest in Bozeman. He noted the municipal form of government relied on response from the citizens and the City was not getting those comments. He stated the City should address why there was no citizen interest. 52 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 2 Dan Triemstra, 2200 Durston Rd., stated he was a farmer, agriculturist, and a member of the Farmers Canal Company. He stated transition use of water did not necessarily remove the need for ditches and noted a ditch could not always just stop at the end of a property. He asked for the definition of “formal abandonment” as it appeared in the text of the Growth Policy. He noted a water use might not be agriculture use in the future and may instead be used for mitigation. He explained the City took over maintenance and liability of a ditch when it was incorporated into the City. He noted agricultural facilities did not exist for the convenience of storm water facilities; he suggested written permission be obtained by the developer of properties from every one of the water users along the waterway. He suggested the City use the same method as the County when mitigating watercourses. Vice Chairperson Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify the definition of “formal abandonment”. Assistant Director Saunders responded the literal dictionary definition would apply and there would be a review process to determine whether the abandonment of the watercourse was formal. He noted the use of storm water for mitigation, etc., would be a different set of easements for a storm water facility than for a conveyance facility. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, Vice President Henyon closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 2009 MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of January 6, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. DRAFT GROWTH POLICY Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Memo noting the project had been a work in progress for the Planning Board. He gave an overview of the reasons for the Planning process and stated maximizing one thing sometimes acted to the detriment of another and Planning helped to determine a balance between the two. He stated that fundamentally, the document would touch on principal issues and guiding themes were used throughout the document. He noted the influences on Planning; such as natural features, costs, and returns. He noted how the process began and clarified the procedures used to provide outreach and workshops for the public. He noted input had been gathered from a variety of sources and incorporated as the document was created. He noted there were a number of major changes including; an expanded planning area, updated data, sustainability, disaster and emergency language, and the incorporation of references to other documents. He noted there was a large change in formatting to provide for more accessibility for the public and interconnections to outside, related documents. He noted the location of the Planning area with regard to the City limits boundary and that the plan area had been coordinated with four other documents. He noted the number of chapters included in the document and generally what they covered. He noted most of the language and text in the current document had been moved to the appendices. 53 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 3 Assistant Director Saunders noted the Transportation Plan was adopted by the City Commission at their January 20, 2009 hearing. He noted the chapter layout in the Draft Growth Policy had a common structure with emphasis points being contained on the outside edges of the pages. He noted illustrated photographs and links to referenced documents would be included. He stated the theme grid had been included to provide cross references to other locations within the document and that the layout of the Goals and Objectives within the chapters contained a list of Implementation Policies located in Chapter 16; he clarified that one Implementation Policy may apply to a number of Goals within the document. He noted the Guiding Themes were contained throughout the document and tied into each other in a variety of ways which would encourage and support sustainability. He noted the Implementation Tools were for both long term and short term basis. He noted one critical point wo uld be that implementing the document was not something the City could do on its own and would have to be in concert with other agencies and the public to benefit everyone. He noted this evening was the first public hearing of the Planning Board and there would be another on February 3, 2009; he added that the City Commission date had not been scheduled yet to provide time for Planning Board and public comments. He noted two written comments had been received and that they had been provided to the Planning Board in their packets. He noted the Economic Development Plan was in process and surveys had been conducted, as well as input from the advisory group; he noted a draft was expected by the Spring of 2009 and the more detailed information would take the place of the information in the current document. He noted the Downtown Neighborhood Plan would begin in February and the hope was that it would be completed by the end of 2009. Mr. Mehl thanked Assistant Director Saunders and noted that e-mail’s through the City website would also be sufficient to provide for public comments. Vice President Henyon called for public comment. Steve Ziegler, 2531 Whitetail Rd., stated he would like to comment on the future urban area; he asked how the area was established, how it related to the County transfer of development rights, and how the priorities within the document had been established. Al Lien, 8507 Huffine Lane, stated Ms. Pomnichowski had notified him – Farmers Canal Company - and had conversed with Judge Loble of Water Court with regard to the water chapter. He noted the Middle Creek ditch had been absorbed into the City and others were close so the Planning Board already had those issues before them to work on. He presented the Board with written comment from Judge Loble. Rob Pertzborn, 111 N. Tracy Ave., asked Assistant Director Saunders if he could speak to modifications to the Unified Development Ordinance that would be necessary due to the Growth Policy adoption. He asked for the Planning Board to describe why the color had been changed from blue to pink and back to blue again on the property near Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane that he had inquired about at the December meeting of the Planning Board. Robert Evans, Tarlow, Stonecipher, & Steele, stated he represented Norton Properties; he handed out a letter with a basic request that the Future Land Use Map designation for the property be 54 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 4 reconsidered as Commercial Mixed Use instead of Business Park (just as Mr. Pertzborn had suggested for a similarly located property at the December meeting); he suggested the surrounding property was zoned and designated the same, but the proposal would be for a Community Commercial designation. Mr. Caldwell responded to Mr. Ziegler that the urban area had been established by the estimations of the future build out of the community and those areas could be developed, but would face thresholds with major infrastructure requirements that would make them less readily developable than areas within the City. He noted the relationship between the City Growth Policy and the Gallatin County did not exist as the County had not formally adopted the document; he noted it was the intent of the Growth Policy to work more closely with the County on the larger planning issues. Assistant Director Saunders added that there was an effort in 2001 by the City and County to create an agreement, but it had never been formally adopted, though the spirit of the agreement had been maintained and County involvement was a work in progress. He stated the Plan as presented did not conflict with the conceptual work the County had done to date; it encouraged infill and development within its boundaries. He noted the City was required to review and update the document every five years and if things stayed stable, the level of review currently being used might not be necessary in five years. Vice President Henyon responded to Mr. Lien that discrepancies in the document had been found and Ms. Pomnichowski had intended to discuss the language with Judge Loble, who had provided the comments Mr. Lien had presented. Assistant Director Saunders noted they wanted to be certain the City had a conforming document and the Judge’s comments would be reviewed by Staff with the City Attorney. Vice President Henyon responded to Mr. Pertzborn stating the Planning Board had agreed and moved to make the change to the Growth Policy Map that had been proposed by Mr. Pertzborn at the December meeting. Assistant Director Saunders explained the approval process for the Growth Policy, how amendments to the document could be made after it was adopted by the City Commission, and how the adoption of the document would create the necessity to amend the UDO; he noted the creation of a new zoning district or modification of an existing district would have to occur and that public comment would be encouraged at that time. He clarified that originally the map had shown the property Mr. Pertzborn was referencing as Residential and was currently Business Park. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to respond to Mr. Evans’ concerns. Assistant Director Saunders responded the amendment request had been received by the Board and they would need to consider whether the property would be best depicted as yellow or purple; the map would be amended as needed. Mr. Caldwell noted that existing zoning designations were in full effect regardless of the Future Land Use designation of the property. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that the Growth Policy would be the governing document and the City Commission could direct Staff to make modifications to the map. Vice President Henyon asked if the properties in question were raw land. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Norton property had a Plat for one section, but had vacant land for a portion of the site and noted the Loyal Garden property was Final Platted with residential construction already 55 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 5 commencing. Vice President Henyon suggested the Board review the public comment with regard to changes in proposed Land Use Designation and discuss their options at the next meeting. Mr. Mehl suggested Staff prepare the public comments in a list for consideration at the next meeting. Assistant Director Saunders agreed. Ms. Costakis stated she thought the parcel Mr. Pertzborn was referencing had been discussed and decided as Community Commercial at the December meeting. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would check the December minutes. Mr. Caldwell noted that comments had been made regarding a future zoning designation that was unknown as of yet and he thought the Planning Board should discuss those concerns at a later date. The Planning Board began review of individual chapters. Chapter 12 Mr. Becker asked if the title could be corrected on page 12-2 and suggested the dates, acres of park, miles of trails, etc. be included. Assistant Director Saunders noted the most recent 2008 data would be included. Mr. Becker stated PS-1 on page 12-3 should include “in a reliable”. The Board concurred. Mr. Becker noted the Implementation Policies included Affordable Housing and asked for clarification on how that tied in. Assistant Director Saunders explained. Mr. Becker stated Objective PS-3.3 did not make sense. Assistant Direcotr Saunders explained that the situation was that annexing a large portion of property provided a mechanism for funding the new development, but there were a few spots around town that contained small areas that did not have redevelopment or further development potential. There are still concerns such as not meeting sanitation standards, etc., and the Objective indicated the need to explore the methods by which those annexation opportunities could be investigated. Mr. Becker suggested “undevelopable, wholly developed parcels where annexation is an excessive burden, the City will pursue other alternatives.” Mr. Caldwell asked if the issue was a failed waste water treatment site where replacement would not be allowable and the property would be forced into annexation. Assistant Director Saunders agreed with Mr. Caldwell and responded it would be in the City’s best interest to annex those properties. The Board concurred that the language should be amended to be clearer. Ms. Costakis asked if on page 12-4 the language should be more specific. Assistant Director Saunders responded more specific language had been included in Implementation Policies. Ms. Costakis asked if Public Health should be included in Public Services and Facilities. Assistant Director Saunders responded that language had been included in the appendices, but had not been included so specifically within chapters 3 and 9; he suggested stronger language could be included if the Board concurred that it was necessary and noted the City-County Health Department had jurisdiction over health concerns. The Board concurred the language had already been included. Ms. Costakis suggested adding the language “safe crosswalks” to page 12-5. 56 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 6 Mr. Mehl listed the chapters for the members of the public attending the meeting. Vice President Henyon stated on page 12-2, the green box contained two references to the Transportation Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded one was in direct reference to Transit. Vice President Henyon suggested a goal be included stating “to provide for water conservation education”. Assistant Director Saunders responded efficient use of the municipal water supply had been addressed. Vice President Henyon responded his suggestion would be more specific and could be included as an objective. Assistant Director Saunders responded Implementation 63 addressed an outreach in education on water conservation and re-use; he noted the language could be added in either of two places. Mr. Mehl suggested it was included in E and mentioned in both chapters. The Board concurred. Chapter 13 Mr. Becker stated there were photographs included in the margin that referenced a number of different safety plans affecting the Growth Policy area and asked if it would be possible to assemble a list of them to overlay the Growth Policy area. Assistant Director Saunders responded the web version would take people directly to the referenced document. Mr. Becker suggested a list of those documents should be included in the chapter. Assistant Director Saunders noted in Appendix J, there was list of other plans that have occurred or are currently in place and the list could be augmented to include the other items if the location were acceptable to the Planning Board; he noted the list would also be updated. Mr. Mehl suggested including all the documents referenced. The Board concurred. Rebecca Musy, 514 S. 13th Ave., asked if there was anything in the Growth Policy discussing an avian flu epidemic. Vice President Henyon responded the hospital had a rapid response plan in case of avian flu. Ms. Musy suggested quarantine plans should be in place. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City coordinated with the City-County Health Department who had jurisdiction regarding those types of emergency situations. Mr. Mehl stated the policy was set at a much higher level and the City would cooperate with any and all entities if that situation arose. Chapter 14 Assistant Director Saunders noted a letter of public comment had been received with regard to this chapter and suggested the Planning Board discuss those comments. Mr. Becker stated he thought the chapter was fairly complete and suggested maps would be helpful to determine the relationship of the overlays. Assistant Director Saunders responded the information would be better contained within the appendix due to the level of detail involved; he noted there were many inter-local agreements in affect that did not lend themselves well for inclusion in a map. Mr. Mehl asked if the maps could be linked to the references within the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded the linked list could be inserted on page 14-3 and the photos could be removed to make space available if needed. 57 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 7 Ms. Costakis stated she did not understand the language on page 14-3, RCC-2.1. Assistant Director Saunders responded the County would enforce water/sewer services annexing into the City by requiring the property be annexed to the City or the City would have to provide a letter stating services to the location could not be provided. Ms. Costakis asked if RCC-2.3 on the same page included Complete Streets. Assistant Director Saunders responded they were included. Ms. Costakis suggested RCC-3.5 should include safe routes to school language. Mr. Caldwell responded the language was referenced in the adopted Transportation Plan. Vice President Henyon noted the safe routes to school were implied and he was unsure specific language would need to be included. Ms. Costakis suggested parks and recreation should be included on the last page of chapter 14 due to the locations that overlapped from the County to the City. The Board concurred. Vice President Henyon noted the public comment the Planning Board had received on watershed management for the surrounding forestland and recreation areas. He noted the chapter discussed the federal government and had specifically listed jurisdictional agencies. Assistant Director Saunders responded RCC-2.8 addressed the watershed issue. Chapter 15 Mr. Becker asked if a definition of “formal abandonment” would be included. Assistant Director Saunders responded he thought the definition would be that of the English language standard meaning, but could be included; he noted the Subdivision and Platting Act was a section of statute that would address formal abandonment and there would always be a point where a water right would be terminated. Mr. Becker stated on page 10-6 and 10-7 the headings were wrong and suggested the Planning Board and other advisory boards be included under subdivision review. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language had been included as such so it would not be in conflict with the Growth Policy and would be left flexible to provide for one of the three options listed. He noted for all meaningful intents and purposes, every action item on the agenda was treated as a public hearing item at City Commission. Mr. Becker suggested a box be included that subdivision applications may have to be channeled through relevant advisory boards. Assistant Director Saunders responded it could be included in the blank spot on the last page. Mr. Caldwell noted that the BOA did not exist when the 2020 Plan was created and, if that language had been included specifically, reviews by the BOA might not be an allowable option for the City Commission to utilize – he suggested leaving the language non-specific so as to not limit the review processes. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be included without specifically listing the entities. The Board concurred that the language should be included, but non-specific. Ms. Costakis stated on page 15-3, the first and second comments should include CSA’s. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was included under either the commercial or co-op language included for the Residential Suburban zoning designation. Ms. Costakis asked if the Clarion report recommendation to enhance the public health situation could be included on page 15-5 to provide for promoting active living. Assistant Director Saunders responded he could insert the language after item #1. 58 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 8 Mr. Mehl asked where figure 3 was on page 15-3 and suggested the Land Use Map the figure referenced should be included in parentheses. Mr. Caldwell asked if there were any additional authorities or missing links that Staff felt were needed and asked if remainder tracts should be addressed within the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Supreme Court recently ruled that there was no such thing as a remainder tract so it would not need to be addressed; he noted Staff felt the draft document contained the necessary text. He stated he was having difficulty finding a Lewis & Clark quote that would be appropriate. Vice President Henyon stated that on page 15-5 he was confused regarding #2 and suggested “they” seemed to be referring to the habitat instead of the animals. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was a reference to the animals and the language would be clarified. Vice President Henyon suggested skipping Chapter 16 until the rest of the Board was in attendance at the February 3, 2009 meeting. The Board concurred to open and continue Chapter 16 to the next meeting of the Planning Board. Chapter 17 Mr. Mehl asked who Heraclitus was and suggested checking the spelling of Heraclitus. Assistant Director Saunders responded he was a Greek philosopher and he would confirm the spelling. Mr. Caldwell suggested the Clarion report was clear on the amendment process and he thought the amendments proposed during the update process received only a “head nod” from the Board; he suggested the amendments be bundled and reviewed on a regular basis. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had suggested the GPA’s be bundled and reviewed at the same time, but it would be up to the City Commission to decide the review process. Mr. Caldwell suggested it would rub people the wrong way to be told to bring their amendments back when the annual review was scheduled. Vice President Henyon stated he agreed with Mr. Caldwell and added that when a project had merit, it would benefit the community to individually review and expedite the review process. Mr. Quinn added that he thought, when an amendment was necessary for a project, it should be dealt with as a particular recommendation from Staff as a formal individual presentation for approval. Mr. Mehl stated the language should be explicit that all other changes besides Future Urban & Suburban Residential did not have the same review process; he suggested a short sentence be included addressing all other applications be presented through the formal review process. Mr. Becker suggested the break down between the substantial majority and simple majority for adoption of the Growth Policy should be clarified to prevent future legal difficulties. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be modified to be more consistent; #4 could be stricken and the decision would fall back to the majority of the total membership of the Commission. Mr. Quinn responded he thought it would be adequate to use the 2/3 majority rule for the proposed amendments to remain consistent. Mr. Becker suggested the ¾ majority rule be 59 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 9 instituted. Mr. Mehl concurred with Mr. Becker that the first number should be increased to allow for the ¾ majority rule. Assistant Director Saunders responded the higher number at the beginning would necessitate a discussion with the City Attorney regarding State statutes. Vice President Henyon stated he liked the way it was written right now. Mr. Quinn stated there was a potential conflict of interest if the City Commission initiated an amendment and then reviewed the same amendment for approval. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a specific statute that directed the Planning Board to prepare a Growth Policy for City Commission review and there would be no conflict. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Caldwell noted he would like to speak to the Planning Board some time in the future about the Urban Land Institute’s conducting of the plan for the downtown district of Bozeman. He noted it was a departure from the way the Growth Policy was created; he noted they were impressed with the project team. Ms. Costakis noted she and Chris were going to the Smart Growth conference. Vice President Henyon suggested Mr. Evans and Mr. Pertzborn’s proposed map amendments be discussed at the February 3, 2009 meeting of the Planning Board. Mr. Becker suggested the Board determine a process (such as a fee waiver) to provide as an alternative at the next meeting. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, Vice President Henyon adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Eric Henyon, Vice President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 60 1 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Cathy Costakis Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Chris Mehl Bill Quinn Erik Henyon Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Donna Swarthout Dawn Smith Members Absent: Guests Present: Chris Nixon Tom Stonecipher Kathie Callahan Lucy Pope Bob Swinth Pat Martin Natalie Meyer Sam McColly Steve Ziegler Brett Ferre Hjalmar Bombeck Jessica Wilkerson Landy Figueroa Erica Paradise Wren Kilian Bade Mike Kvasnick Charles Petrie ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing no public comment forthcoming, Vice President Henyon closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 61 2 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2009 Ms. Costakis stated on page 3 it wasn’t clear if it was the Downtown Neighborhood Plan to which Assistant Director Saunders was referencing and suggested the language “Downtown” be included. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to approve the minutes of January 21, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT GROWTH POLICY 1. Outstanding comments Assistant Director Saunders noted a memo had been provided to the Board that was a summary of items not yet discussed or ones that remained unresolved. He noted the most recently received public comments had been provided to the Board. Vice President Henyon stated the Board would review the outstanding comments one at a time. Chapter 4 Assistant Director Saunders noted the reference to people powered vehicles instead of just motor vehicles had been included, the statement had been changed to an action item in C-3.4 and the possibility of a definition of “form based zoning” had been provided. Mr. Quinn added that on Objective C-2.1 a minor change would have sufficed and the proposed was too wordy; he suggested the language “human powered” should be removed. Mr. Caldwell responded the intent was to include bicycle use in the document when people thought about subdivision design. Mr. Sypinski responded he agreed with Mr. Caldwell that the intent was to include bicyclists and expand the definition. Ms. Swarthout stated she was fine with all of the revisions as provided in the document. Vice President Henyon stated he saw no problems with the language in chapter 4 as proposed by Staff. Mr. Quinn stated a definition of “form based zoning” should be included in the glossary. Vice President Henyon concurred with Mr. Quinn. Mr. Mehl suggested the definition of “zoning” be included in the glossary. Mr. Caldwell noted zoning had been around for quite a while and property had been bought and sold with that understanding, unlike form based zoning which was newer, and he disagreed that there should be more definitions included. Mr. Sypinski stated zoning was partially defined in the beginning of the document. Mr. Mehl concurred that it would not be necessary to include the definition of zoning. Mr. Sypinski asked for the definitions of “designated” or “dedicated” parks to be included in the glossary. Assistant Director Saunders responded he did not think the definition would need to be included as it had been addressed in the PROST Plan; a document more fitted for that purpose. The Board concurred that the definition of “form based zoning” should be included, but agreed that neither “zoning”, nor “dedicated” & “designated” definitions would be necessary. 62 3 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. Chapter 8 Assistant Director Saunders noted the current chapter 8 would be replaced in the Spring when Prospera had completed the final Bozeman Economic Development Plan; he noted Prospera had agreed to make the 2007 Economic Profile document available to the public at the Planning Office, but were not amenable to making the document available online. He stated the educational factor addressed in the previous Planning Board meeting had not been resolved with Prospera and Staff recommended approval of the chapter as presented, though clarity of whether education had been included in the study would be pursued. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Planning Board had previously discussed relocation of some of the paragraphs of the chapter for clarification. Ms. Swarthout stated she thought the Board had agreed not to change the order of the paragraphs. Mr. Quinn stated he thought the idea behind the plan was to promote and facilitate the language in the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Growth Policy was similar to a facility plan in that there was a broad scope it would cover, as with most facility plans. Mr. Quinn suggested the City might be seen as right more often if they didn’t pronounce the negative in the language of the document. Vice President Henyon noted he agreed with Mr. Quinn and his notes reflected that the two final paragraphs should be removed and the focuses should be on the positive with the negative spin being removed. He noted he was disappointed that the Draft Prospera document was not hot- linked to the City website; he thought it should be available on line. Mr. Mehl responded the profile was developed before the City contracted Propspera’s services and the Economic Plan was what they were contracted for; he noted linking might be proprietary though he agreed that it was disappointing. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Final document would be available through the City website. The Board concurred the economic language should be removed (last two paragraphs). Chapter 9 Assistant Director Saunders noted language had been included to address the timing of traffic lights in conjunction with air quality and read a quote that could be added into the end of the chapter that would fit well; Henry David Thoreau, “What is the point of a house if you haven’t got a decent world to put it on.” He also noted Ms. Costakis had shown him a possible quote if the Board wished to review it. Mr. Mehl suggested the air quality language be included in chapter 11 instead of both chapters as it seemed more appropriate. Vice President Henyon responded he liked the location in chapter 9 as he had noticeably seen the air quality in Bozeman go down year after year and the theme should be included as a way to cut down air pollution. Mr. Mehl suggested those comments could be combined and located in chapter 9 instead of chapter 11. Ms. Smith asked if timed signalization was included in the Transportation Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was addressed in the Transportation Plan Update. Mr. Caldwell added that it was addressed from more of an Engineering perspective, but was well addressed within the Transportation Plan. Mr. Quinn suggested the pollution was caused by emissions from sitting for long periods of time with regard to delays. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be included in either 63 4 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. chapter. The Board concurred the language could be combined and located in Chapter 9. Chapter 14 Assistant Director Saunders responded the wording regarding annexation had been modified per the Board’s request. The Board concurred the language as presented by Staff should be included. Assistant Director Saunders stated that rather than jamming the many inter-local agreements into the chapter as he was unable to fit them all into the available space, inter-local agreements included in a new appendix M. Chapter 15 Assistant Director Saunders noted statutory subdivision language had been provided to the Board with regard to water rights and asked the Board to consider whether or not the definition of formal abandonment should be included in the glossary. Mr. Caldwell stated he did not think the definition should be included as the repercussions were what mattered. Mr. Mehl asked Mr. Caldwell why he would include many other definitions, but not what members of the public were seeking to define. Mr. Caldwell responded the legalities of the definition should be distinct at a higher level. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders if the City Attorney had discussed Judge Lobel’s recommendation for water right language. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff and the City Attorney had not yet concluded discussion of the matter. Mr. Sypinski stated, as a controlling document, certain perspectives should be defined and he thought the definition should be included. Ms. Smith responded the language included “in accordance with Montana law” and stated she agreed with Mr. Caldwell that the language should not be added to the glossary. Mr. Quinn suggested the opinion of the City Attorney would be necessary so as not to define the term more or differently than State law. Vice President Henyon stated he agreed with Mr. Quinn, Mr. Caldwell, and Ms. Smith due to the recent water right issues and added that he thought the reference to Montana Code would be sufficient. Mr. Becker stated the first four lines of the definition were fine and suggested the rest of the wording should be removed. Mr. Caldwell responded the public comments were not ignored; water right language had been included. He asked how the discussion had originally come about. Assistant Director Saunders explained the last discussion and that the definition would be a way to clarify for members of the public. Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Becker thought the definition should be included; the majority of the Board concurred that the definition of “formal abandonment” should not be included. Chapter 17 Mr. Caldwell apologized to the Board regarding his previous discussions about Growth policy designations. He stated the rational was valid for the intent of Future Urban versus projects within existing annexation boundaries who were requesting a change in Land Use Designation; he suggested the language as proposed by Staff would be important. He noted the ¾ majority would also be important to provide for changing City Commission members over time. Mr. Sypinski asked Mr. Caldwell for clarification on whether or not he would like to see GPA’s bundled and 64 5 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. reviewed at once. Mr. Caldwell responded the bundled requests would be processed by the Planning Department unless it was for the Future Urban Land Use Designation which would be reviewed individually. Mr. Sypinski stated he agreed with Mr. Caldwell with regard to the language and the ¾ majority vote. Assistant Director Saunders responded the bundling had been suggested in the previous document but no implementing direction had been given by the City Commission. There should be clarity that Future Urban to and Urban change would be decided through the formal public review process. He stated there was no difference between 2/3 and ¾ with the current five member City Commission but the number of Commissioners could change. The Board concurred the GPA’s should be bundled and the ¾ majority should apply. Land Use Map Assistant Director Saunders noted there were two areas shown in the present 2020 map as Neighborhood Commercial at Stevens Street/19th Avenue/Oak Street and Staff had suggested a Community Commercial Mixed-Use designation in place of the Business Park Mixed Use shown on the current draft of Figure 3-1. He noted there was a drafting error that should have depicted the Residential boundary following Sourdough Road at Kagy Blvd. and Sourdough Rd.. He noted there was sliver showing parks and open space with a heavily wetland area north of Main Street that was found not to contain wetlands; he noted Staff suggested giving it an Industrial designation. Mr. Caldwell stated he agreed that the Growth Policy should reflect the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan and suggested the plan should be included. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan was more specific than the language within the Growth Policy. It is important to prevent any conflict between the two documents; he stated he saw no conflicts within the language of either plan as presented. The Board concurred the changes should be made. Vice President Henyon opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Chris Nixon, 719 N. Wallace Ave., suggested the triangle last discussed (wetland area north of Main Street) should not be modified and though today it may not be wet, there had historically been a stream in that location. He noted the hard-scapes that would be included in the hospital development would cause water to travel to the lower elevations. He stated he thought another color should be added to the map to address Historic Mixed Use as it appeared as Industrial; he suggested different shadings of the same color for each type of zoning on the map. He suggested wetlands were important and a great deal of them had been lost in the state. He stated overall he thought the proposed document was a great improvement to the existing one. Lucille Pope, Alliance for Building Communities, stated in chapter 16 the Implementation Policies #35, #37, and #39 needed to be addressed; she suggested in year one affordable housing should be dealt with. She thanked the Board for including a new objective for affordable housing, but thought there were no implementation strategies specifically for the new objective. Ted Lang, GVLT, 25 N. Willson Ave., stated they liked the proposed Growth Policy and it reflected GVLT’s goals. He suggested one of the most challenging goals would be to support and integrate agricultural uses within the valley; he suggested an amendment to include 91e for the 65 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. Future Urban area and the coordination of the County in an open public process to identify agricultural lands within the Growth Policy Area. He provided the Board with a copy of the language he would like included. Steve Ziegler, 2531 White Tail Rd., commended the Planning Board on the Future Urban definition and the promotion of in-fill development. He stated he had provided public comment regarding natural amenities and the surrounding mountains being overdeveloped. He stated outdoor amenities and view sheds were very important and those things should be preserved; he noted other cities did not have those opportunities. He noted people would rather live in Bozeman than Tucson because those amenities had been preserved here. He stated a lot of the Future Urban boundary had been expanded and now covered his property. He encouraged the Board to detour development outside of the City and to modify the map as it did not reflect the “sense of place” language of the document. He suggested the area nearest the Bridger Mountains be preserved and the growth pushed away from that direction. He suggested Bozeman develop more like Boulder Colorado so the land would have only low impact development (not urban sprawl, he clarified) and be worth more money. He stated he would like the Future Urban boundary to be reduced to exclude the area in question, but would like to see a Rural Suburban residential area. He suggested a Conservation Open Space buffer around the City. Pat Martin, 2771 Deer Creek Dr., stated he concurred with Mr. Ziegler’s comments. He stated he encouraged the Board to review the public comment and consider that if the City wants to pursue development in a view shed area on a slope there should be a different zoning designation to address those locations. He stated the lowest density opportunity the city had was too high a density for areas within view sheds. He stated the County had development right proposals that were categorized with sending and receiving areas in the County Plan and the City should be active in working with the County on the subject of making the view shed a sending area rather than a receiving area. He stated he appreciated the Board’s time and efforts in the creation of the document. Charles Petrie, 635 Deer Creek Dr., stated he agreed with Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Martin’s comments as there were areas of the City that it was not appropriate to have high density development. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to address public comments received at the evening’s meeting. Assistant Director Saunders noted that in response to Mr. Nixon’s statements the City had a standard for all storm water to be dealt with on-site. He noted at this point the City and the Federal Government had wetland regulations in place to protect them despite the color and location on the Growth Policy Map. He stated there was potential for open space uses in the northeast part of town. He noted he had spoken with the Corp of Engineers, who was keeping an eye on wetland activities, and permits would be required for any alterations to the wetlands in those areas. He noted there was a blend of residential and nonresidential activities in that area; he noted the Growth Policy was not a Zoning Ordinance and sites would be reviewed independently based on the zoning designation for review at a finer degree of detail. He stated Staff would not want to create separate categories for each zoning district. Mr. Mehl asked if the City had been in discussions with regard to acquiring lands for open space. Assistant Director Saunders responded it had been discussed, but the acquisition had never come into fruition; 66 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. though it could be obtained in the future. Mr. Caldwell stated there was a mixed signal sent to the residents in the area when residential use was not reflected in the Future Land Use designation, though he understood how the zoning designation worked; he suggested including Mixed Use Residential for the dual citizenship of that area. Ms. Smith asked if the HMU district was addressed in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Assistant Director Saunders responded NEHMU was a separate zoning designation that was located within the Conservation Overlay District. Ms. Smith noted HMU was important enough to have its own zoning and the zoning designation would be sufficient. Vice President Henyon stated he agreed with Ms. Smith that the zoning designation addressed the specific uses in the area; he stated he would like to see the underlying land use stay blue. Mr. Sypinski stated he thought the Board should be careful how specific the Land Use Map was with reference to zoning designations. Mr. Caldwell stated the request was to keep the Growth Policy Map in concert with the zoning designations. Ms. Smith noted that the table C-16 for the NEHMU contained all of the necessary information as proposed. The Board concurred the map should be approved as proposed. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to respond to Ms. Pope’s concerns. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City had a limited ability to identify specifics to encourage employment and education though it was generally included in the document; he added he would know more when the Economic Plan was completed by Prospera. Ms. Swarthout stated that Ms. Pope’s concerns with regard to implementation policies for affordable housing were valid; she suggested the Board should remove the education language or the City should make the commitment and include the language in chapter 16. Vice President Henyon stated one of the key things for Bozeman would be to create a work force at different levels so people can afford to live here; he noted he was hoping Prospera was coming up with plans for trade facilities, votech training, etc. and noted the goal should remain but implementation policies should be included. Assistant Director Saunders listed the implementation policies pertinent to the goal that could be added. He noted some of the decisions were made by the Board of Regents and the City had limited ability to make those proposals available. Ms. Swarthout suggested a beefed up implementation policy to match Objective 3.4. Assistant Director Saunders suggested adding it as an action item under Implementation Policy 49. Mr. Caldwell stated the effectiveness of including it in the Growth Policy might be enough to lobby the Board of Regents to provide a votech school in Bozeman. Mr. Mehl stated the Propsera Plan would come through the Planning Board for review and those polled had concerns with affordable housing and education. The Board concurred an item F should be included, the implementation policies would be beefed up, and implementation policy #49 would be included. Ms. Swarthout suggested the language “Support efforts to expand the range of online evening, weekend, and other educational offerings for residents who seek to increase their earning potential. The Board concurred that Mr. Lang and Gallatin Valley Land Trust’s suggested language would be included. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to address Mr. Ziegler, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Petrie’s comments. Assistant Director Saunders directed the Board and public’s attention to the jurisdictional map for the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County. He noted the Growth Policy boundary was a coordinated boundary between the City and County to help evaluate the future 67 8 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. needs of the City. He stated the areas filled in green on Figure 3-1 were light green for conservation easements and dark green for public owned state lands; he noted the Board had sanctioned and continued the policy that the City wanted to prevent Urban Sprawl and remain compact. He noted the future housing projections were depicted in tan and yellow colors and there was a significant portion of the planning area that would not be needed for urban housing; he added that Gallatin County had jurisdiction over that area until such a time as it was annexed into the City. He noted the City’s expectation was that no facilities would be included near Churn Creek due to the difficulty in extending those services; he added the City was not in a position to purchase the land for a conservation easement or extend lines to those areas at this time and did not foresee that need in the next 20 years, but would be happy to coordinate with the County to preserve view sheds. He reiterated that the City would not encourage development in locations where it was not feasible to extend services; he suggested the inclusion of the language that would allow for reassessment of those locations within the County but within the Growth Policy area. Mr. Caldwell added that the City could not afford to buy a conservation easement around Bozeman, but a difficult review process could be required to ensure those locations are preserved. He suggested a disservice would be done if the view sheds were not included in the Growth Policy to provide for review processes in the future. He agreed that the amendment process and the definition of future urban should be linked. Mr. Quinn agreed that the definition should be strengthened as Staff proposed. Pat Martin, stated he appreciated the discussion, but wanted to know if the best the City could do in 2009 was for Urban density or not. He asked the Board to address the Bridger Bench and its preservation. He stated the alternative was the Autumn Ridge decision to limit density to the amount of water that can support the development; he suggested removing the Bridger Bench from the Growth Policy area. Steve Ziegler, stated the boundary could increase in any direction, but a different color could be included to address the intent the City has for the land. Ms. Smith asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify R-S zoning. Assistant Director Saunders clarified it had a maximum density of one unit per acre. Ms. Smith noted the Growth Policy was not attempting to establish an urban zoning designation on the property in question and did not dictate any kind of per acre calculation. Mr. Caldwell responded the Future Urban designation required that it must be proven through an application process that the property is fit for development. Assistant Director Saunders added that the Board had consensus that they would not like to see the Bridger Bench developed at high densities. Ms. Costakis encouraged Mr. Ziegler, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Petrie to submit their comments to the County. The Board concurred that the map should remain Future Urban and should encompass that location as proposed. Vice President Henyon asked the Board to address the Norton property Land Use designation to Business Park or Community Commercial. Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of the site on the Land Use Map. Ms. Costakis asked why Staff did not want the designation to be Community Commercial. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff did not want commercial development on all of the major corridors through the City and there was already a slight excess 68 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. of Community Commercial within the City. Tom Stonecipher, 1705 W. College St., clarified that the request was to change the designation from Business Park to Community Commercial. He noted the background of the property and explained that Norton had spent a lot of money and the original reason for the designation from Business Park to Residential Emphasis Mixed Use was lost. He stated he did not understand the rationale of the designation and thought it was an attempt at a transition zone. He noted the owner did not want the Business Park designation and summarized that he had difficulty with the idea that Bozeman had enough Community Commercial. Mr. Mehl asked what the owner had wanted to do that they couldn’t do. Mr. Stonecipher responded all their neighbors were Community Commercial and there would be a different list of uses on the Norton’s 20 acre parcel. Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of what use the owner intended that would not be allowed with a Business Park designation. Mr. Stonecipher could not specifically state the use the owner intended and responded the uses would just be different than what the owner had expected. Mr. Caldwell stated the rationale for not having residential emphasis was reasonable and the Growth Policy attempted to discourage commercial development along Huffine Lane. Mr. Becker noted the Commission had determined that commercial development should be located along Cottonwood Road instead of along Huffine Lane and after three hearings the Commission had made it clear that they did not want to see commercial development located only along Huffine Lane; he suggested the Board continue to uphold the decisions of the City of Bozeman. Assistant Director Saunders concurred with Mr. Becker and suggested that, if the Board agrees, the designation could be put back to Business Park which is what is shown on the present Land Use Map for the existing 2020 Plan. Ms. Smith stated the Board had decided at a previous meeting that the Community Commercial designation should terminate before the Norton property. Ms. Costakis noted it was interesting that there were only a few areas depicted as yellow on the map and it was not a pervasive designation; she added she thought the Residential Mixed Use designation was a wave of the future. Mr. Quinn stated he was supportive of the Business Park designation but would not support Community Commercial. Mr. Sypinski stated his recollection of previous discussions for the property did not include anything other than Residential Mixed Use and he saw no reason to change it do Business Park. The majority of the Board decided the Residential Mixed Use designation should remain as proposed for the property. Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of Mr. Pertzborn’s request for a change in Growth Policy Designation from Business Park to Community Commercial. Ms. Swarthout responded she had been supportive of the requested change. Ms. Smith concurred. Mr. Caldwell responded he saw the rationale for Community Commercial. The Board concurred the property should be designated as Community Commercial. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Ms. Swarthout seconded, to close the public hearing and continue further discussion to the next meeting of the Board. The motion carried 8-1. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski. 69 10 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009. 2. Chapter 16 (Continued from 1/21/09.) Continued to next meeting. ITEM 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Caldwell expressed interest in being the President. Mr. Sypinski agreed. Ms. Smith nominated Mr. Mehl. Mr. Mehl declined the nomination and seconded Mr. Caldwell’s nomination. Vice President Henyon stated he would be interested in remaining Vice President. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Costakis seconded to elect Mr. Caldwell as President. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Costakis seconded to re-elect Mr. Henyon as Vice President. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business forthcoming. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, Vice President Henyon adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 70 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009. 1 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:19 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Cathy Costakis Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Quinn Erik Henyon Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Members Absent: Guests Present: Donna Swarthout Lucille Pope Dawn Smith Chris Mehl ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2009 MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of February 3, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Henyon, Mr. Quinn, and Vice President Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF DRAFT GROWTH POLICY 1. Outstanding comments Assistant Director Saunders presented public comment that had been submitted timely but the PB had not previously received. He noted suggestions for language in five locations from Prospera and added Staff was supportive of the recommended changes. The Planning Board concurred that the language recommended by Prospera should be included. Assistant Director Saunders noted the agriculture water facility language had been reviewed by 71 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009. 2 the City Attorney and had been found to be accurate and in keeping with State statute. President Caldwell clarified that the language would reflect the public comment received with regard to water rights references within the document. Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of a parcel designated as Future Urban that was requesting a change in Land Use Designation. He noted there had been discussion regarding the re-designation of some properties to residential and noted this situation was similar. Vice President Sypinski asked if the application were considered what the boundaries of the reclassification would be. Assistant Director Saunders clarified and noted it was separated from the City by a considerable amount of property that was currently outside of City limits. Mr. Quinn noted that an applicant had come forward to ask for annexation of the property in the past and the Planning Board had been opposed to that request as it would have been a checkerboard annexation and not contiguous to the City. He noted the proposal had been within the last 18 months and had encountered strong opposition from the community; he stated he thought the Future Urban designation would be the best for that location. President Caldwell asked the Board if anyone thought the Future Urban designation for the property should be modified. Mr. Henyon asked if it had already been categorized as residential, why couldn’t residential be located closer to the City. Assistant Director Saunders responded the existing designation existed in that location to identify the residential development that had been in that location for many years. The Board concurred that the parcel should remain Future Urban. Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of the parcels owned by Northwood Land & Livestock that had requested a change in Land Use Designation to a commercial designation. He noted Staff had recommended the draft designation currently proposed and was not in favor of changing the parcel to a commercial designation. Mr. Becker asked what businesses were located there. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Motor Vehicle Division and Microtel Inn & Suites were both located in that area. President Caldwell noted there was a fairly limited amount of viable M-1 properties within the City limits and asked where cars would get repaired if they were all turned into commercial designations. Mr. Quinn asked if all of the lots being reviewed were within the City boundaries. Assistant Director Saunders responded that all of the lots were within the City; he clarified that there was an abundance of places for commercial uses and not as many for industrial uses. Vice President Sypinski asked if the setback requirements in the Entryway Corridor would change if Northwood Land & Livestock were given the commercial designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded, in this instance, the setback requirements would not be affected. Mr. Henyon stated he did not know the percentage of how much industrial use had been lost with the Story Mill Neighborhood proposal, but he thought M-1 would be needed for future industrial development as it was limited; he noted his concern was that the owner would not be able to put a business into an industrial zoning. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a large list of allowable uses within the industrial zoning designations. Mr. Becker asked if the letter was asking something that the Board should not discuss as it was a setback issue; he asked why the parcels in question would be tied to the setback requirements on 7th Avenue. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that it was two separate requests. Mr. Becker suggested the proposed change 72 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009. 3 should be made in a formal application for a Zone Map Amendment after the Community Plan was adopted. President Caldwell noted there were a number of opportunities within the Growth Policy to review the Entryway Corridors and those requirements. The Board concurred that the property should remain industrial. Assistant Director Saunders noted the one unresolved public comment that remained was from Mr. Delaney and the property in question was north of East Main Street. He noted Staff had recommended an industrial land use designation on a portion of the property in question and there was a wetlands mitigation site in the adjacent area. He noted the City was allowed to do more than the minimum requirement and spoke to the fact that the Charter stated it was the City’s choice to determine the degree of the correlation between zoning and planning. He noted the property was currently zoned a combination of M-1 and B-2, but the Army Corp of Engineers had taken jurisdiction of the wetland area and noted they had not seemed supportive of development of the area as it would affect other wetland areas. Assistant Director Saunders noted Staff had determined that a large portion of the request was not within a wetland area and the property as a whole would still have a significant developable area. He noted Staff was supportive of changing the portion outside of the wetland area to what had been requested. Vice President Sypinski asked if there was anything being developed on the site currently. Assistant Director Saunders responded MT Rail Link and MT Pole were both developing in the area but nothing had been approved on the portion of area under discussion. Mr. Henyon clarified that the part of the request south of the Village Downtown was within M-1 and B-2 zoning designations. Assistant Director Saunders responded he was correct. Mr. Henyon asked if the area had been platted. Assistant Director Saunders responded a portion of the site had a plat, but there had not yet been development proposed for the rest of the site. Mr. Quinn asked if the M-1 zoning had been included in one of Delaney’s earlier applications that had contained parkland in the wetland area. Assistant Director Saunders responded Mr. Delaney could retain the wetland and other developers could purchase it for cash-in-lieu of parkland. President Caldwell asked how the Land Use Map would be affected if a road network had to go through the wetland (such as the future extension of Highland Boulevard). Assistant Director Saunders responded that a bridge would have to be built or land would need to be purchased and the wetland would have to be filled to provide for the road; he noted a road there would have little value for immediate local access due to the necessary curvature and as it would be elevated either through fill or the construction of a bridge. Vice President Sypinksi noted he would need to leave for an appointment and stated he would prefer to see both parcels remain wetlands but would concede that he could see the reason behind the owner’s request. Ms. Costakis suggested she would like to see the properties remain wetlands but was concerned that she should abstain as she owned property within the Village Downtown. President Caldwell responded there seemed to unresolved issues with the Army Corp of Engineers and the viability of the wetlands would be beyond the information provided to the Board; he stated he was supportive of Staff’s recommendations and that the map stays as depicted. Mr. Henyon concurred with President Caldwell that the property should remain as Staff proposed; he noted the wetland was partly a result of grading and had occurred due to the 73 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009. 4 topography of the area and the developed areas owned by the MT Rail Link; he noted he would like to see the Highland Boulevard connectivity though he did not necessarily believe the “wetland” was a true wetland area. Mr. Quinn stated he believed the land had value regardless of whether it was designated park and open space, especially if it were eventually used for a right of way, though he did not want to add parks and open spaces through the back door; he suggested honoring what was proposed by Staff for the benefit of the City. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that there were several ways to draw value from the property. President Caldwell noted the City would not require the existing zoning be changed on any property and stated he thought the designation should remain as proposed by Staff. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City could undertake a zoning change if they thought it was in the best interest of the City and the ordinance provided that neither land use designation nor zoning designations were “takings” unless the property was rendered valueless. Assistant Director Saunders noted specific analysis would need to be done on a site to site basis, though he did not think a “takings” would occur if the color on the map went forward as proposed. The Board concurred (with Ms. Costakis abstaining) that the map should remain as proposed by Staff. (North of railroad to revert to industrial and the balance to remain as depicted.) 2. Chapter 16 (Continued from 2/3/09.) Assistant Director Chris Saunders stated he had received an e-mail from Ms. Swarthout regarding the education section of the Growth Policy and the addition of an action item under Implementation Policy #49 and noted Staff had no objections to the proposed language. President Caldwell stated his personal objective was to forward a recommendation of approval for the Draft Growth Policy to the City Commission with Staff and Planning Board comments. President Caldwell called for public comment. Lucille Pope, Alliance for Building Communities, noted comments she had made at another meeting regarding time frames of implementation policies for the Affordable Housing language (35, 37, and 39). President Caldwell called for questions or revisions from the Board regarding Chapter 16. Mr. Henyon stated he was not supportive of the word “ensure” being used in Affordable Housing language as people would need to qualify and apply for that type of housing and suggested “ensure” be replaced with “for”. He stated on page 16-11 under Economic Development, “reducing the costs of locating businesses within City limits to make it easier for businesses to locate within the City” or including incentives (such as grants, revolving loans, parkland credits, etc.) should be included. Assistant Director Saunders suggested “e” could be expanded or “g” could be added under #49 to include the language Mr. Henyon had suggested. President Caldwell added that the chapter Prospera was preparing would more specifically address Mr. Henyon’s concerns and the Board could discuss it at that time. Mr. Henyon stated that under Chapter 11 there should be an action item to provide for the timing of traffic lights and it should have a priority. Assistant Director Saunders suggested it could be a lettered item under #45. The Board concurred that the word “ensure” could be changed to “promote” in item #38. The Board 74 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009. 5 concurred that item #49 should include an action item as a place holder to encourage businesses to locate within the City limits until the updated economic development plan and chapter had been completed. The Board concurred the timing of traffic lights should be included in Chapter 11. Mr. Quinn stated on page 16-9, #35, the priority should be moved up to one or two years after the plan’s adoption to provide for manufactured housing. He stated he had no further comments. The Board concurred the increase in priority for affordable housing should be included. Ms. Costakis stated she saw nothing regarding adopting a Complete Streets Policy and asked if one would ever be adopted. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language had been included in the document on page 4-4 as well as in other locations within the document and would be adopted when the Commission adopted the draft document. Ms. Costakis stated her concern was that it should not be an implementation policy. President Caldwell stated he thought it was a recognized term but it should be included as a clearly stated action item. Assistant Director Saunders responded it could be added in #74 as an action item. The Board concurred that the language should be included in item #74 as an action item. Ms. Costakis asked if the incentives for historic preservation could be included for sustainability features. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City would not require certification for sustainability features but would encourage those features; he suggested the City should not reinvent the wheel and LEED certification and other programs had been provided for those types of development. He stated they were looking at a pilot program with Greater Yellowstone Partnership for the City as a whole with regard to sustainability that would be a potential option and noted that E-3.2 included some of the recommended language. Mr. Henyon stated contractors are required by the State to be licensed through the State and he thought as a business owner that those businesses would use sustainability as a marketing technique; he noted he was hesitant to add specific language without giving local businesses the opportunity to comment. The Board concurred that sustainability features should be rewarded through recognition just as historic preservation had been addressed. Ms. Costakis suggested the same steps for sustainability had not been achieved and suggested the promotion and recognition of those practices. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be included in objective #12. The Board concurred that a clear action item should be included in objective #12 to address sustainability (President Caldwell suggested a program like Green Blocks in Missoula or Northwestern Energy Incentives). Ms. Costakis stated “form based zoning” showed up in the document and she was unclear what the City would do with “form based zoning”. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City did not know until they had completed investigations regarding how much “form based zoning” the City would need. Mr. Henyon added that he thought it should be up to the contractor to receive certifications in LEED or Preservation, to construct under those requirements, and to market them as such so he disagreed with including the language more specifically in the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be an informational and promotional statement only and there 75 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009. 6 would be no certification requirements mandated through the City. Mr. Quinn agreed with Assistant Director Saunders that the language should be geared toward education and promotion of sustainability. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Henyon seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Draft Bozeman Community Plan in it’s entirety with agreed upon Planning Board edits. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Henyon, Mr. Quinn, and Vice President Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Henyon stated he would be unable to attend the TCC meetings as an alternate to President Caldwell and asked if any other member would like to volunteer for the position. President Caldwell stated he would do his best to attend the TCC meetings and negate the need for a new alternate if Mr. Henyon would remain in the position. President Caldwell stated he thought it would be important as an advisory board to the City Commission to check into adoption of the document and suggested the Board meet with the City Commission to have a dialog over the Draft Community Plan. Mr. Becker suggested the Board attend a policy meeting at noon on a Thursday and added that the contracting market made planning issues more serious and there would be implications that should be addressed. Mr. Quinn suggested it would also be important for both entities to understand each other. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 76