Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 4163, Bozeman Community Plan Discussion Report compiled on April 7, 2009 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Bozeman Community Plan MEETING DATE: Monday, April 27, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the Bozeman Community Plan with the Planning Board prior to the next public hearing on May 11th. 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 City Commission conducted a public hearing on April 13, 2009. At that time several questions were asked and the Commission expressed a desire to meet with the Planning Board. This meeting will occur and a follow-up public hearing will occur on May 11th for any actions the City Commission wishes to take. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Items raised by public comment at the last public hearing. No action is to be taken at this meeting. FISCAL EFFECTS: No immediate or direct fiscal effects are expected. 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 Attachments: Memo on zoning/growth policy match 89 planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: Bozeman City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director RE: Bozeman Community Plan data request DATE: April 22, 2009 MEETING DATE: April 27, 2009 The City Commission has requested a list of locations where the City’s draft growth policy and existing zoning map may be in conflict. The list below lists 1) growth policy designation on Figure 3-1 as recommended by the Planning Board, 2) zoning designation as shown on the most recent zoning map, 3) nature of the conflict, and 4) whether the conflict predated the draft Bozeman Community Plan. Also included is a small map of the area. No analysis was done for conflicts with zoning enacted by Gallatin County on non-municipal areas. The zoning district’s boundaries are shown with blue outlines and the standard letter and number designations. A number is provided where there is more than one item on a single map. The majority of conflicts are caused by changes to the growth policy to increase possible development intensity. Others reflect previous changes in land use designations where subsequent zoning amendments are not yet completed. Changes in overall policy and consideration of how best to grow in the community also generate some of the mismatches. The Future Land Use Map, Figure 3-1, is not expected to be as precise as the zoning map because it is often depicting areas where lot lines are not yet determined. Long range planning is by its nature of looking to the future unable to show the same precision as specific proposals as happens with the zoning map. Zoning is typically placed along boundaries of individual lots, centerlines of streets, or similar boundaries. A table showing the expected match between land use designations from the growth policy and zoning districts is Table C-16 on page 17 of Appendix C. Conflicts can be resolved by either a change to the growth policy map or a change to the zoning map. The City Commission has authority to direct a change to either map. State law is clear that zoning must be made in accordance with a growth policy. 90 planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP 1 Residential emphasis mixed use/Residential BP The zoning district is larger than the approved planning area. Yes 1 Residential emphasis mixed use BP Change from Business Park planning designation to Residential Emphasis Mixed use is less intensive No 2 Community Commercial Mixed Use R-O Owner requested change from Residential. New planning designation is more intensive than the zoning designation. No 3 Community Commercial Mixed Use BP Change from Business Park – Reflects other prior amendments and actual land use. Actual land use on portions did not conform to BP standards, GP is more intensive than the zoning district Yes/No 4 Community Commercial Mixed Use BP Planning Designation is more intensive than the zoning designation. Area around the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane 1 2 3 4 91 Page 3 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP Community Commercial Mixed Use B-1/PLI The platted and zoned location is out of alignment with the growth policy map Yes Laurel Glen area north of Durston Rd 92 Page 4 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP 1 Public Institutions R-1/R-3 The new Chief Joseph Middle School. The Public Institutions recognizes the existing use. Although schools are allowed. for parcels of this size the City typically tries to use PLI zoning Yes 2 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use B-2 Existing development is primarily residential in nature. The new designation is more consistent with actual development than the previous community commercial designation. No 3 Residential B-2 The Baxter Meadows PUD showed this area as residential in nature. Prior conversation with the owner indicated a desire to reduce the commercial core area. Yes Baxter Meadows Area 1 2 3 93 Page 5 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP 1 Community Commercial Mixed use R-O New lands use designation is more intensive than the zoning. Change requested by owner’s representative No N 27th and Valley Center area 1 94 Page 6 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP 1 Community Commercial Mixed use BP Growth policy designation is more intensive than the zoning. Yes Bozeman Gateway area 1 95 Page 7 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP 1 Community Commercial Mixed use RS Lands use designation is more intensive than the zoning. The Sundance Springs PUD approved commercial uses on the lots shown in pink in the 90s, however the zoning was never changed to match. Yes Goldenstein Lane and S. 3rd Avenue intersection 96 Page 8 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP 1 Community Commercial Mixed use RS The hospital subarea plan was approved with a more organic boundary for the community commercial mixed use area. The RS/B-2 boundary has not been adjusted to match. The GP reflects the refinement of the subarea plan. Yes 2 Community Commercial Mixed Use RS The hospital subarea plan was approved with a location for a local service community commercial mixed use area. This portion of the land has not been rezoned or developed yet. Rezoning is anticipated with development. Yes Deaconess Hospital area 1 2 97 Page 9 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP 1 Parks, Open Space and Recreational Lands M-1/B-2 None, Table C-16 notes that any zoning district may contain overlay this designation. The other physical limitations on the site are separate matters. Yes 2 Community Core/ Public Institutions B-2 Community Core is expected to be implemented by B-3 zoning. Public Institutions is expected to be implemented by PLI zoning No 3 Community Core R-4 The shown area has been non-residential in use for many years. The change to Community Core and Public Institutions reflects the new library site and recognition of existing uses and opportunity for commercial redevelopment. No East Main area 1 3 2 98 Page 10 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP 1 Residential and Community Core B-3 and R-4 The changed designations along the northern boundary of the downtown reflect actual use on the ground. The ground level expansion of the down town is no longer considered inevitable and the value of adjoining residential uses is recognized. No 2 Community Core R-2 The changed designation reflects the use of the site as a community center, a non-residential use which is more suited to Community Core No Downtown area 2 1 99 Page 11 Item # GP Designation Zoning District Conflict Predated BCP Future Urban PLI, R-3, RMH,, B- 1, M-1 The zoning districts were placed many years ago prior to a subdivision effort. Lack of services and infrastructure has limited development. This area is also included in the received public comments. Consideration was given to rezoning the entire area to R-S after adoption of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Rezoning was opposed by the land owner. Yes Story Hills area 100 Draft Minutes Excerpted from the April 13, 2009 Bozeman City Commission Meeting 2. Resolution No. 4163, Adoption of the Bozeman Community Plan (Saunders) Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Mr. Saunders gave the staff presentation regarding the Bozeman Community Plan. The City is required by law to update the policy every 5 years. The process began by selecting a consultant to review the document. Mr. Saunders spoke regarding the Planning Board's Vision Statement. Cr. Bryson Cr. Bryson spoke regarding the Transportation Plan and the proposed extension of Highland that if constructed would go through the Delaney swamp area. Mr. Saunders Mr. Saunders stated that the Transportation Plan does propose this but it is listed as a "theoretical" extension because of the change of grade in the area. Cr. Bryson Cr. Bryson spoke regarding the zoning of the swamp area. Mayor Jacobson Mayor Jacobson spoke regarding the possible wetlands area and asked who would determine if the land could be developed. Mr. Saunders Mr. Saunders stated that there are a series of regulatory agencies that would be involved. Cr. Krauss Cr. Krauss spoke regarding the two areas where the new growth policy is in conflict with the underlying zoning and asked if there were others. Mr. Saunders Mr. Saunders stated that there are others and pointed them out on the map. Cr. Krauss Cr. Krauss stated that he would like a report identifying the areas where the growth policy changes conflict with the underlying zoning areas and possibly ask for input from those property owners involved. Mayor Jacobson Mayor Jacobson spoke regarding the zoning designation of Business Park. She thought that it had been discussed to eliminate this designation. Mr. Saunders Mr. Saunders stated that the designation has been revised and spoke regarding those changes. 101 Cr. Becker Cr. Becker spoke regarding the Business Park Mixed Use Zoning designation. Public Comment Mayor Jacobson opened public comment. Casey Wells, Public Comment Mr. Wells of 1621 West College Street stated that he is Senator with ASMSU. A letter was given to the Commission in regards of a couple of items that he would like to see addressed in the Community Plan including and alternative transportation plan. Steven Ziegler, Public Comment Mr. Ziegler of 2531 Whitetail Road thanked the City for being pro-active. Mr. Ziegler stated that he is concerned about the Future Urban boundary. He showed the area on a map and spoke regarding the view sheds. He also spoke regarding the wildlife corridors. Patricia McKernan, Public Comment Ms. McKernan of 3365 Deer Creek Drive spoke regarding their concern of the Future Urban designation. This invites density. Is there really a need to designate the foothills Future Urban? She spoke regarding the amount of undeveloped acreage. Charles Peetree, Public Comment Mr. Peetree of 3365 Deer Creek Drive spoke regarding the area of concern in the foothills. Doesn't seem to be a benefit is respect to the possible density. He is suggesting that a new category be added calling the area “Future Rural”. He suggested that the City work with the County to develop a plan to keep the foothills at a low density. Lucille Pope, Public Comment Ms. Pope stated that she is with the Alliance for Building Communities. The organization is interested in housing from the $10,000-$100,000 range. She thanked the Planning Board for their work. She spoke regarding affordable housing and urged the Commission to support the plan. Bonnie Jarret, Public Comment Ms. Jarret stated that she is representing the Delaney’s. She spoke regarding the zoning on the wetlands. Richard Shafski, Public Comment Mr. Shafski of 125 Sypes Canyon Spur Road stated that he lives on the border of view sheds. Water is a concern in that area and will not support urban growth. He urged the Commission to look at defining this area as something else. 102 Ted Lange, Public Comment Mr. Lange of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust stated that they support the 2020 plan. He suggested an amendment regarding integrating and supporting agriculture. He has no problem with renaming the foothills something more neutral. He spoke regarding the wetlands. Johns Ferdinand, Public Comment Mr. Ferdinand of 2355 Whitetail road stated he does not live in the City and is in the foothills. This area needs to be treated different than the flatlands. It makes more sense to build down on the flat ground and it makes sense to make flat areas different than the foothills. The wording is problematic. Brian Dingman, Public Comment Mr. Dingman of 8645 Lookfar Way spoke regarding the urban designation. This is contradictory of the Vision statement. Paul Rugheimer, Public Comment Mr. Rugheimer of 1400 Story Mill Road and 506 Oxford Drive showed a power point showcasing the view of foothills from different locations around the City. The foothills deserve better then random planning. He spoke regarding the current houses that are on the foothills. He urged the existing guidelines for the properties in the foothills. Brian Caldwell, Public Comment Mr. Caldwell stated that he is the Planning Board's President. He spoke regarding the UDO and the section pertaining to review and amendments and the process therein. There is review- criteria that wasn't there in the past. Cr. Krauss Cr. Krauss asked Mr. Caldwell if the Planning Board would be willing to meet and discuss the plan. Lynn Rugheimer, Public Comment Ms. Rugheimer of 1404 Story Mill Road stated that she commented the last 2 times the plan was updated. She spoke regarding the Bridger foothills. She is concerned with some of the plans shown this evening. Katie Bark, Public Comment Ms. Bark of 524 South 5th spoke regarding health, safety, and sustainability. She stated that she is promoting a complete streets ordinance. She also would like to promote the sustainability for more gardens. She spoke regarding the safety on the trails. There needs to be rules and signage. 103 Chris Mehl, Public Comment Mr. Mehl of 115 South Willson stated that he is on the Planning Board. He thanked the Board members. He said it is a good plan and will move Bozeman forward. It is shorter and easier to read. They have improved the amendment process. Public Comment closed Mayor Jacobson closed public comment and the public hearing. Mayor Jacobson Mayor Jacobson spoke regarding Climate protection within the plan. She would like to have it beefed up a bit. It needs to be clearer. She suggested having the City's Climate Protection representative draft up a section regarding carbon emissions. Mayor Jacobson Mayor Jacobson spoke regarding Chapter 14 regarding regional cooperation. She spoke regarding the things that the City is doing with MSU. The work on the Town Gown should be added to the list. Cr. Bryson Cr. Bryson spoke regarding the economic development portion of the plan. Cr. Bryson Cr. Bryson stated that there needs to be nuts and bolts regarding economic development and that we have groups drafting specific plans, they should be incorporated into the plan. Mr. Mehl Mr. Mehl spoke regarding the Planning Board is in support of Cr. Bryson's statements regarding economic development. Cr. Rupp Cr. Rupp thanked the Planning Board for their work on the plan. There is a lot of information. He supports getting together with the Planning Board next. He spoke regarding the transit system and that ASMSU should be listed as well as the City of Belgrade along with the non- profit running that system. He looks forward to a discussion with the Planning board regarding the foothills. Cr. Becker Cr. Becker stated that GVLT's proposed amendment and does not have a problem with it. Mr. Saunders Mr. Saunders stated that the amendment has been incorporated already into the plan. 104 Cr. Becker Cr. Becker stated that he agrees with the link to the Climate Plan, Town Gown addition, and the Streamline edits. Cr. Becker spoke regarding the trail use and complete streets as brought forth in public comment. The trails are covered in the PROST Plan. The complete streets are covered in the Transportation Plan. Cr. Becker spoke regarding annexation, Future Urban, and the mass transit issues that were brought up during public comment. Cr. Krauss Cr. Krauss spoke regarding bike lanes, ridgeline protection, affordable housing, dark skies ordinance. Cr. Krauss spoke regarding the foothills. He has concerns regarding the conflict of the plan and underlining zoning. Mayor Jacobson Mayor Jacobson spoke regarding growth projections. Mr. Cooper Mr. Cooper stated that because the public hearing has been closed, there would need to be a Motion and seconded for an additional public hearing. Motion to call for an additional public hearing, and that we schedule a meeting as soon as it's possible for staff and the planning board to put together on a regular Monday night meeting to discuss with the Planning Board the Community Plan as its been presented to us. It was moved by Cr. Krauss, seconded by Cr. Bryson to call for an additional public hearing, and that we schedule a meeting as soon as it's possible for staff and the planning board to put together on a regular Monday night meeting to discuss with the Planning Board the Community Plan as its been presented to us. This motion was clarified as follows: It was decided to hold the next Public Hearing on April 27th then the two groups (Commission and Planning Board) would discuss the plan, and then on May 11th possibly take action (with additional public comment again) on the Community Plan. Vote on the Motion to call for an additional public hearing, and that we schedule a meeting as soon as it's possible for staff and the planning board to put together on a regular Monday night meeting to discuss with the Planning Board the Community Plan as its been presented to us (as clarified). Those voting Aye being Crs. Krauss, Bryson, Rupp, Becker, and Mayor Jacobson. Those voting No being none. The motion passed 5-0. 105 1 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4163 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN ADOPTING THE BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, A GROWTH POLICY, AS ALLOWED BY TITLE 76, CHAPTER 1, PART 6, MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED (M.C.A.) WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, Section 76-1-106(1), M.C.A. states that the Planning Board is responsible for preparing growth policies, if requested by the governing body; 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 originally adopted on October 22, 2001 by Resolution 3486; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update as requested; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman retained Clarion Associates to conduct an outside review of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan; and WHEREAS, Clarion Associates prepared a report for the City which was received in September 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board undertook a variety of public outreach events and practices to encourage public input and participation in the drafting of the update; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update to the adopted growth policy and all related documents and materials were properly submitted and reviewed, and all public hearings and public meetings were advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 76-1-602, M.C.A.; and 106 2 WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission adopted Resolution 4112 on July 21, 2008 stating their intent to develop a growth policy which would contain in addition to the mandatory elements, those elements of 76-1-601(4)(c), MCA; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held public hearings on Wednesday January 21, 2008 and Tuesday, February 6, 2009, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for said update of the growth policy; and WHEREAS, Staff presented a summary description of the updated growth policy and answered questions for the Planning Board after which the public was invited to give testimony; and WHEREAS, numerous written comments were provided to the Planning Board before and during the public hearing, and verbal comments were received during the public hearings, with said comments being summarized or included in the minutes and other record of the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board considered all oral and written comments they had received during the public comment period at their public hearings on Wednesday January 21, 2008 and Tuesday, February 6, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board closed the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the issues raised in the public comment as well as items of concern to the Planning Board and the requirements of law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board identified and directed changes to be made to the text and maps to better reflect the purpose and intent of the Board and in response to questions or comment provided by the public; and 107 3 WHEREAS, a motion was made to recommend approval of the growth policy with changes as directed by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, City of Bozeman Planning Board, on February 18, 2009, on a vote of 5 to 0, recommended adoption by the Bozeman City Commission of the Public Comment Draft of the Bozeman Community Plan as amended by the Planning Board WHEREAS, a revised draft incorporating the directed changes was prepared and made available for public review prior to the public hearing to be conducted by the City Commission prior to any action to adopt a revised growth policy; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised as required by statute to be held on April 13, 2009 before the City Commission to consider the Planning Board recommendation and accept public testimony regarding the updated growth policy; and WHEREAS, all public testimony received by the City after the advertisement for the Planning Board public hearing, minutes of the Planning Board’s public hearing and deliberations, and the draft document were provided to the City Commission in advance of their public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, that: Section 1 That pursuant to Title 76, Chapter 1, Part 6, MCA it adopts the Bozeman Community Plan and that the document shall be as follows: See Exhibit A. 108 4 Section 2 Directive. That City staff and advisory boards are directed to work on implementing this plan as time and resources allow. Section 3 Directive. That staff is directed to prepare a presentation draft of the adopted plan to facilitate the use of the Bozeman Community Plan by the public. Section 4 Severability. If any provision of this growth policy or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this growth policy which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this growth policy are declared to be severable. Section 5 Savings Provision. This growth policy does not affect the rights of duties that matured, penalties and assessments that were incurred or proceedings that began before the effective date of this resolution. Section 6 Effective Date. This growth policy shall be in full force and effect upon passage DATED this 13TH day of April, 2009. 109 5 KAAREN JACOBSON Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ STACY ULMEN, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney 110