Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 4163, Adopting the Bozeman Community Plan Growth Policy No. P-07006 Report compiled on May 6, 2009 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4163 adopting the Bozeman Community Plan MEETING DATE: Monday, May 11, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: Close the public hearing and consider a motion to Approve Commission Resolution 4163 adopting the Bozeman Community Plan with edits as directed by the City Commission. 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 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. On March 9th, the City Commission passed a resolution of intent to adopt a growth policy and conduct a public hearing before taking action on the draft document. Staff provided an adopted Planning Board resolution and minutes, submitted public comments, and staff report for the April 13th public hearing. The City Commission received the draft growth policy in early March. The City Commission conducted a public hearing on April 13, 2009. The hearing allowed members of the public to voice their opinion on the plan. The City Commission then chose to meet with the Planning Board and to conduct a second public hearing. The Planning Board/City Commission meeting was on April 27th and was a working meeting. The second public hearing was scheduled and advertised for May 11, 2009. Notice of the public comment opportunity on the specific document draft began on January 2, 2009. In addition, many outreach efforts happened before the release of the specific draft documents. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Several questions were identified by the Commission or others during the public hearing process. Information on these may be found at: 1. Growth policy amendment criteria. Staff memo of May 6th, page 1 2. Agricultural Water User Facilities. Staff memo of May 6th, page 1 3. Updated Information. Staff memo of May 6th, page 2 4. Manufactured Housing. Staff memo of May 6th, page 3 5. Commission suggested edits. Staff memo of May 6th, page 3 273 Report compiled on May 6, 2009 Commission Memorandum 6. Figure 3-1 Future Land Use Map. Staff memo of May 6th, page 4, Staff memo of April 27th, all pages, and Staff report from April 13th hearing, page 7-10 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: Staff memo regarding questions raised to date Ridgeline map Public comment received since April 13th Revised Resolution 4163 Repeat copy of the April 27th memo Repeat copy of the April 13th staff report 274 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 outstanding issues and questions DATE: May 6, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2009 Several questions were identified by the Commission or others during the public hearing process. The City Commission may choose to directly revise the draft prior to adoption, adopt the draft as is, direct staff to prepare revisions to the draft for consideration, or send the draft back to the Planning Board to address these or other issues. The materials provided for the April 13th and April 27th meetings also contain relevant materials. Where options are identified below the staff recommendation is shown in italic text. 1. Growth policy amendment criteria. State law does not specify direct review criteria for a growth policy. In the absence of specific criteria, the general purposes of planning from Section 76-1-102, MCA serve as the basis to evaluate a growth policy. These are presented in the staff report provided for the April 13th public hearing. The City of Bozeman has chosen previously to adopt specific criteria for itself in considering amendments to growth policies. These are contained in Section 2.4.1 in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. These are also presented in the staff report. The Planning Board has recommended in Chapter 17 of the draft a set of locally developed review criteria for amendments to the growth policy. The reasons are given in Sections 17.3 and 17.4 of the draft growth policy. This includes a suggestion for a 75% vote of the Commission for amendments considered between the statutorily required 5 year review periods for the growth policy as a whole. The choice to continue to utilize, or to revise, or to abandon the local review criteria is a policy decision reserved to the City Commission. The City is considering a draft to wholly replace the existing growth policy. It is not an amendment. As such, it takes a simple majority vote to adopt the document. The Commission can choose to include a requirement with this document for a more than simple majority vote to amend the plan. Any future changes occurring between the regular five-year updates would then require a super-majority. The next overall replacement would default back to the simple majority vote. Options. 1) Keep locally developed review criteria as contained in the draft, 2) Revise the review criteria to have more, less, or different items, or 3) Remove all local review criteria and rely upon the basis purposes of planning in the state law. 2. Agricultural Water User Facilities. Section 76-1-601(3)(h), MCA requires a growth policy to state how the local government will define the mandatory subdivision review criteria. It must also describe how those criteria will be used in review of subdivisions. The growth policy meets this requirement through Section 15.3 of the draft. This policy is executed through the City’s land development regulations in Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC. 275 Page 2 Section 76-3-504, MCA sets certain requirements for addressing water rights in subdivision review, see attached. These requirements differ depending on the size of the lots being created, whether water rights are being severed from the land, or if there is another party dependent on the flow of water through the property. Easements to protect water conveyances are required in specific circumstances. As property is annexed and developed at urban densities the property no longer uses surface flow irrigation. Large irrigation facilities, stock watering facilities, or similar things are no longer needed within the urban developed areas. There may still remain downstream users who rely on the transmission of water through the development. A 20 foot wide easement for one mile of ditch consumes three acres of land. The establishment of ditch easements can significantly impact the development potential and design of projects. A balance of interests must be made between those who no longer use a facility and those who still require its services. It is in the best interests of all parties to have matters resolved clearly with no errors or overlooked items. The City’s growth policy does this in subsection 15.3.2. This section recognizes the potential for a change in need for service with change in land use. It also recognizes that there may remain affected parties and provides for their protection. It states that the change to an urban use must be orderly and in compliance with state law as it relates to water so there are no questions about whether a facility or use should continue. If no need remains, then it should be clear that no facility will be provided. If need does remain then it should be clear what facility will be provided, where it will be located, and who takes care of it. Public comment was received on this item, see attached. Staff has consulted with the City Attorney’s office regarding the proposed text in Section 15.3.2. The text meets the statutory and functional requirements of the law. Planning Board considered the matter and found the draft language adequate to meet both public comment and legal requirements. Precise implementation will occur through Title 18, BMC as necessary. Options. 1) Keep 15.3.2 as is, 2) direct revisions to the section. 3. Updated Information. The draft document was made available to the public in the winter of 2008. The data used was available through the end of 2007. The Planning Board took action in early 2009 and directed that available calendar year data for 2008 be included. Additional information has become available since the Planning Board recommendation. Staff suggests that this additional data be included in the final draft of the document in locations as appropriate. Examples include an updated annexation map, distances of bicycle lanes, and similar information. As data is continually being updated and developed an exact list is not presented at this time. As of 5/1/09 the following information became available for areas within City limits: · Trails: 45.1 miles [*this includes Cherry Creek, which is technically outside City Limits, but has connectivity to East Gallatin Recreation Area] · Bike Paths (shared-use-paths): 11.6 miles · Bike Lanes: 17.3 miles [*this includes ‘both’ sides of the road….so, you could double this number to get “lane miles”] · Bike Routes (signs only): 20.9 miles · City Limits: 12,450.1 acres The Legislature passed HB486 in the 2009 session. This bill expands the list of required elements in a growth policy to include sand and gravel resources. Staff has prepared text to satisfy this new requirement. This text is to be included in Appendix A as shown below. “A.2.4 SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES Bozeman rests on an alluvial plain. As a consequence, sand and gravel are widely present within the planning area. Many areas are not available for extraction due to other uses covering the surface or the 276 Page 3 presence of significant buried infrastructure. Relocating such uses or infrastructure would not be financially feasible. The majority of commercial sand or gravel operations serving Bozeman are located outside the planning area. A review of DEQ gravel permit records indicates only two extraction operations and one pending permit located within the Bozeman planning area. One operation and the pending permit are for the sole use of individual developments. Removal of gravel in order to create ponds or incidental to other activities does not require a DEQ permit or review. Removal of sand and gravel can have substantial impacts to groundwater, air quality, adjacent owners, public streets, and other interests. Establishment of new or expanded extraction operations should be carefully reviewed and adequate mitigation provided for identified negative impacts.” Options. 1) Rely upon the data as contained in the Planning Board Draft plus the sand and gravel text, 2) Direct inclusion of such updated information as is available plus the sand and gravel text, or 3) Direct the inclusion of gravel text, annexation map and city area, bicycle facility information, and leave the rest as shown in the draft. 4. Manufactured Housing. The City encourages a diversity of housing to meet the diversity of housing needs in the community. Housing can be built on site or off-site and moved to the site. Housing built on- site is subject to the standards of the International Building Code (IBC) as adopted by the State and City. Housing built off-site to the standards of the IBC is called ‘modular housing.’ Housing may also be built off-site to standards developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) called the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act. This type of housing is called ‘manufactured housing’. Sometimes the term mobile home is used interchangeably which is incorrect. True mobile homes were constructed to a different standard prior to 1976. An individual home may be located on a single lot as a principal use in any residential zoning district in Bozeman regardless of whether it is a site built home, modular home, or manufactured home. Each home must comply with the usual setbacks and procedural requirements. If multiple residential buildings are going to be located on a single lot then a more intensive level of review is required to coordinate utilities, circulation, and other functional items. By state law more than one manufactured home on a single lot must be reviewed as a subdivision. These are called subdivisions by rent or lease, see Section 76-3-208, MCA. Bozeman has chosen to create a zoning district, Residential Manufactured Home Community (RMH), which is contained in Chapter 18.16, BMC with the other residential zoning districts. The RMH district is the only district which allows for manufactured home communities of multiple homes on a single lot. Additional uses are also allowed as shown in Table 16-1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Private covenants, over which the City has little control, often prohibit the location of manufactured homes within subdivisions. The establishment of the RMH district is through the normal zone map amendment process. Requests for such zoning are infrequent. As noted on page 6-4 of the draft growth policy there can be barriers to development of manufactured home communities. Implementation policy 35 suggests that the City review its standards to ensure that unnecessary barriers are not in place. Many of the barriers have to do with lending or state tax policy which the City does not control and has little influence to change. Ownership of manufactured homes can occur through several means including a single lot/single home configuration or development as condominiums. Options. 1) Retain all the language regarding manufactured housing as is, 2) Change the implementation policies addressing manufactured housing, i.e. #s 34-36 and 38-39, or 3) Change the text in Chapter 6 and appendix F to put less emphasis on manufactured housing. 277 Page 4 5. Commission suggested edits. At the April 13th public hearing members of the Commission suggested possible edits to the draft. The future land use map and all the text may be changed by the City Commission prior to adoption. Internal consistency of priorities and policies within the document is a priority. Substantial changes may have impacts on other sections which require further changes. So far, the suggested changes are not of this magnitude. A. Page 14-2 has a call out box which identifies coordination between MSU and the City of Bozeman. Adding town/gown cooperation was suggested as an addition. Streamline could also be added. B. Chapter 9, Environmental Quality and Critical Lands It was suggested to include a more detail description of the progress made to date on the municipal climate action plan. Suggested revisions are from the City’s sustainability coordinator with additions shown with underlines. This could amend the text in Section 9.1. Alternatively, a text box replacing the side pictures on page 9-3 could be developed to present the information. “In response to community concerns about global climate change, the City adopted the U. S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement on November 27, 2006. The purpose of the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement is for cities to take steps in reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions and to implement local commitments for climate protection. Bozeman joined Missoula, Billings and Helena along with 850 mayors representing 76 million Americans working towards climate protection. Working with guidance from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) the City learns how best to complete baseline inventories and how the City and stakeholders can establish targets to lower emissions and measure, verify and report performance. The City conducted a baseline municipal GHG inventory for the years 2000 and 2006. A Climate Protection Task Force was created to advise the City on how it can reduce its GHG emissions associated with from municipal buildings, transportation, water and solid waste and the City fleet by implementing specific energy saving measures. The City Commission adopted the taskforce’s Municipal Climate Action Plan (MCAP). The MCAP sets the target of reducing municipal GHG emissions 15 percent below 2000 levels by the year 2020. The target year of 2020 was specifically identified to coincide with the efforts of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. With this now adopted, the City is conducting a community GHG inventory. In the summer of 2009, the Commission will appoint a new task force to recommend how best to approach emission reductions community-wide.’ C. Section 11.4 discusses the Streamline bus system. It was suggested to add ASMSU, City of Belgrade, and HRDC to the list of partners in the project. D. Economic development plan. The Prospera Business Network has just released the new draft of the economic development plan. A public hearing is scheduled with the Planning Board for June 2nd to hear the plan and discuss integration with the growth policy. After that hearing the document will be presented to the City Commission for consideration and possible adoption. Once the City Commission has adopted the plan it will be integrated with the growth policy. Prospera Business Network submitted comment which was included in the Planning Board recommended draft. E. Complete Streets. This subject is directly discussed in Chapter 4, Community Quality, page 4-4. An emphasis on multi- modal transportation is also provided in Chapter 11, Transportation and the newly adopted Transportation Plan. Chapter 16, implementation policy 74a, page 16-14, executes the goals and objectives having to do with complete streets. Complete streets has been included in the document. Options. Include any or all of the identified items as the Commission deems appropriate. 6. Figure 3-1 Future Land Use Map. Figure 3-1 graphically displays a future land use pattern which is consistent with the policies established in Chapter 3 and elsewhere within the growth policy. It is not the 278 Page 5 only pattern which could be consistent with the policies. Specific questions are addressed by lettered paragraph. A. Outer boundary of the planning area. The planning area for the Bozeman Community Plan is the same as the Water, Wastewater, Storm Water, and Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails facility plans. Staff and the Planning Board believe this coordination to be important and beneficial to the community. Staff recommends leaving the boundary as presently shown. The population forecasts and outer boundaries were reviewed by the Commission in March 2005. As shown in the table below, a high growth rate has been sustained for a long time. Currently there is a break in the rapid growth. Enough platted residential lots have been created to allow a rapid return to high growth if conditions change. Population Estimate Based Upon 2000 Census Plus Permitted Dwellings Year Dwellings Permits – Prior Year Estimated New Occupied Dwellings Estimated Additional Population Population Estimate April of Year Percent Population Increase 2000 n/a 27,509* 2001 354 336 773 28,282 2.8% 2002 386 367 843 29,126 3.0% 2003 503 478 1,099 30,225 3.8% 2004 613 582 1,339 31,564 4.4% 2005 861 818 1,881 33,446 6.0% 2006 949 902 2,074 35,520 6.2% 2007 670 637 1,440 36,960 4.1% 2008 756 718 1,623 38,583 4.4% *Actual Census count The past years 2004-2008 saw an average growth rate of 5.02%. The outer boundary is greater than the area expected to be used for urban development in the next twenty years even under the high growth projection. This is because when the planning area was initially determined other policies regarding the land use map had not yet been concluded and future area required was not fully known. The expanded planning area allows for coordination on the fringes with public entities and private owners. If the Commission decides to alter the outer boundary it is recommended to retain as much correlation with the facility planning boundary as possible. Options. 1) Leave boundary as is, 2) increase the boundary of the planning area, 3) reduce the boundary of the planning area. B. Growth Policy/Zoning correspondence. A growth policy and a zoning map are two different but related things. A growth policy is a policy, a general guide and statement of intent which guides future action. It paints with a ‘broad brush’. A community may decide for itself the type and nature of policies and land use designations it believes will best assist in achieving the community’s vision. A growth policy is not in itself a regulation. A growth policy is adopted by resolution. 279 Page 6 A zoning map is a specific action of the legislature to create law, carries the force of law, and is adopted by ordinance. A zoning map and ordinance are very specific and detailed. Zoning and other regulatory tools contain authority to direct or prohibit actions. Zoning is a commonly used tool to implement a growth policy. State law gives guidance in the relationship between the two. The state law on adoption and use of a growth policy says: “76-1-605. Use of adopted growth policy. (1) Subject to subsection (2), after adoption of a growth policy, the governing body within the area covered by the growth policy pursuant to 76-1-601 must be guided by and give consideration to the general policy and pattern of development set out in the growth policy in the: (a) authorization, construction, alteration, or abandonment of public ways, public places, public structures, or public utilities; (b) authorization, acceptance, or construction of water mains, sewers, connections, facilities, or utilities; and (c) adoption of zoning ordinances or resolutions. (2) (a) A growth policy is not a regulatory document and does not confer any authority to regulate that is not otherwise specifically authorized by law or regulations adopted pursuant to the law. (b) A governing body may not withhold, deny, or impose conditions on any land use approval or other authority to act based solely on compliance with a growth policy adopted pursuant to this chapter.” Other sections of statute expand on the use of the growth policy. It is clear that a local government is to be guided in many things by their growth policy. This is consistent with the principle that what a government says should be what they do. If a policy is unpalatable then a local government has the right to change the document. This guidance extends to land use regulations. The land use regulations establish standards and procedures and are the primary basis for reviewing any development proposal. The City’s charter emphasizes this point. “Section 4.04. Land Use, Development, and Environmental Planning. Consistent with all applicable federal and state laws with respect to land use, development, and environmental planning, the city commission shall: (1) Designate an agency or agencies to carry out the planning function and such decision-making responsibilities as may be specified by ordinance; (2) Adopt a comprehensive plan and determine to what extent zoning and other land use control ordinances must be consistent with the plan; (3) Determine to what extent the comprehensive plan and zoning and other land use ordinances must be consistent with regional plan(s); and (4) Adopt development regulations, to be specified by ordinance, to implement the plan.” A growth policy provides information to guide the development and interpretation of a zoning ordinance. It is a legislative action to develop a growth policy. Decisions to approve or deny a site development proposal are made primarily on the basis of the criteria and standards within the zoning ordinance. If there is a question on the intent of the zoning standard the growth policy can help understand the meaning and purpose of the regulations. Adoption of the zoning map is also a legislative action. Review of a specific site development is a quasi-judicial act and subject to different scrutiny than a legislative act. Both growth policies and zoning ordinance, including maps, may be changed from time to time. Reasons for wanting to make a change may be revisions to state or federal law, acquisition of additional 280 Page 7 information, changed circumstances, or a change in community priorities. To assert that a community may not make changes is to assert that internal and external circumstances remain constant; that decisions made address all present and future needs of the community; and that the decision makers were responsive to the priorities of the community then and now. Such an assertion would also prohibit land owner requested changes since all possible options had already been considered. Bozeman does not claim such a breadth of knowledge and therefore recognizes that changes need to occur. State law also recognizes the inherent change in communities and the need for responsiveness to those changes by mandating a regular review and update of a growth policy in Section 76-1-601, MCA. C. Future Urban. The facility plans utilized a 5% growth rate since if growth is slower than expected a project can be deferred. It is much more difficult to meet needs if growth has been underestimated. In the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan a lower population growth rate was used but the new land area shown for urban uses on the future land use map was doubled to avoid artificially constraining the market. With the higher 5% growth rate used this time the urban land area was not doubled. The higher rate is considered to address the potential for error in estimation of needs. Based upon existing persons per household, 25,553 additional homes will be required by 2025 to meet needs of a 5% growth rate. About 40% of these additional homes are likely to be constructed on vacant land now within the City limits. This estimate is based on current patterns of development. Therefore, significant additional land area will be required. The number of homes needed is affected by many factors. Figure 3-1 depicts the geographic location of the land use designations defined in Chapter 3. There are about 17, 425 urban land use designated acres on Figure 3-1. The present City area is 12,450 acres. Not all of the planning area is needed, nor is it always suitable for development over the next twenty years. This leaves the question of how to depict those areas not anticipated to be developed in the term of the plan. The Future Urban category serves somewhat as a place holder. During the previous planning cycle public comment was firmly against either leaving large sections of the planning area undesignated or showing it as open space. The Commission at that time chose the term ‘future urban’ as a compromise between the two positions. Future urban was an indicator of future but unknown usage beyond the twenty year horizon at that time. The City does not desire to say development may never be appropriate since as discussed in B above, changes in circumstances do occur. The future urban category does not require the land to remain as perpetual open space. The growth policy must be reviewed at least once every five years. During that review desirable changes to the future land use map may be identified. Although the term of the plan is for 20 years, multiple reviews will occur within that time period. An analogy may be setting off on a long trip. During the trip you may verify that the original destination is still where you want to go and the route taken is the still the best option to arrive there. Should the Commission decide to rename the category Staff suggests the term ‘Present Rural’ as descriptive of the intent and function of the category. Options. 1) Rename the category, 2) revise the text describing the category, 3) delete the category and show full urban development throughout the entire planning area, 4) recognize the uncertainty of the future and the five year periodic review of the document and leave the category description as is, 5) rename the category and leave the description as is. D. Factors of designating urban areas on the future land use map. Numerous factors were considered when developing the future land use map, Figure 3-1. These included: · Presence and character of existing development 281 Page 8 · The seven major themes for the growth policy as described in Section 3.2 of the growth policy · Location and character of approved but not completed development · Location of existing urban services such as sewer, water, and fire protection · Planned areas for possible extension of urban services · Difficulty and cost of possible extensions including those where one extension opens additional area for urban development · Physical features such as surface water, topography, and proximity to existing development · Amount of land area required for different activities in a healthy and economically balanced community based on expected future service population · Efficiency of service delivery · Public comment The future land use map depicted on Figure 3-1 is one possible option. Alternative configurations could be chosen. Public comment has been submitted which requests some changes to the map. Ultimately one option will be selected which will by definition exclude other options. The map represents a balancing of a wide range of issues. A change in balancing may result in a change to the map. The Commission has authority to modify the draft map if they believe that an adjustment is appropriate. E. Ridgelines A map of the areas defined as ridgelines by the City’s standards is attached. The map focuses on the area along Story Mill Road. A map of a larger can be provided if desired. F. Specific Sites The staff memo of April 27th describes specific areas where there is a difference between the existing zoning and the draft future land use map. As noted in the memo, many of the differences are because of changes to the map which would facilitate zoning at a higher intensity. Others make a better fit to actual conditions on the ground. Some of the changes sought in the public comments, such as those relating to the area by East Main I-90 interchange, seek a substantial increase in intensity over what the future land use map showed at the time of purchase by the present owners. The original staff report provided for the April 13th public hearing also gives an analysis and response to public comment on the future land use map. This is on pages 7-10 of the staff report. 282 283 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 and replacement of 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 284 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 285 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; and WHEREAS, the City Commission decided to hold a working session with the Planning Board to discuss their recommendation and the working session was held on April 27, 2009; and WHEREAS, a second public hearing was advertised and held on May 11, 2009 before the City Commission to consider the Planning Board recommendation and accept public testimony regarding the updated growth policy; and WHEREAS, the City Commission being fully informed and having considered all submitted public comment and responded as seemed most appropriate to the comment and 286 4 having acted to revise or to not revise the document as appeared to best meet the purposes of 76- 1-102, MCA and the needs and vision of the community. 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 to wholly replace the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and that the document shall be as follows: See Exhibit A. 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. 287 5 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 11th day of May, 2009. KAAREN JACOBSON Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ STACY ULMEN, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ GREG SULLIVAN Bozeman City Attorney 288 289 Monday, April 27, 2009 2:05 pm Department of Planning and Community Development ATTN: Chris Saunders csaunders@bozeman.net 20 East Olive Street PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: (406) 582-2260 Please distribute this correspondence for Joint Meeting of Bozeman City Commission & Planning Board at Bzn. City Hall 121 N. Rouse on Monday, April 27, 2009, at 6:00pm. RE: Amended written input on Bozeman Community Plan/Growth Policy Update ~ Public Comment Dear Bozeman City Commission & Planning Board: On April 13, 2009, the Rugheimer Family sent in a letter as written public input. Since then, we have learned that the meaning of Future Urban zoning has changed from its prior definition in the current draft Bozeman Growth Policy Update. Therefore, we wish to ask for R-1 zoning designation for our property in the present draft plan. Our 320 acres has been within the existing future urban growth boundary of the Bozeman 2020 Plan for numerous years. Lands both on the West and South of our property boundaries have already been annexed into the City of Bozeman. Existing City water, sewer, and transportation routes have been developed adjacent to our property. The location of adjacent City residential developments, plus the varied topography of our property make it well-suited to future “infill” expansion under City residential zoning. 1) Tracts of property owned by the Rugheimer Family include numerous flat acres. 2) Natural features including knolls and valleys are suited to future development clusters while preserving large areas of open space, wildlife habitat, and view sheds. (Some nice Bridger foothills communities use smaller lots (1 acre) with large areas of open space.) 3) Eastern boundary abuts with land permanently designated to Open Space offers wildlife perpetual access across the foothills and Bridge Creek riparian area. 4) Close proximity to Bozeman just two (2) miles from the City center/downtown. 5) Property annexation and development promotes “infill” between points presently annexed along Story Mill Road and developed by Bridger Canyon Drive/Road. We summarized these important facts about the layout of our land to protect its future potential for generation and for our children’s. Rugheimer Family Land – Amend zoning to R-1 Page | 1 of 2 290 Rugheimer Family Land – Amend zoning to R-1 Page | 2 of 2 It is of great concern to us as a family, a people of Bozeman, and long-term land owners that our investment and rights are protected and preserved. We write to you again to represent interests and needs, and hope change our land’s zoning appropriately. Please designate our acreage as R-1 zoning for Residential (single household, low density) rather than the former Future Urban designation for which the definition was changed/updated in draft plan for Bozeman’s Proposed Growth Area and Future Use. Sincerely, The Rugheimer Family, Land Owners Peter & Lynn Rugheimer 1404 Story Mill Road Bozeman, MT 59715 (406) 585-2496 Paul & Stacey Rugheimer 506 Oxford Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 (406) 582-7366 Mary Rugheimer Wictor & Johan Wictor 408 208th Avenue NE Sammamish, WA 98074 (425) 836-9819 P.S. Please refer to the “Figure 3” Map displaying colored zoning. The Rugheimer Family Property forms a “right triangle” with existing already annexed and developed lands in the City and thus, would be “infill” if developed eventually in the future. Bozeman Community Plan (formerly Growth Policy Update & 2020 Plan) FIGURE 3-1: Future Land Use Map Note: Document with full graphics is over 19 MB. http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/planning/Growth%20policy%20update/BCP_CC_Review_full_document.pdf 291 292 293 294 To: Bozeman City Commission c/o City Clerk Stacey Ulmen PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 April 10th, 2009 Re: Draft Growth Policy Update Public Hearing Process Objective Alter the boundary of the “Future Urban” land use designation by reducing it as development approaches the surrounding mountains. The transition from the mountains to the foothills and on down the riparian habitats as they follow the creeks creates a viewshed that only a handful of cities have. This setting is one of Bozeman’s most special qualities. It should be left as is, but if you must address it, then create another land use designation that is one home per 160 acres like the County is proposing to do in order to reduce sprawl. Do not ruin these special areas with overdevelopment and urban standards. Key Concerns We are concerned about the proposed boundaries of the Future Urban land use designation. We live just outside this new proposed Future Urban boundary and feel that we will be impacted by this proposed boundary. We have seen similar decisions negatively affect an entire community and wanted to express our concerns We realize there have been numerous detailed discussions about this issue. Below is a summary of our key concerns: ¾ Damaged Viewshed ¾ Wildlife Impact ¾ Traffic and Road Considerations ¾ Sustainability of Water Damaged Viewshed ¾ Discourage the development of a dense county ring infringing on the natural assets of the viewshed areas surrounding Bozeman. The goals of the Growth Policy Update reinforce the importance of the sustainability of these unique natural assets. Instead, encourage infill density to the city centre in efforts to augment the development of a vibrant, active, walkable, mixed use, livable city environment. 295 ¾ The images that represent Bozeman as a desirable place to live, work, play and visit are framed by the Bridger Mountains. They embrace Bozeman and the valley. The Montana “M” starts a trail system that emphasizes wildlife and nature without built environment. They all need to have room to breathe and exist without crowding with development. They are too close to and too visible to Bozeman to impact that way. Wildlife Impact ¾ The main wildlife routes are from the mountains around Bozeman and along the creeks to come down at dusk and feed on developments manicured landscapes and pet’s food and people’s garbage. Development density has an impact on these wildlife patterns. Low density sensitive development with ample natural open space cannot be achieved with urban standards. Traffic and Road Considerations ¾ Development in these areas will generate additional residents and therefore additional vehicles and trip traffic. Streets, utilities and Infrastructure improvements will be needed for the development areas. Developer’s either need to charge more to high end buyers that want property with their home or build more units for medium and low end buyers to cover the costs. Either way, it is passed on to the buyer. Yet ultimately, everybody pays in the end with maintenance and congestion. Sustainability of Water Resources ¾ Water will be the next battleground for development density. It is a precious resource. Once it is overused, its limited availability will affect all of us. That water supply sustains both human life and wildlife on many levels. We realize that ensuring Bozeman as a desirable place to live, work, play and visit is a difficult task. This new development is just another threat to why we live here. The Bridger Mountains embrace Bozeman and the valley and emphasize wildlife and nature without built environment. They all need to have room to breathe and exist without crowding, both physically and visually. Please consider the concerns listed in this document. Respectfully, Samuel and Sherri Nassar 3198 Sentinel Bozeman MT 59715 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 STAFF REPORT BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN GROWTH POLICY ADOPTION NO. #P-07006 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 1 Item: Bozeman Community Plan (BCP), Application #P-07006, to adopt a new growth policy to wholly replace the existing Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Applicant: City of Bozeman PO Box 1230 Bozeman MT 59715 Representative: Department of Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman PO Box 1230 Bozeman MT 59715 Date/Time: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, April 13, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Commission room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana. Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Recommendation: Approval __________________________________________________________________________________ PLAN LOCATION AND MAP The subject property is the entire planning area of the City of Bozeman. The planning area includes the City of Bozeman as well as an area adjacent to the City. The location of the planning area is shown on Figure 3-1 of the growth policy. The planning area has been coordinated with the planning area for the City’s water, wastewater, and parks facility plans. PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City conducts long range planning to: 1. Protect the public health and safety and advance the well being of the community at large, while respecting and protecting the interests of individuals within the community. 2. Provide a supportive framework for private action which balances the rights and responsibilities of many persons. 3. Facilitate the democratic development of the public policies and regulations that guide the community. 4. Improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities, more functional, beautiful, healthful, and efficient. 5. Coordinate technical knowledge, political will, and long-range thinking in community development in both short and long term decisions. 305 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 2 6. Identifies the citizen's goals and priorities for their community and how they wish to carry out those ideals. 7. Encourage efficiency and effectiveness by government through coordinated policies and programs. 8. Serves as a reference bench mark for community priorities, physical attributes such as size, and social and economic information such as housing and jobs. A growth policy is an abstract of a community. 9. Support economic development by providing basic information about the community to prospective citizens and employers. A well done, and implemented, plan shows that a community is actively trying to improve their area. By state law the formal term for a community’s comprehensive plan is ‘growth policy’. The development of a growth policy is a primary responsibility of the Planning Board and is directed by Sections 76-1-601 through 76-1-606, MCA. Bozeman has had a formal comprehensive plan since 1958. Careful planning by individuals and small groups prior to that time created the historic areas of the community. Since 1958, Bozeman has had five comprehensive plans. The growth policy sets broad policy standards and coordinates between many municipal functions. It is the overriding policy document for the community. A community has broad latitude in the level of detail they wish to address in their growth policy. Certain subjects are required to be addressed. The City Commission adopted Resolution 4112 in July 2008. Resolution 4112 commits the City to undertaking certain coordinated infrastructure planning with Gallatin County. This is not a jointly adopted growth policy but coordination within individual growth policies. This coordination manifests in many ways. Most recently the City and County cooperated in the preparation of a transportation plan which includes the Bozeman planning area. As the first step in preparing the new growth policy, the City contracted with Clarion Associates, a national planning firm, to review the existing growth policy. Clarion conducted focus groups with citizens, met with staff, reviewed the printed documents and produced a report. The report identified areas where planning was functioning well and areas where improvements could be made. The Planning Board and Staff frequently consulted the Clarion report during the preparation of the new growth policy. The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan was focused on six broad themes. These were Neighborhoods, Sense of Place, Natural Amenities, Centers, Integration of Action, and Urban Density. The new Bozeman Community Plan has retained those six themes and added the theme of Sustainability These themes are described in Chapter 3. Since the adoption of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, Bozeman has grown tremendously. The growth occurred at a rate much higher than anyone expected. The plan held up well under the strain but needed to be updated. The City Commission directed the Planning Board and Staff to prepare an update in 2007. The Planning Board conducted many public meetings and outreach events to garner input from the community. A draft document was made available in the end of 2008. Public hearings were held by the Planning Board on January 21st and February 3rd, 2009. After consideration of the public comments and review of the document the Planning Board recommended a draft to the City Commission on February 18, 2009. Please see the attached minutes, resolution, and public comment. 306 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 3 SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES The Bozeman Community Plan carries forward most of the principles and aspirations of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The following items are significant changes between the documents. To see all changes review the documents. 1. Expanded planning area. The City had physically reached the outer boundaries of the 2020 Plan planning area through annexation in some portions of the community. The planning area boundary was expanded to allow examination of community edges and transition to County areas as well as to coordinate with other facility plans. 2. Coordinated population projections. Bozeman exceeded a five percent average growth rate for a five year period prior to the development of the new growth policy. The new growth policy and facility plans used this high growth rate to consider what changes in land use may occur. If growth is less than this rate then an adjustment can be made at the next regularly scheduled plan update in 2014. The high growth rate also provides some cushion for development location. The City does not compel land owners to develop and forecasting which parcel will develop first is not possible. By considering a higher demand rate some flexibility is provided which minimizes amendments and unintended changes. 3. Adding Sustainability as a theme. Since the original development of the 2020 Plan the concept of sustainability has risen significantly in national and local discussion and consciousness. Many aspects of sustainability were included in the 2020 Plan. In the Bozeman Community Plan the issue is elevated and made more prominent as a coordinating theme. 4. Increased emphasis on mixed use. Some of the land use categories have been renamed and an additional category, Residential Emphasis Mixed Use, has been created. These changes have placed an increased emphasis on mixed uses. National and local interest has increased in the opportunity for the additional design and development flexibility that mixed use provides. 5. Economic Development. The City has contracted with Prospera Business Network for the preparation of a first ever stand- alone economic development plan. This plan is currently underway. Upon completion it will be integrated into the growth policy in the same manner as other facility plans. 6. Document formatting. The Bozeman Community Plan uses a different document format and structure to be friendlier to the user. Chapter structure, page layout, and inclusion of web links in an on-line version of the document are all suggestions made in the Clarion report. Chapters are considerably shorter and are primarily focused on the goals and objectives. Background information is contained in the appendices or the independent facility plans. 7. Several new chapters have been created. A recommendation of the Clarion report, some chapters elevate existing subsections to a higher level of importance. These include the Arts and Culture, Historic Preservation, Regional Coordination and Cooperation, and Review and Amendments chapters. The Disaster and Emergency Prevention and Response chapter is a new chapter which did not previously exist. REVIEW CRITERIA Section 76-1-601 MCA specify the required contents of a growth policy. The same section also allows for a number of voluntary items. The section specifically states that the degree to which any required element of a growth policy is addressed is at the discretion of the governing body. There are some required steps for the process to adopt or revise a growth policy. For this growth policy, the Planning Board has conducted the required public hearing after proper notice, has forwarded a recommendation of adoption 307 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 4 by resolution, the City Commission has adopted a resolution of intent, and the City Commission’s hearing for April 13th has been given proper notice. There are no specific statutorily required review criteria for a growth policy. However, 76-1-102 MCA establishes the purposes for planning. Lacking other defined statutory criteria, these purposes are the standard against which adoption of a growth policy is measured. These items overlap in various ways and working on one will often advance another. The description below is a summary. The complete intent and compliance with criteria may be obtained by reviewing the full document. 1. Improve the present health, safety, convenience, and welfare of their citizens. The BCP meets this criterion by coordinating between multiple facility plans. The facility plans address transportation, fire protection, parks and recreation, water, and wastewater. All of these facilities protect health and safety. Safe and functional transportation supports timely emergency responses. Water systems support suppression of fire as was recently demonstrated in the Downtown. Parks and trails encourage a physically active and healthy community. Other elements of the plan such as arts, historic preservation, and economic development support the general welfare by encouraging a vigorous community with resources to meet the social and economic needs of citizens. By establishing common community goals and aspirations land use regulations can be drafted and policies enacted to advance those goals. The BCP addresses the local purposes of planning identified in the Proposal section which also advances the statutory purposes of planning. Health, safety, convenience, and welfare are issues woven throughout the document. Avoidance of hazardous situations such as flooding and protection of watercourses is an example of an issue which spans multiple chapters. Chapter 13 specifically addresses disaster issues. Chapter 3 addresses these issues as they relate to land use. Other chapters address a variety of subjects. 2. Plan for the future development of their communities to the end that highway systems be carefully planned; The City, County, MDT, and others participate in coordinated transportation planning. A new transportation plan, consistent with the BCP, has been prepared and has been preliminarily adopted. The final draft is now being prepared. The BCP establishes goals and policies which will ensure that a fully functional, multi-modal transportation system is developed. This includes correction of existing deficiencies as well as expansion. The transportation plan and BCP allow coordination across jurisdictional boundaries so that as annexation occurs and roads or other transportation means are developed the transportation system will function efficiently. Chapter 11 addresses transportation. 3. That new community centers grow only with adequate highway, utility, health, educational, and recreational facilities; The BCP continues established policies for concurrency of infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of development. The various facility plans incorporated with the BCP describe service levels and facilities required to meet those levels. Some of these items are provided by an entity other than the City of Bozeman. Those items are addressed also with demonstration of compliance being provided during the land development review process. This intention is brought into existence through the land development standards adopted by the City and other regulatory agencies. 4. That the needs of agriculture, industry, and business be recognized in future growth; 308 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 5 The BCP sets aside a land base for all of these activities. The land use pattern, provision of timely and adequate infrastructure, and overall community health supported in the plan support a healthy economy. Policies encourage the development of local production and businesses in a wide range of areas, including agriculture. Figure 3-1 includes a land base adequate to meet the expected needs of the community for economic activity for the next 20 years. The BCP coordinates policies and facilities in order to provide necessary services at a constrained cost. Action items in Chapter 16, Implementation, direct further actions to advance this purpose. The City has contracted for an Economic Development plan which will further examine this area. When the plan has been completed it will augment and as needed update the BCP. 5. That residential areas provide healthy surroundings for family life; Residential areas which provide healthy surroundings are protected in the plan by policies requiring adequate mitigation of development impacts, provision of public and private utilities, provision of parks and trails, protection of the natural environment, and a broad view of community health. Sequestering or isolating residences from services is not considered supportive of healthy surroundings as it can increase health hazards, such as asthma from poor air quality caused by excessive vehicle use. The BCP calls for adequate development review and community maintenance to address and mitigate hazards. A diverse range of housing is encouraged and supported to meet the wide range of housing needs in the community. 6. The growth of the community be commensurate with and promotive of the efficient and economical use of public funds. The BCP describes a compact future growth pattern which maximizes the value from previous public expenditures and reduces future expenditures. Distance is one of the largest impacts on cost of delivery of services. A compact and land efficient development pattern provides benefits to many users from each installed unit of capacity. This applies both to capital and operational costs. The transportation plan and BCP seek to maximize the efficiency of transportation investments by encouraging a multi-modal approach which spreads demand over longer periods and provides travel alternatives which are less costly. Maintaining the high existing quality of life also supports this criterion by encouraging community reinvestment and renewal which maintains a pleasant environment and constrains demand for public services. The present growth policy, the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, contains locally developed criteria for amending the plan. Although the BCP will wholly replace the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan rather than amend it, a review of those criteria is also provided. These criteria are from Section 2.4.1 of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. A. The proposed amendment cures a deficiency in the growth policy or results in an improved growth policy which better responds to the needs of the general community. The new plan creates an improved growth policy by incorporating updated information and responding to the years of rapid change that have occurred since the original adoption of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The new plan is responsive to changes in state law governing growth policies. Additional information has been added and physical revisions to formatting have been included to make the document more usable to the reader. Sustainability as a substantial named theme has been included which helps address current and expected future changes in the physical environment. 309 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 6 B. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the maps or between different goals; if inconsistencies are identified, then additional changes must be provided to remove the inconsistencies. No inconsistencies have been created within the document. C. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy. There are six basic themes which form a foundation for the policies of the 2020 Plan and encapsulate the intent of the growth policy. These themes have been continued and strengthened and have not been negatively impacted by the new growth policy. The addition of sustainability as a theme has strengthened the overall intent of the growth policy. The revised formatting has made the content more accessible to the user which can increase understanding of the intent of the growth policy. D. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant portion by: 1. Significantly altering acceptable existing and future land use patterns, as defined in the text and maps of this plan. The overall planned land use pattern and principles have been continued in the new growth policy. Some changes to the future land use map do not match current zoning on undeveloped properties. The City has the authority to consider changes to both future land use and zoning on a property. These are City programs and remain in City control. 2. Requiring unmitigated larger and more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer or other public facilities or services and which, therefore, may impact development of other lands. The growth policy coordinates between the various facility plans for maintenance and expansion of the City’s services. The land use pattern and facility coordination provides for cost containment in providing services. Some additional facilities will be required to give service to an expanded population. The related expenses should be mitigated by the City’s policies both existing and proposed. Some of the new facilities are required by external mandates from regulatory agencies and would be necessary regardless of growth. AND 3. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services. The growth policy requires evaluation of development impacts and provision of mitigation to off-set those impacts. The City’s active facility planning and development review program should avoid this problem. 310 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 7 4. Negatively affecting the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents. The new growth policy puts primary emphasis on an expansive approach to public health and safety. The first priority is problem avoidance then mitigation of impacts. This is consistent with commonly accepted planning practice for emergency services. Provision of adequate water for fire suppression, safe travel because of adequate street requirements, and emergency services coordination with other jurisdictions are examples of ways the growth policy encourages the protection of public health and safety. The growth policy does anticipate substantial expansion of the community. This may affect how some people perceive the ‘livability’ of Bozeman. Trying to stop all growth would also be seen to negatively affect the livability of Bozeman for some. Change is inevitable and must be addressed. The growth policy encourages provision of elements of community design and development which support livability such as parks and open spaces, a viable and vigorous economy, preservation of the historic built environment, access to education and the arts, and encouragement for a socially active community. STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION Planning staff has reviewed this application for a growth policy amendment against the criteria set forth in Section 76-1-102 MCA, and Section 2.4.1 (Criteria for Review and Amendment) of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Staff found that this proposal satisfies all of the required review criteria. The Bozeman Planning Board has also reviewed the plan and has recommended approval of the document to the City Commission. Based on the evaluation of said criteria and findings by the Planning staff and Planning Board APPROVAL of the growth policy is recommended. PUBLIC COMMENT Public comments were received throughout the public process of developing the plan draft. The Planning Board considered the comments received in writing and verbally at the public hearings. Based upon the public comment and their subsequent review and discussion of the document the Planning Board made a number of changes. Not all changes suggested in public comments were made as the Planning Board concluded that another action should be taken instead. The public comments are attached with this staff report. Some additional public comment has been received since the Planning Board hearing and is also included for City Commission review. There are four revisions to the future land use map which the Planning Board concluded should not be made or should only be made in part. There are no outstanding non-map items. These are: 1) Designating the eastern bench and foothills as permanent open space or very low density development. Figure 3-1 presently shows the area as Future Urban. Some of this area was not included within the planning area for the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. 2) Designating a parcel west of Cottonwood Road along Huffine Lane in the Norton development as community commercial. The Figure 3-1 presently shows the area as Residential Emphasis Mixed Use. A designation of Business Park was adopted by amendment to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. 3) Designating a parcel SW of the intersection of Goldenstein Lane and S. 3rd Avenue as Residential. Figure 3-1 presently shows the area as Future Urban as does the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. 311 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 8 4) Designating a parcel NW of the East Main I-90 Interchange by the Village Downtown development as Community Commercial Mixed Use. The Figure 3-1 presently shows the area as Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands. The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan has the same designation for the majority of the area. A portion is shown as Community Commercial. Analysis of remaining items. 1) The Future Urban land use category is described beginning on page 3-14 of the draft document. The category is shown on Figure 3-1 on parcels of land both within and without the City boundary. The opening sentence of the description notes that the category ‘…designates areas where development is considered to be generally inappropriate over the 20 year term of the Bozeman Community Plan…’. The reasons may be lack of infrastructure or because development may conflict with the desired land use pattern. The plan does not dispute the assertion that the visual characteristics of the foothills are a part of Bozeman’s character and serve important functions for wildlife. Those reasons are part of why those areas are not shown for development in the next 20 years. If Gallatin County chose to enact a transfer of development rights program the foothills could be designated as a ‘sending’ area to transfer potential density to more suitable locations. The County does have open space bond funds which they could use to help acquire development rights from those areas. Bozeman does not have a similar program but does pay taxes into the County’s program. Extension of urban services would be costly and require very lengthy extensions for some services although water is more readily available than sewer services. Extension at very low densities would be cost prohibitive for the foreseeable future. The facility plans do identify and depict the pipe location and sizing necessary to serve these areas but does not advocate for particular extensions of service which conflict with other City policies. The City does not have regulatory jurisdiction over the majority of the Future Urban area. It is noted in the closing paragraph that annexation of Future Urban areas is presently unexpected over the life of the plan. At best we can suggest and encourage a course of action for the County to pursue in its land planning. Option 1 gives the City’s preference that the property not be developed. If a development proposal is made it would require an amendment to the growth policy first. Amendments for Future Urban are suggested to only occur during the overall update of the plan, see chapter 17. If development occurs in the county then no further subdivision is encouraged. County protection of the foothills area would be consistent with the policies of the BCP. The title of the category Future Urban was developed at the time of the preparation of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan in 2001. The title shifted several times until the present term was selected by the City Commission. The Planning Board and City Commission were sensitive at that time to the opposition of land owners of having their land appear to be set aside as a permanent conservation belt. If the title of the category is believed to give an inaccurate sense of the policy then another title could be selected. Establishment of open space belts around other communities have contributed to problems with jobs/housing balance, housing affordability, and sustainability. Strategic pursuit of open space in cooperation with other public and private parties to protect community values can still occur. Commission Options. 1. Keep the text and map as is while recognizing the concerns identified in the public comment. This would still allow the option to work with the County on any TDR or other proposal for 312 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 9 conservation. 2. Revise the text describing the Future Urban category, including the possibility of selecting a new name. 3. Create a new land use designation for areas of no or extremely low future development and apply to the map, Figure 3-1, in areas deemed appropriate. 4. Delete the Future Urban category entirely and designate all of the planning area for development as deemed appropriate. 2) The Norton annexation process included a growth policy amendment and zone map amendment to establish primarily urban residential uses with approximately 20 acres of business park category and zoning immediately adjacent to Huffine Lane. During the process of developing the Bozeman Community Plan a new land use category of Residential Emphasis Mixed Use was developed. At this point the implementing zoning is higher density residential districts, see Appendix C, page C-17. It is anticipated that an additional zoning district would be created which would include a greater range of non-residential uses. During the review process many different possible maps were developed and considered. During that process the area presently designated as Business Park was changed to Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU). The owner’s representative requested at the public hearing before the Planning Board that the Business Park designation be changed to Community Commercial Mixed Use. The City Commission had considered an initial request of Community Commercial Mixed Use with the original annexation and had instead applied the Business Park designation. Planning Board considered the request and concluded that the REMU designation was a superior designation for that site in the context of the overall plan. There is no approved subdivision or other site development for that portion of land, nor is one pending. There was wholly residential subdivision approved for a portion of the Norton annexation further to the north on the property. Commission Options. 1. Keep the future land use map as recommended by the Planning Board. 2. Revise the future land use map to show Business Park Mixed Use in that location. 3. Revise the future land use map to show Community Commercial Mixed Use in that location. 3) There are two parcels to the Southwest of the intersection of Goldenstein Lane and S. 3rd Avenue. The owners requested that those parcels be designated as Residential. The parcels are currently shown as Future Urban on Figure 3-1 and in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The area north of Goldenstein Lane is shown as Residential. There are no areas shown as Residential south of Goldenstein Lane until west of S. 19th Avenue. The area to the east of S. 3rd Ave. is shown as Suburban Residential. Commission Options. 1. Keep the future land use map, Figure 3-1, as recommended by the Planning Board. 2. Revise the future land use map, Figure 3-1, to show Residential category designation on those parcels. 4) The East Main I-90 interchange is located at the base of the Story Hills. There is an eroded gap where the East Gallatin River and the rail road pass through to the northwest. Main Street begins at the off- ramp and climbs up the hill towards Lindley Park. There is a sharp rise between the elevation of the gap and the upland. 313 #P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 10 Northwest of the interchange is an area which includes steep slopes, wetlands, rail yard and has had a variety of development over the years. Portions have been recently redeveloped. Since the 1990 Master Plan, portions of that area have been planned for residential, open space, commercial, and industrial uses. The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan reaffirmed a mix of uses in the area including open space. The zoning maps have consistently shown a mix of zoning, not all of which has strictly conformed to underlying master plan designations. Plans evolve and reflect changing understanding of scientific and regulatory issues such as water quality and wetlands, community priorities, and needs for public safety. Such changes also affect the future land use map. A map is not fixed in place forever nor is zoning prohibited from ever changing. Portions of the area zoned M-1 span several different existing underlying planning designations and have for many years. The B-2 and M-1 zoning also overlay many physical features and non-city regulatory issues. The City’s zoning standards are explicit that mere mapping of a zoning district does not waive or negate the need to meet all of the applicable standards in order to gain approval for development, see Section 18.14.010.C, BMC. Examples of physical limitations to development of the property under discussion include very steep slopes, presence of regulated wetlands and other surface water, and lack of physical access. The items listed also are examples of regulatory limitations to development. No application has been made to develop the site. Using the analogy of a puzzle, all of the pieces must be in place to complete the picture. A mapped zoning district is only one part of a puzzle. Should it be demonstrated that the impediments could be removed then an amendment could be processed to the growth policy. The issue of perceived conflict between the zoning and planning could be resolved by the City amending its zoning map. Designation of the land as Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands, see page 3-13 of the growth policy, does not grant any public right of access or use, it remains in private ownership. Planning Staff has considered the issue of a claimed takings raised by the property owner in their comments. We do not believe that a supposed taking would result from the adoption of the map as recommended by the Planning Board. Since this is a legal issue we suggest that the Commission consult with their legal staff on the matter for a technical analysis of the claim. Commission Options. 1. Retain the map, Figure 3-1, as recommended by the Planning Board. 2. Retain the map, Figure 3-1, as recommended by the Planning Board and direct a change to the zoning map. 3. Modify Figure 3-1 to correspond to the zoned but undeveloped condition of the property at question. ATTACHMENTS Planning Board resolution P-07006 Planning Board minutes of public hearings and recommendation on January 21, February 3, and February 18, 2009 Submitted public comment received after the draft document was made available to the public for the Planning Board public hearing The draft document was provided to the Commission and public several weeks ago and is not an attachment to this report cc: file 314 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. 315 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 4 316 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 317 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 3 318 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 1 319 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 1 320 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 321 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 2 322 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 2 323 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 1 324 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 325 76-3-504. Subdivision regulations -- contents. (1) The subdivision regulations adopted under this chapter must, at a minimum: (a) list the materials that must be included in a subdivision application in order for the application to be determined to contain the required elements for the purposes of the review required in 76-3- 604(1); (b) except as provided in 76-3-210, 76-3-509, or 76-3-609, require the subdivider to submit to the governing body an environmental assessment as prescribed in 76-3-603; (c) establish procedures consistent with this chapter for the submission and review of subdivision applications and amended applications; (d) prescribe the form and contents of preliminary plats and the documents to accompany final plats; (e) provide for the identification of areas that, because of natural or human-caused hazards, are unsuitable for subdivision development. The regulations must prohibit subdivisions in these areas unless the hazards can be eliminated or overcome by approved construction techniques or other mitigation measures authorized under 76-3-608(4) and (5). Approved construction techniques or other mitigation measures may not include building regulations as defined in 50-60-101 other than those identified by the department of labor and industry as provided in 50-60-901. (f) prohibit subdivisions for building purposes in areas located within the floodway of a flood of 100-year frequency, as defined by Title 76, chapter 5, or determined to be subject to flooding by the governing body; (g) prescribe standards for: (i) the design and arrangement of lots, streets, and roads; (ii) grading and drainage; (iii) subject to the provisions of 76-3-511, water supply and sewage and solid waste disposal that meet the: (A) regulations adopted by the department of environmental quality under 76-4-104 for subdivisions that will create one or more parcels containing less than 20 acres; and (B) standards provided in 76-3-604 and 76-3-622 for subdivisions that will create one or more parcels containing 20 acres or more and less than 160 acres; and (iv) the location and installation of public utilities; (h) provide procedures for the administration of the park and open-space requirements of this chapter; (i) provide for the review of subdivision applications by affected public utilities and those agencies of local, state, and federal government identified during the preapplication consultation conducted pursuant to subsection (1)(q) or those having a substantial interest in a proposed subdivision. A public utility or agency review may not delay the governing body's action on the application beyond the time limits specified in this chapter, and the failure of any agency to complete a review of an application may not be a basis for rejection of the application by the governing body. (j) when a subdivision creates parcels with lot sizes averaging less than 5 acres, require the subdivider to: 326 (i) reserve all or a portion of the appropriation water rights owned by the owner of the land to be subdivided and transfer the water rights to a single entity for use by landowners within the subdivision who have a legal right to the water and reserve and sever any remaining surface water rights from the land; (ii) if the land to be subdivided is subject to a contract or interest in a public or private entity formed to provide the use of a water right on the subdivision lots, establish a landowner's water use agreement administered through a single entity that specifies administration and the rights and responsibilities of landowners within the subdivision who have a legal right and access to the water; or (iii) reserve and sever all surface water rights from the land; (k) (i) except as provided in subsection (1)(k)(ii), require the subdivider to establish ditch easements in the subdivision that: (A) are in locations of appropriate topographic characteristics and sufficient width to allow the physical placement and unobstructed maintenance of open ditches or belowground pipelines for the delivery of water for irrigation to persons and lands legally entitled to the water under an appropriated water right or permit of an irrigation district or other private or public entity formed to provide for the use of the water right on the subdivision lots; (B) are a sufficient distance from the centerline of the ditch to allow for construction, repair, maintenance, and inspection of the ditch; and (C) prohibit the placement of structures or the planting of vegetation other than grass within the ditch easement without the written permission of the ditch owner. (ii) Establishment of easements pursuant to this subsection (1)(k) is not required if: (A) the average lot size is 1 acre or less and the subdivider provides for disclosure, in a manner acceptable to the governing body, that adequately notifies potential buyers of lots that are classified as irrigated land and may continue to be assessed for irrigation water delivery even though the water may not be deliverable; or (B) the water rights are removed or the process has been initiated to remove the water rights from the subdivided land through an appropriate legal or administrative process and if the removal or intended removal is denoted on the preliminary plat. If removal of water rights is not complete upon filing of the final plat, the subdivider shall provide written notification to prospective buyers of the intent to remove the water right and shall document that intent, when applicable, in agreements and legal documents for related sales transactions. (l) require the subdivider, unless otherwise provided for under separate written agreement or filed easement, to file and record ditch easements for unobstructed use and maintenance of existing water delivery ditches, pipelines, and facilities in the subdivision that are necessary to convey water through the subdivision to lands adjacent to or beyond the subdivision boundaries in quantities and in a manner that are consistent with historic and legal rights; (m) require the subdivider to describe, dimension, and show public utility easements in the subdivision on the final plat in their true and correct location. The public utility easements must be of sufficient width to allow the physical placement and unobstructed maintenance of public utility facilities for the provision of public utility services within the subdivision. 327 (n) establish whether the governing body, its authorized agent or agency, or both will hold public hearings; (o) establish procedures describing how the governing body or its agent or agency will address information presented at the hearing or hearings held pursuant to 76-3-605 and 76-3-615; (p) establish criteria that the governing body or reviewing authority will use to determine whether a proposed method of disposition using the exemptions provided in 76-3-201 or 76-3-207 is an attempt to evade the requirements of this chapter. The regulations must provide for an appeals process to the governing body if the reviewing authority is not the governing body. (q) establish a preapplication process that: (i) requires a subdivider to meet with the agent or agency, other than the governing body, that is designated by the governing body to review subdivision applications prior to the subdivider submitting the application; (ii) requires, for informational purposes only, identification of the state laws, local regulations, and growth policy provisions, if a growth policy has been adopted, that may apply to the subdivision review process; (iii) requires a list to be made available to the subdivider of the public utilities, those agencies of local, state, and federal government, and any other entities that may be contacted for comment on the subdivision application and the timeframes that the public utilities, agencies, and other entities are given to respond. If, during the review of the application, the agent or agency designated by the governing body contacts a public utility, agency, or other entity that was not included on the list originally made available to the subdivider, the agent or agency shall notify the subdivider of the contact and the timeframe for response. (iv) requires that a preapplication meeting take place no more than 30 days from the date that the agent or agency receives a written request for a preapplication meeting from the subdivider; and (v) establishes a time limit after a preapplication meeting by which an application must be submitted as provided in 76-3-604. (2) In order to accomplish the purposes described in 76-3-501, the subdivision regulations adopted under 76-3-509 and this section may include provisions that are consistent with this section that promote cluster development. (3) The governing body may establish deadlines for submittal of subdivision applications. 328