HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-07 Planning Board Minutes.docMINUTES
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD,
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2007
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice President Erik Henyon called the regular meeting of the City Planning Board to order at 7:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present: Members Absent:
Erik Henyon, Vice President JP Pomnichowski (excused)
Caren Roberty Randy Carpenter (unexcused)
Ed Sypinski Eric Roset (unexcused)
Brian Caldwell
Bill Quinn
Kaaren Jacobson
Staff Present:
Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development
Shoni Dykstra, Recording Secretary
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there were no members of the public wishing to comment, Vice President Erik Henyon closed this portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2007
It was moved by Ed Sypinski, seconded by Caren Roberty, to approve the minutes of November 6, 2007 as submitted.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
Seeing there were no projects to review, Vice President Henyon closed this portion of the meeting.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Planning Board Training (Saunders)
Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development, presented a PowerPoint presentation foron responsibilities of the Planning Board. He highlighted three key reasons
why Bozeman plans: to protect public health and safety, to balance competing interests
that are individually considered to be “good”, and to help rationally distribute scarce resources. He noted the state statutes governing planning boards, and items within the purview
of the Planning Board.
Ed Sypinski noted his frustration with trying to ask fiscal feasibility questions in the past. He wanted to know how to make decisions without being able to ask questions regarding fiscal
feasibility. Planner Saunders noted that his understanding of the charge to the Planning Board concerning fiscal responsibility was more on a programmatic level than on an individual
project basis. The Legislature removed the public benefit criteria from the subdivision review standards several years ago. He also noted that availability of labor force, overall housing,
etc were issues the Planning Board could take into account when reviewing projectsthe growth policy or programs on the fiscal level. He also noted that the Planning Board could ask the
City Commission for more direction regarding the review of fiscal effects of a project.
Planner Saunders noted the Growth Policy relies on several external documents such as the PROST Plan and the Transportation Plan and can be used by the Planning Board as a standard to
review projects by. He noted that the Growth Policy could not be used by itself to approve or deny projects, but it was a guideline for the Board. Planner Saunders noted that in order
to better coordinate project reviews, other advisory board comments were incorporated in the Staff report prepared for the Planning Board. Vice President Henyon sought clarification
on the public comment period. Planner Saunders noted that materials sent to the respective agencies went out at the same time, but not all agencies consistently responded in time to
include the comments with the Planning Board Staff report.
Planner Saunders noted that the Planning Board needs to be clear in its recommendation. He noted the Staff report can be utilized in the recommendation. Mr. Caldwell noted the Board
does not need to read back the Staff report to have it officially on record. Planner Saunders noted that public comments might need to be addressed if conditions in the Staff report
had not addressed a particular issue brought up during the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Sypinski asked how the applicant was able to rebut references made during public
comment. Planner Saunders noted that the applicant could address those issues during the City Commission meeting. He also noted that the Board may want to formalize a procedure through
the by-laws to allow the applicant to rebut during the meeting.
Planner Saunders addressed why state law and Bozeman’s zoning process allowed exemption of certain projects from going through subdivision review. He noted this process allowed developers
to have a better idea of what they could do with the land, as well as give preliminary direction to those projects which must undergoing subdivision review.
Mr. Caldwell noted his frustration wasith the feeling of the Planning Board meeting being used as a dry run for the City Commission. He sought advice from Staff on how to be more effective
as a Board. Planner Saunders noted that redefining some of the statements in the Growth Policy wcould make it a more useful tool. Vice President Henyon noted his frustration when the
City Commission has the same discussion and asks the same questions the Planning Board has already gone over. Mr. Sypinski recommended following up with the City Commission to find what
weight the Commissioners actually gave to the advisory boards. Ms. Jacobson noted she read the Planning Board minutes first when reviewing materials. Mr. Sypinski noted the minutes did
not reflect the thought process as well as they could. Ms. Roberty suggested a synopsis of the minutes be included with issues or questions that the City Commission should look into
further.
Mr. Caldwell noted that the Planning Board meetings could be more succinct. Mr. Sypinski noted the Board does a good job when looking at broader issues and large applications as it was
easier to make pertinent recommendations.
Planner Saunders noted that there were a number of different ways to carry out any particular charge. He noted the board had the ability to sharpe their discussions around the advancement
of the Growth Policy in whatever form that may take. He also noted the UDO had some specific measures to quantify some regulationsofsome of the qualitative statements in the growth policy.
Bill Quinn noted the Planning Board went over many of the issues covered by the UDO as well as the staff report. He noted that reiterating what Staff has done is not a good use of the
Board’s time. He noted that the Board did not have the opportunity to address infill if there were only new subdivision applications. He would prefer to discuss the need of a subdivision
in a particular area, but Zoning has already made that decision.
Vice President Henyon noted the Board was mandated to only review the application before them even if there were other phases which might have tied into the discussion in a valid way.
Mr. Caldwell noted that the Growth Policy could contain the principles that would allow the Board to discuss the question of “need”. Ms. Roberty noted that with broad guidelines the
Board would be able to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
Planner Saunders noted that the 2020 Plan contained reasonable expectations for demand by land usages. He noted that it would be difficult for the Board to look at “need” on a subdivision
by subdivision review. He noted the Board could look at it holistically with a neutral expectation of population to determine the necessity of a certain application. He noted the primary
role of the Board is long rang planning issues, such as Growth Policy, transportation, and any other purview the Commission has sought input on. Ms. Roberty noted that turning down a
subdivision based on “need” would require evidence showing that more development would be detrimental to the City. Mr. Sypinski noted that waste water and fresh water capacity issues
could also be addressed by the board to hold the developer accountable. Ms. Roberty noted that there were many platted lots city wide which hadve not been built on, and the board could
look at applications which continually build out rather than infilling the currently empty lots.
Planner Saunders noted the Board could make a recommendation to the City Commission to allow fewer annexations. He also stated one issue which may arise is raised whenever the City
is asked to deny a project is the developer going to the County. Mr. Quinn noted an agreement with the County would be an effective tool for those parcels that weren’t annexed especially
for those areas which were in the “donut” zone.
SUMMARY
Vice President Henyon noted the Planning Board’s Liaison, Ms. Jacobson, could bring up the Boards comments during the City Commission meeting to address the repetitive nature of some
of the questions. Mr. Sypinski noted items of consideration should be included in the minutes. Ms. Roberty suggested a synopsis at the end of the minutes. She also recommended revisiting
the bylaws to address the process for an applicant to rebut public comments or questions, and bringing the Growth Policy in on discussions of applicants and less second guessing of Staff.
Mr. Caldwell would like to see items of concern such as public comment, larger policy issues, or concerns from the applicant voted on item by item to forward to the City Commission.
Mr. Sypinski noted it would be an easier way for them to communicate the Planning Board’s findings in an organized and succinct way. Vice President Henyon noted that clear and defined
goals and expectations would expedite the entire process. Ms. Roberty noted that the Board needed to summarize the findings at the end of the meeting.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board at this time, Vice President Erik Henyon adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
_________________________________ ___________________________________
Erik Henyon, Vice President Andrew C. EppleChris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman