Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012109 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:12 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Cathy Costakis Andrew Epple, Director of Planning Chris Mehl Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Quinn Erik Henyon Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Members Absent: Guests Present: Dawn Smith Dan Triemstra Donna Swarthout Dennis Carlson Mark Evans Jennifer Hart Al Lien Guy Alsentzer David Cook Sam McCalley Rebecca Musy Rob Pertzborn Chris Murphy Steve Ziegler ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} David Cook, 701 S. 7th Ave., stated he had previously made the comment that he was amazed and perplexed that resounding comments for the City were being made in the Growth Policy and very few from the public had attended the meeting. He suggested that the City should consider why no one had been involved in the City discussions and why there was a total lack of interest in Bozeman. He noted the municipal form of government relied on response from the citizens and the City was not getting those comments. He stated the City should address why there was no citizen interest. Dan Triemstra, 2200 Durston Rd., stated he was a farmer, agriculturist, and a member of the Farmers Canal Company. He stated transition use of water did not necessarily remove the need for ditches and noted a ditch could not always just stop at the end of a property. He asked for the definition of “formal abandonment” as it appeared in the text of the Growth Policy. He noted a water use might not be agriculture use in the future and may instead be used for mitigation. He explained the City took over maintenance and liability of a ditch when it was incorporated into the City. He noted agricultural facilities did not exist for the convenience of storm water facilities; he suggested written permission be obtained by the developer of properties from every one of the water users along the waterway. He suggested the City use the same method as the County when mitigating watercourses. Vice Chairperson Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify the definition of “formal abandonment”. Assistant Director Saunders responded the literal dictionary definition would apply and there would be a review process to determine whether the abandonment of the watercourse was formal. He noted the use of storm water for mitigation, etc., would be a different set of easements for a storm water facility than for a conveyance facility. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, Vice President Henyon closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 2009 MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of January 6, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. DRAFT GROWTH POLICY Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Memo noting the project had been a work in progress for the Planning Board. He gave an overview of the reasons for the Planning process and stated maximizing one thing sometimes acted to the detriment of another and Planning helped to determine a balance between the two. He stated that fundamentally, the document would touch on principal issues and guiding themes were used throughout the document. He noted the influences on Planning; such as natural features, costs, and returns. He noted how the process began and clarified the procedures used to provide outreach and workshops for the public. He noted input had been gathered from a variety of sources and incorporated as the document was created. He noted there were a number of major changes including; an expanded planning area, updated data, sustainability, disaster and emergency language, and the incorporation of references to other documents. He noted there was a large change in formatting to provide for more accessibility for the public and interconnections to outside, related documents. He noted the location of the Planning area with regard to the City limits boundary and that the plan area had been coordinated with four other documents. He noted the number of chapters included in the document and generally what they covered. He noted most of the language and text in the current document had been moved to the appendices. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Transportation Plan was adopted by the City Commission at their January 20, 2009 hearing. He noted the chapter layout in the Draft Growth Policy had a common structure with emphasis points being contained on the outside edges of the pages. He noted illustrated photographs and links to referenced documents would be included. He stated the theme grid had been included to provide cross references to other locations within the document and that the layout of the Goals and Objectives within the chapters contained a list of Implementation Policies located in Chapter 16; he clarified that one Implementation Policy may apply to a number of Goals within the document. He noted the Guiding Themes were contained throughout the document and tied into each other in a variety of ways which would encourage and support sustainability. He noted the Implementation Tools were for both long term and short term basis. He noted one critical point wo uld be that implementing the document was not something the City could do on its own and would have to be in concert with other agencies and the public to benefit everyone. He noted this evening was the first public hearing of the Planning Board and there would be another on February 3, 2009; he added that the City Commission date had not been scheduled yet to provide time for Planning Board and public comments. He noted two written comments had been received and that they had been provided to the Planning Board in their packets. He noted the Economic Development Plan was in process and surveys had been conducted, as well as input from the advisory group; he noted a draft was expected by the Spring of 2009 and the more detailed information would take the place of the information in the current document. He noted the Downtown Neighborhood Plan would begin in February and the hope was that it would be completed by the end of 2009. Mr. Mehl thanked Assistant Director Saunders and noted that e-mail’s through the City website would also be sufficient to provide for public comments. Vice President Henyon called for public comment. Steve Ziegler, 2531 Whitetail Rd., stated he would like to comment on the future urban area; he asked how the area was established, how it related to the County transfer of development rights, and how the priorities within the document had been established. Al Lien, 8507 Huffine Lane, stated Ms. Pomnichowski had notified him – Farmers Canal Company - and had conversed with Judge Loble of Water Court with regard to the water chapter. He noted the Middle Creek ditch had been absorbed into the City and others were close so the Planning Board already had those issues before them to work on. He presented the Board with written comment from Judge Loble. Rob Pertzborn, 111 N. Tracy Ave., asked Assistant Director Saunders if he could speak to modifications to the Unified Development Ordinance that would be necessary due to the Growth Policy adoption. He asked for the Planning Board to describe why the color had been changed from blue to pink and back to blue again on the property near Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane that he had inquired about at the December meeting of the Planning Board. Robert Evans, Tarlow, Stonecipher, & Steele, stated he represented Norton Properties; he handed out a letter with a basic request that the Future Land Use Map designation for the property be reconsidered as Commercial Mixed Use instead of Business Park (just as Mr. Pertzborn had suggested for a similarly located property at the December meeting); he suggested the surrounding property was zoned and designated the same, but the proposal would be for a Community Commercial designation. Mr. Caldwell responded to Mr. Ziegler that the urban area had been established by the estimations of the future build out of the community and those areas could be developed, but would face thresholds with major infrastructure requirements that would make them less readily developable than areas within the City. He noted the relationship between the City Growth Policy and the Gallatin County did not exist as the County had not formally adopted the document; he noted it was the intent of the Growth Policy to work more closely with the County on the larger planning issues. Assistant Director Saunders added that there was an effort in 2001 by the City and County to create an agreement, but it had never been formally adopted, though the spirit of the agreement had been maintained and County involvement was a work in progress. He stated the Plan as presented did not conflict with the conceptual work the County had done to date; it encouraged infill and development within its boundaries. He noted the City was required to review and update the document every five years and if things stayed stable, the level of review currently being used might not be necessary in five years. Vice President Henyon responded to Mr. Lien that discrepancies in the document had been found and Ms. Pomnichowski had intended to discuss the language with Judge Loble, who had provided the comments Mr. Lien had presented. Assistant Director Saunders noted they wanted to be certain the City had a conforming document and the Judge’s comments would be reviewed by Staff with the City Attorney. Vice President Henyon responded to Mr. Pertzborn stating the Planning Board had agreed and moved to make the change to the Growth Policy Map that had been proposed by Mr. Pertzborn at the December meeting. Assistant Director Saunders explained the approval process for the Growth Policy, how amendments to the document could be made after it was adopted by the City Commission, and how the adoption of the document would create the necessity to amend the UDO; he noted the creation of a new zoning district or modification of an existing district would have to occur and that public comment would be encouraged at that time. He clarified that originally the map had shown the property Mr. Pertzborn was referencing as Residential and was currently Business Park. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to respond to Mr. Evans’ concerns. Assistant Director Saunders responded the amendment request had been received by the Board and they would need to consider whether the property would be best depicted as yellow or purple; the map would be amended as needed. Mr. Caldwell noted that existing zoning designations were in full effect regardless of the Future Land Use designation of the property. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that the Growth Policy would be the governing document and the City Commission could direct Staff to make modifications to the map. Vice President Henyon asked if the properties in question were raw land. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Norton property had a Plat for one section, but had vacant land for a portion of the site and noted the Loyal Garden property was Final Platted with residential construction already commencing. Vice President Henyon suggested the Board review the public comment with regard to changes in proposed Land Use Designation and discuss their options at the next meeting. Mr. Mehl suggested Staff prepare the public comments in a list for consideration at the next meeting. Assistant Director Saunders agreed. Ms. Costakis stated she thought the parcel Mr. Pertzborn was referencing had been discussed and decided as Community Commercial at the December meeting. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would check the December minutes. Mr. Caldwell noted that comments had been made regarding a future zoning designation that was unknown as of yet and he thought the Planning Board should discuss those concerns at a later date. The Planning Board began review of individual chapters. Chapter 12 Mr. Becker asked if the title could be corrected on page 12-2 and suggested the dates, acres of park, miles of trails, etc. be included. Assistant Director Saunders noted the most recent 2008 data would be included. Mr. Becker stated PS-1 on page 12-3 should include “in a reliable”. The Board concurred. Mr. Becker noted the Implementation Policies included Affordable Housing and asked for clarification on how that tied in. Assistant Director Saunders explained. Mr. Becker stated Objective PS-3.3 did not make sense. Assistant Direcotr Saunders explained that the situation was that annexing a large portion of property provided a mechanism for funding the new development, but there were a few spots around town that contained small areas that did not have redevelopment or further development potential. There are still concerns such as not meeting sanitation standards, etc., and the Objective indicated the need to explore the methods by which those annexation opportunities could be investigated. Mr. Becker suggested “undevelopable, wholly developed parcels where annexation is an excessive burden, the City will pursue other alternatives.” Mr. Caldwell asked if the issue was a failed waste water treatment site where replacement would not be allowable and the property would be forced into annexation. Assistant Director Saunders agreed with Mr. Caldwell and responded it would be in the City’s best interest to annex those properties. The Board concurred that the language should be amended to be clearer. Ms. Costakis asked if on page 12-4 the language should be more specific. Assistant Director Saunders responded more specific language had been included in Implementation Policies. Ms. Costakis asked if Public Health should be included in Public Services and Facilities. Assistant Director Saunders responded that language had been included in the appendices, but had not been included so specifically within chapters 3 and 9; he suggested stronger language could be included if the Board concurred that it was necessary and noted the City-County Health Department had jurisdiction over health concerns. The Board concurred the language had already been included. Ms. Costakis suggested adding the language “safe crosswalks” to page 12-5. Mr. Mehl listed the chapters for the members of the public attending the meeting. Vice President Henyon stated on page 12-2, the green box contained two references to the Transportation Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded one was in direct reference to Transit. Vice President Henyon suggested a goal be included stating “to provide for water conservation education”. Assistant Director Saunders responded efficient use of the municipal water supply had been addressed. Vice President Henyon responded his suggestion would be more specific and could be included as an objective. Assistant Director Saunders responded Implementation 63 addressed an outreach in education on water conservation and re-use; he noted the language could be added in either of two places. Mr. Mehl suggested it was included in E and mentioned in both chapters. The Board concurred. Chapter 13 Mr. Becker stated there were photographs included in the margin that referenced a number of different safety plans affecting the Growth Policy area and asked if it would be possible to assemble a list of them to overlay the Growth Policy area. Assistant Director Saunders responded the web version would take people directly to the referenced document. Mr. Becker suggested a list of those documents should be included in the chapter. Assistant Director Saunders noted in Appendix J, there was list of other plans that have occurred or are currently in place and the list could be augmented to include the other items if the location were acceptable to the Planning Board; he noted the list would also be updated. Mr. Mehl suggested including all the documents referenced. The Board concurred. Rebecca Musy, 514 S. 13th Ave., asked if there was anything in the Growth Policy discussing an avian flu epidemic. Vice President Henyon responded the hospital had a rapid response plan in case of avian flu. Ms. Musy suggested quarantine plans should be in place. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City coordinated with the City-County Health Department who had jurisdiction regarding those types of emergency situations. Mr. Mehl stated the policy was set at a much higher level and the City would cooperate with any and all entities if that situation arose. Chapter 14 Assistant Director Saunders noted a letter of public comment had been received with regard to this chapter and suggested the Planning Board discuss those comments. Mr. Becker stated he thought the chapter was fairly complete and suggested maps would be helpful to determine the relationship of the overlays. Assistant Director Saunders responded the information would be better contained within the appendix due to the level of detail involved; he noted there were many inter-local agreements in affect that did not lend themselves well for inclusion in a map. Mr. Mehl asked if the maps could be linked to the references within the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded the linked list could be inserted on page 14-3 and the photos could be removed to make space available if needed. Ms. Costakis stated she did not understand the language on page 14-3, RCC-2.1. Assistant Director Saunders responded the County would enforce water/sewer services annexing into the City by requiring the property be annexed to the City or the City would have to provide a letter stating services to the location could not be provided. Ms. Costakis asked if RCC-2.3 on the same page included Complete Streets. Assistant Director Saunders responded they were included. Ms. Costakis suggested RCC-3.5 should include safe routes to school language. Mr. Caldwell responded the language was referenced in the adopted Transportation Plan. Vice President Henyon noted the safe routes to school were implied and he was unsure specific language would need to be included. Ms. Costakis suggested parks and recreation should be included on the last page of chapter 14 due to the locations that overlapped from the County to the City. The Board concurred. Vice President Henyon noted the public comment the Planning Board had received on watershed management for the surrounding forestland and recreation areas. He noted the chapter discussed the federal government and had specifically listed jurisdictional agencies. Assistant Director Saunders responded RCC-2.8 addressed the watershed issue. Chapter 15 Mr. Becker asked if a definition of “formal abandonment” would be included. Assistant Director Saunders responded he thought the definition would be that of the English language standard meaning, but could be included; he noted the Subdivision and Platting Act was a section of statute that would address formal abandonment and there would always be a point where a water right would be terminated. Mr. Becker stated on page 10-6 and 10-7 the headings were wrong and suggested the Planning Board and other advisory boards be included under subdivision review. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language had been included as such so it would not be in conflict with the Growth Policy and would be left flexible to provide for one of the three options listed. He noted for all meaningful intents and purposes, every action item on the agenda was treated as a public hearing item at City Commission. Mr. Becker suggested a box be included that subdivision applications may have to be channeled through relevant advisory boards. Assistant Director Saunders responded it could be included in the blank spot on the last page. Mr. Caldwell noted that the BOA did not exist when the 2020 Plan was created and, if that language had been included specifically, reviews by the BOA might not be an allowable option for the City Commission to utilize – he suggested leaving the language non-specific so as to not limit the review processes. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be included without specifically listing the entities. The Board concurred that the language should be included, but non-specific. Ms. Costakis stated on page 15-3, the first and second comments should include CSA’s. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was included under either the commercial or co-op language included for the Residential Suburban zoning designation. Ms. Costakis asked if the Clarion report recommendation to enhance the public health situation could be included on page 15-5 to provide for promoting active living. Assistant Director Saunders responded he could insert the language after item #1. Mr. Mehl asked where figure 3 was on page 15-3 and suggested the Land Use Map the figure referenced should be included in parentheses. Mr. Caldwell asked if there were any additional authorities or missing links that Staff felt were needed and asked if remainder tracts should be addressed within the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Supreme Court recently ruled that there was no such thing as a remainder tract so it would not need to be addressed; he noted Staff felt the draft document contained the necessary text. He stated he was having difficulty finding a Lewis & Clark quote that would be appropriate. Vice President Henyon stated that on page 15-5 he was confused regarding #2 and suggested “they” seemed to be referring to the habitat instead of the animals. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was a reference to the animals and the language would be clarified. Vice President Henyon suggested skipping Chapter 16 until the rest of the Board was in attendance at the February 3, 2009 meeting. The Board concurred to open and continue Chapter 16 to the next meeting of the Planning Board. Chapter 17 Mr. Mehl asked who Heraclitus was and suggested checking the spelling of Heraclitus. Assistant Director Saunders responded he was a Greek philosopher and he would confirm the spelling. Mr. Caldwell suggested the Clarion report was clear on the amendment process and he thought the amendments proposed during the update process received only a “head nod” from the Board; he suggested the amendments be bundled and reviewed on a regular basis. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had suggested the GPA’s be bundled and reviewed at the same time, but it would be up to the City Commission to decide the review process. Mr. Caldwell suggested it would rub people the wrong way to be told to bring their amendments back when the annual review was scheduled. Vice President Henyon stated he agreed with Mr. Caldwell and added that when a project had merit, it would benefit the community to individually review and expedite the review process. Mr. Quinn added that he thought, when an amendment was necessary for a project, it should be dealt with as a particular recommendation from Staff as a formal individual presentation for approval. Mr. Mehl stated the language should be explicit that all other changes besides Future Urban & Suburban Residential did not have the same review process; he suggested a short sentence be included addressing all other applications be presented through the formal review process. Mr. Becker suggested the break down between the substantial majority and simple majority for adoption of the Growth Policy should be clarified to prevent future legal difficulties. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be modified to be more consistent; #4 could be stricken and the decision would fall back to the majority of the total membership of the Commission. Mr. Quinn responded he thought it would be adequate to use the 2/3 majority rule for the proposed amendments to remain consistent. Mr. Becker suggested the ¾ majority rule be instituted. Mr. Mehl concurred with Mr. Becker that the first number should be increased to allow for the ¾ majority rule. Assistant Director Saunders responded the higher number at the beginning would necessitate a discussion with the City Attorney regarding State statutes. Vice President Henyon stated he liked the way it was written right now. Mr. Quinn stated there was a potential conflict of interest if the City Commission initiated an amendment and then reviewed the same amendment for approval. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a specific statute that directed the Planning Board to prepare a Growth Policy for City Commission review and there would be no conflict. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Caldwell noted he would like to speak to the Planning Board some time in the future about the Urban Land Institute’s conducting of the plan for the downtown district of Bozeman. He noted it was a departure from the way the Growth Policy was created; he noted they were impressed with the project team. Ms. Costakis noted she and Chris were going to the Smart Growth conference. Vice President Henyon suggested Mr. Evans and Mr. Pertzborn’s proposed map amendments be discussed at the February 3, 2009 meeting of the Planning Board. Mr. Becker suggested the Board determine a process (such as a fee waiver) to provide as an alternative at the next meeting. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, Vice President Henyon adjourned the meeting at 10:03 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Eric Henyon, Vice President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman