Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020309 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Cathy Costakis Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Chris Mehl Bill Quinn Erik Henyon Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Donna Swarthout Dawn Smith Members Absent: Guests Present: Chris Nixon Tom Stonecipher Kathie Callahan Lucy Pope Bob Swinth Pat Martin Natalie Meyer Sam McColly Steve Ziegler Brett Ferre Hjalmar Bombeck Jessica Wilkerson Landy Figueroa Erica Paradise Wren Kilian Bade Mike Kvasnick Charles Petrie ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing no public comment forthcoming, Vice President Henyon closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2009 Ms. Costakis stated on page 3 it wasn’t clear if it was the Downtown Neighborhood Plan to which Assistant Director Saunders was referencing and suggested the language “Downtown” be included. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to approve the minutes of January 21, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT GROWTH POLICY 1. Outstanding comments Assistant Director Saunders noted a memo had been provided to the Board that was a summary of items not yet discussed or ones that remained unresolved. He noted the most recently received public comments had been provided to the Board. Vice President Henyon stated the Board would review the outstanding comments one at a time. Chapter 4 Assistant Director Saunders noted the reference to people powered vehicles instead of just motor vehicles had been included, the statement had been changed to an action item in C-3.4 and the possibility of a definition of “form based zoning” had been provided. Mr. Quinn added that on Objective C-2.1 a minor change would have sufficed and the proposed was too wordy; he suggested the language “human powered” should be removed. Mr. Caldwell responded the intent was to include bicycle use in the document when people thought about subdivision design. Mr. Sypinski responded he agreed with Mr. Caldwell that the intent was to include bicyclists and expand the definition. Ms. Swarthout stated she was fine with all of the revisions as provided in the document. Vice President Henyon stated he saw no problems with the language in chapter 4 as proposed by Staff. Mr. Quinn stated a definition of “form based zoning” should be included in the glossary. Vice President Henyon concurred with Mr. Quinn. Mr. Mehl suggested the definition of “zoning” be included in the glossary. Mr. Caldwell noted zoning had been around for quite a while and property had been bought and sold with that understanding, unlike form based zoning which was newer, and he disagreed that there should be more definitions included. Mr. Sypinski stated zoning was partially defined in the beginning of the document. Mr. Mehl concurred that it would not be necessary to include the definition of zoning. Mr. Sypinski asked for the definitions of “designated” or “dedicated” parks to be included in the glossary. Assistant Director Saunders responded he did not think the definition would need to be included as it had been addressed in the PROST Plan; a document more fitted for that purpose. The Board concurred that the definition of “form based zoning” should be included, but agreed that neither “zoning”, nor “dedicated” & “designated” definitions would be necessary. Chapter 8 Assistant Director Saunders noted the current chapter 8 would be replaced in the Spring when Prospera had completed the final Bozeman Economic Development Plan; he noted Prospera had agreed to make the 2007 Economic Profile document available to the public at the Planning Office, but were not amenable to making the document available online. He stated the educational factor addressed in the previous Planning Board meeting had not been resolved with Prospera and Staff recommended approval of the chapter as presented, though clarity of whether education had been included in the study would be pursued. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Planning Board had previously discussed relocation of some of the paragraphs of the chapter for clarification. Ms. Swarthout stated she thought the Board had agreed not to change the order of the paragraphs. Mr. Quinn stated he thought the idea behind the plan was to promote and facilitate the language in the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Growth Policy was similar to a facility plan in that there was a broad scope it would cover, as with most facility plans. Mr. Quinn suggested the City might be seen as right more often if they didn’t pronounce the negative in the language of the document. Vice President Henyon noted he agreed with Mr. Quinn and his notes reflected that the two final paragraphs should be removed and the focuses should be on the positive with the negative spin being removed. He noted he was disappointed that the Draft Prospera document was not hot-linked to the City website; he thought it should be available on line. Mr. Mehl responded the profile was developed before the City contracted Propspera’s services and the Economic Plan was what they were contracted for; he noted linking might be proprietary though he agreed that it was disappointing. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Final document would be available through the City website. The Board concurred the economic language should be removed (last two paragraphs). Chapter 9 Assistant Director Saunders noted language had been included to address the timing of traffic lights in conjunction with air quality and read a quote that could be added into the end of the chapter that would fit well; Henry David Thoreau, “What is the point of a house if you haven’t got a decent world to put it on.” He also noted Ms. Costakis had shown him a possible quote if the Board wished to review it. Mr. Mehl suggested the air quality language be included in chapter 11 instead of both chapters as it seemed more appropriate. Vice President Henyon responded he liked the location in chapter 9 as he had noticeably seen the air quality in Bozeman go down year after year and the theme should be included as a way to cut down air pollution. Mr. Mehl suggested those comments could be combined and located in chapter 9 instead of chapter 11. Ms. Smith asked if timed signalization was included in the Transportation Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was addressed in the Transportation Plan Update. Mr. Caldwell added that it was addressed from more of an Engineering perspective, but was well addressed within the Transportation Plan. Mr. Quinn suggested the pollution was caused by emissions from sitting for long periods of time with regard to delays. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be included in either chapter. The Board concurred the language could be combined and located in Chapter 9. Chapter 14 Assistant Director Saunders responded the wording regarding annexation had been modified per the Board’s request. The Board concurred the language as presented by Staff should be included. Assistant Director Saunders stated that rather than jamming the many inter-local agreements into the chapter as he was unable to fit them all into the available space, inter-local agreements included in a new appendix M. Chapter 15 Assistant Director Saunders noted statutory subdivision language had been provided to the Board with regard to water rights and asked the Board to consider whether or not the definition of formal abandonment should be included in the glossary. Mr. Caldwell stated he did not think the definition should be included as the repercussions were what mattered. Mr. Mehl asked Mr. Caldwell why he would include many other definitions, but not what members of the public were seeking to define. Mr. Caldwell responded the legalities of the definition should be distinct at a higher level. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders if the City Attorney had discussed Judge Lobel’s recommendation for water right language. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff and the City Attorney had not yet concluded discussion of the matter. Mr. Sypinski stated, as a controlling document, certain perspectives should be defined and he thought the definition should be included. Ms. Smith responded the language included “in accordance with Montana law” and stated she agreed with Mr. Caldwell that the language should not be added to the glossary. Mr. Quinn suggested the opinion of the City Attorney would be necessary so as not to define the term more or differently than State law. Vice President Henyon stated he agreed with Mr. Quinn, Mr. Caldwell, and Ms. Smith due to the recent water right issues and added that he thought the reference to Montana Code would be sufficient. Mr. Becker stated the first four lines of the definition were fine and suggested the rest of the wording should be removed. Mr. Caldwell responded the public comments were not ignored; water right language had been included. He asked how the discussion had originally come about. Assistant Director Saunders explained the last discussion and that the definition would be a way to clarify for members of the public. Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Becker thought the definition should be included; the majority of the Board concurred that the definition of “formal abandonment” should not be included. Chapter 17 Mr. Caldwell apologized to the Board regarding his previous discussions about Growth policy designations. He stated the rational was valid for the intent of Future Urban versus projects within existing annexation boundaries who were requesting a change in Land Use Designation; he suggested the language as proposed by Staff would be important. He noted the ¾ majority would also be important to provide for changing City Commission members over time. Mr. Sypinski asked Mr. Caldwell for clarification on whether or not he would like to see GPA’s bundled and reviewed at once. Mr. Caldwell responded the bundled requests would be processed by the Planning Department unless it was for the Future Urban Land Use Designation which would be reviewed individually. Mr. Sypinski stated he agreed with Mr. Caldwell with regard to the language and the ¾ majority vote. Assistant Director Saunders responded the bundling had been suggested in the previous document but no implementing direction had been given by the City Commission. There should be clarity that Future Urban to and Urban change would be decided through the formal public review process. He stated there was no difference between 2/3 and ¾ with the current five member City Commission but the number of Commissioners could change. The Board concurred the GPA’s should be bundled and the ¾ majority should apply. Land Use Map Assistant Director Saunders noted there were two areas shown in the present 2020 map as Neighborhood Commercial at Stevens Street/19th Avenue/Oak Street and Staff had suggested a Community Commercial Mixed-Use designation in place of the Business Park Mixed Use shown on the current draft of Figure 3-1. He noted there was a drafting error that should have depicted the Residential boundary following Sourdough Road at Kagy Blvd. and Sourdough Rd.. He noted there was sliver showing parks and open space with a heavily wetland area north of Main Street that was found not to contain wetlands; he noted Staff suggested giving it an Industrial designation. Mr. Caldwell stated he agreed that the Growth Policy should reflect the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan and suggested the plan should be included. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan was more specific than the language within the Growth Policy. It is important to prevent any conflict between the two documents; he stated he saw no conflicts within the language of either plan as presented. The Board concurred the changes should be made. Vice President Henyon opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Chris Nixon, 719 N. Wallace Ave., suggested the triangle last discussed (wetland area north of Main Street) should not be modified and though today it may not be wet, there had historically been a stream in that location. He noted the hard-scapes that would be included in the hospital development would cause water to travel to the lower elevations. He stated he thought another color should be added to the map to address Historic Mixed Use as it appeared as Industrial; he suggested different shadings of the same color for each type of zoning on the map. He suggested wetlands were important and a great deal of them had been lost in the state. He stated overall he thought the proposed document was a great improvement to the existing one. Lucille Pope, Alliance for Building Communities, stated in chapter 16 the Implementation Policies #35, #37, and #39 needed to be addressed; she suggested in year one affordable housing should be dealt with. She thanked the Board for including a new objective for affordable housing, but thought there were no implementation strategies specifically for the new objective. Ted Lang, GVLT, 25 N. Willson Ave., stated they liked the proposed Growth Policy and it reflected GVLT’s goals. He suggested one of the most challenging goals would be to support and integrate agricultural uses within the valley; he suggested an amendment to include 91e for the Future Urban area and the coordination of the County in an open public process to identify agricultural lands within the Growth Policy Area. He provided the Board with a copy of the language he would like included. Steve Ziegler, 2531 White Tail Rd., commended the Planning Board on the Future Urban definition and the promotion of in-fill development. He stated he had provided public comment regarding natural amenities and the surrounding mountains being overdeveloped. He stated outdoor amenities and view sheds were very important and those things should be preserved; he noted other cities did not have those opportunities. He noted people would rather live in Bozeman than Tucson because those amenities had been preserved here. He stated a lot of the Future Urban boundary had been expanded and now covered his property. He encouraged the Board to detour development outside of the City and to modify the map as it did not reflect the “sense of place” language of the document. He suggested the area nearest the Bridger Mountains be preserved and the growth pushed away from that direction. He suggested Bozeman develop more like Boulder Colorado so the land would have only low impact development (not urban sprawl, he clarified) and be worth more money. He stated he would like the Future Urban boundary to be reduced to exclude the area in question, but would like to see a Rural Suburban residential area. He suggested a Conservation Open Space buffer around the City. Pat Martin, 2771 Deer Creek Dr., stated he concurred with Mr. Ziegler’s comments. He stated he encouraged the Board to review the public comment and consider that if the City wants to pursue development in a view shed area on a slope there should be a different zoning designation to address those locations. He stated the lowest density opportunity the city had was too high a density for areas within view sheds. He stated the County had development right proposals that were categorized with sending and receiving areas in the County Plan and the City should be active in working with the County on the subject of making the view shed a sending area rather than a receiving area. He stated he appreciated the Board’s time and efforts in the creation of the document. Charles Petrie, 635 Deer Creek Dr., stated he agreed with Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Martin’s comments as there were areas of the City that it was not appropriate to have high density development. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to address public comments received at the evening’s meeting. Assistant Director Saunders noted that in response to Mr. Nixon’s statements the City had a standard for all storm water to be dealt with on-site. He noted at this point the City and the Federal Government had wetland regulations in place to protect them despite the color and location on the Growth Policy Map. He stated there was potential for open space uses in the northeast part of town. He noted he had spoken with the Corp of Engineers, who was keeping an eye on wetland activities, and permits would be required for any alterations to the wetlands in those areas. He noted there was a blend of residential and nonresidential activities in that area; he noted the Growth Policy was not a Zoning Ordinance and sites would be reviewed independently based on the zoning designation for review at a finer degree of detail. He stated Staff would not want to create separate categories for each zoning district. Mr. Mehl asked if the City had been in discussions with regard to acquiring lands for open space. Assistant Director Saunders responded it had been discussed, but the acquisition had never come into fruition; though it could be obtained in the future. Mr. Caldwell stated there was a mixed signal sent to the residents in the area when residential use was not reflected in the Future Land Use designation, though he understood how the zoning designation worked; he suggested including Mixed Use Residential for the dual citizenship of that area. Ms. Smith asked if the HMU district was addressed in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Assistant Director Saunders responded NEHMU was a separate zoning designation that was located within the Conservation Overlay District. Ms. Smith noted HMU was important enough to have its own zoning and the zoning designation would be sufficient. Vice President Henyon stated he agreed with Ms. Smith that the zoning designation addressed the specific uses in the area; he stated he would like to see the underlying land use stay blue. Mr. Sypinski stated he thought the Board should be careful how specific the Land Use Map was with reference to zoning designations. Mr. Caldwell stated the request was to keep the Growth Policy Map in concert with the zoning designations. Ms. Smith noted that the table C-16 for the NEHMU contained all of the necessary information as proposed. The Board concurred the map should be approved as proposed. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to respond to Ms. Pope’s concerns. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City had a limited ability to identify specifics to encourage employment and education though it was generally included in the document; he added he would know more when the Economic Plan was completed by Prospera. Ms. Swarthout stated that Ms. Pope’s concerns with regard to implementation policies for affordable housing were valid; she suggested the Board should remove the education language or the City should make the commitment and include the language in chapter 16. Vice President Henyon stated one of the key things for Bozeman would be to create a work force at different levels so people can afford to live here; he noted he was hoping Prospera was coming up with plans for trade facilities, votech training, etc. and noted the goal should remain but implementation policies should be included. Assistant Director Saunders listed the implementation policies pertinent to the goal that could be added. He noted some of the decisions were made by the Board of Regents and the City had limited ability to make those proposals available. Ms. Swarthout suggested a beefed up implementation policy to match Objective 3.4. Assistant Director Saunders suggested adding it as an action item under Implementation Policy 49. Mr. Caldwell stated the effectiveness of including it in the Growth Policy might be enough to lobby the Board of Regents to provide a votech school in Bozeman. Mr. Mehl stated the Propsera Plan would come through the Planning Board for review and those polled had concerns with affordable housing and education. The Board concurred an item F should be included, the implementation policies would be beefed up, and implementation policy #49 would be included. Ms. Swarthout suggested the language “Support efforts to expand the range of online evening, weekend, and other educational offerings for residents who seek to increase their earning potential. The Board concurred that Mr. Lang and Gallatin Valley Land Trust’s suggested language would be included. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to address Mr. Ziegler, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Petrie’s comments. Assistant Director Saunders directed the Board and public’s attention to the jurisdictional map for the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County. He noted the Growth Policy boundary was a coordinated boundary between the City and County to help evaluate the future needs of the City. He stated the areas filled in green on Figure 3-1 were light green for conservation easements and dark green for public owned state lands; he noted the Board had sanctioned and continued the policy that the City wanted to prevent Urban Sprawl and remain compact. He noted the future housing projections were depicted in tan and yellow colors and there was a significant portion of the planning area that would not be needed for urban housing; he added that Gallatin County had jurisdiction over that area until such a time as it was annexed into the City. He noted the City’s expectation was that no facilities would be included near Churn Creek due to the difficulty in extending those services; he added the City was not in a position to purchase the land for a conservation easement or extend lines to those areas at this time and did not foresee that need in the next 20 years, but would be happy to coordinate with the County to preserve view sheds. He reiterated that the City would not encourage development in locations where it was not feasible to extend services; he suggested the inclusion of the language that would allow for reassessment of those locations within the County but within the Growth Policy area. Mr. Caldwell added that the City could not afford to buy a conservation easement around Bozeman, but a difficult review process could be required to ensure those locations are preserved. He suggested a disservice would be done if the view sheds were not included in the Growth Policy to provide for review processes in the future. He agreed that the amendment process and the definition of future urban should be linked. Mr. Quinn agreed that the definition should be strengthened as Staff proposed. Pat Martin, stated he appreciated the discussion, but wanted to know if the best the City could do in 2009 was for Urban density or not. He asked the Board to address the Bridger Bench and its preservation. He stated the alternative was the Autumn Ridge decision to limit density to the amount of water that can support the development; he suggested removing the Bridger Bench from the Growth Policy area. Steve Ziegler, stated the boundary could increase in any direction, but a different color could be included to address the intent the City has for the land. Ms. Smith asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify R-S zoning. Assistant Director Saunders clarified it had a maximum density of one unit per acre. Ms. Smith noted the Growth Policy was not attempting to establish an urban zoning designation on the property in question and did not dictate any kind of per acre calculation. Mr. Caldwell responded the Future Urban designation required that it must be proven through an application process that the property is fit for development. Assistant Director Saunders added that the Board had consensus that they would not like to see the Bridger Bench developed at high densities. Ms. Costakis encouraged Mr. Ziegler, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Petrie to submit their comments to the County. The Board concurred that the map should remain Future Urban and should encompass that location as proposed. Vice President Henyon asked the Board to address the Norton property Land Use designation to Business Park or Community Commercial. Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of the site on the Land Use Map. Ms. Costakis asked why Staff did not want the designation to be Community Commercial. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff did not want commercial development on all of the major corridors through the City and there was already a slight excess of Community Commercial within the City. Tom Stonecipher, 1705 W. College St., clarified that the request was to change the designation from Business Park to Community Commercial. He noted the background of the property and explained that Norton had spent a lot of money and the original reason for the designation from Business Park to Residential Emphasis Mixed Use was lost. He stated he did not understand the rationale of the designation and thought it was an attempt at a transition zone. He noted the owner did not want the Business Park designation and summarized that he had difficulty with the idea that Bozeman had enough Community Commercial. Mr. Mehl asked what the owner had wanted to do that they couldn’t do. Mr. Stonecipher responded all their neighbors were Community Commercial and there would be a different list of uses on the Norton’s 20 acre parcel. Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of what use the owner intended that would not be allowed with a Business Park designation. Mr. Stonecipher could not specifically state the use the owner intended and responded the uses would just be different than what the owner had expected. Mr. Caldwell stated the rationale for not having residential emphasis was reasonable and the Growth Policy attempted to discourage commercial development along Huffine Lane. Mr. Becker noted the Commission had determined that commercial development should be located along Cottonwood Road instead of along Huffine Lane and after three hearings the Commission had made it clear that they did not want to see commercial development located only along Huffine Lane; he suggested the Board continue to uphold the decisions of the City of Bozeman. Assistant Director Saunders concurred with Mr. Becker and suggested that, if the Board agrees, the designation could be put back to Business Park which is what is shown on the present Land Use Map for the existing 2020 Plan. Ms. Smith stated the Board had decided at a previous meeting that the Community Commercial designation should terminate before the Norton property. Ms. Costakis noted it was interesting that there were only a few areas depicted as yellow on the map and it was not a pervasive designation; she added she thought the Residential Mixed Use designation was a wave of the future. Mr. Quinn stated he was supportive of the Business Park designation but would not support Community Commercial. Mr. Sypinski stated his recollection of previous discussions for the property did not include anything other than Residential Mixed Use and he saw no reason to change it do Business Park. The majority of the Board decided the Residential Mixed Use designation should remain as proposed for the property. Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of Mr. Pertzborn’s request for a change in Growth Policy Designation from Business Park to Community Commercial. Ms. Swarthout responded she had been supportive of the requested change. Ms. Smith concurred. Mr. Caldwell responded he saw the rationale for Community Commercial. The Board concurred the property should be designated as Community Commercial. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Ms. Swarthout seconded, to close the public hearing and continue further discussion to the next meeting of the Board. The motion carried 8-1. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski. 2. Chapter 16 (Continued from 1/21/09.) Continued to next meeting. ITEM 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Caldwell expressed interest in being the President. Mr. Sypinski agreed. Ms. Smith nominated Mr. Mehl. Mr. Mehl declined the nomination and seconded Mr. Caldwell’s nomination. Vice President Henyon stated he would be interested in remaining Vice President. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Costakis seconded to elect Mr. Caldwell as President. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Costakis seconded to re-elect Mr. Henyon as Vice President. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business forthcoming. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, Vice President Henyon adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman