HomeMy WebLinkAbout021809 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:19 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
Bill Quinn
Erik Henyon
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Donna Swarthout Lucille Pope
Dawn Smith
Chris Mehl
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, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of February 3, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker,
Ms. Costakis, Mr. Henyon, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF DRAFT GROWTH POLICY
1. Outstanding comments
Assistant Director Saunders presented public comment that had been submitted timely but the PB had not previously received. He noted suggestions for language in five locations from
Prospera and added Staff was supportive of the recommended changes. The Planning Board concurred that the language recommended by Prospera should be included.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the agriculture water facility language had been reviewed by the City Attorney and had been found to be accurate and in keeping with State statute.
President
Caldwell clarified that the language would reflect the public comment received with regard to water rights references within the document.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of a parcel designated as Future Urban that was requesting a change in Land Use Designation. He noted there had been discussion regarding
the re-designation of some properties to residential and noted this situation was similar. Mr. Sypinski asked if the application were considered what the boundaries of the reclassification
would be. Assistant Director Saunders clarified and noted it was separated from the City by a considerable amount of property that was currently outside of City limits.
Mr. Quinn noted that an applicant had come forward to ask for annexation of the property in the past and the Planning Board had been opposed to that request as it would have been a checkerboard
annexation and not contiguous to the City. He noted the proposal had been within the last 18 months and had encountered strong opposition from the community; he stated he thought the
Future Urban designation would be the best for that location. President Caldwell asked the Board if anyone thought the Future Urban designation for the property should be modified.
Mr. Henyon asked if it had already been categorized as residential, why couldn’t residential be located closer to the City. Assistant Director Saunders responded the existing designation
existed in that location to identify the residential development that had been in that location for many years. The Board concurred that the parcel should remain Future Urban.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of the parcels owned by Northwood Land & Livestock that had requested a change in Land Use Designation to a commercial designation. He
noted Staff had recommended the draft designation currently proposed and was not in favor of changing the parcel to a commercial designation. Mr. Becker asked what businesses were located
there. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Motor Vehicle Division and Microtel Inn & Suites were both located in that area. President Caldwell noted there was a fairly limited amount
of viable M-1 properties within the City limits and asked where cars would get repaired if they were all turned into commercial designations.
Mr. Quinn asked if all of the lots being reviewed were within the City boundaries. Assistant Director Saunders responded that all of the lots were within the City; he clarified that
there was an abundance of places for commercial uses and not as many for industrial uses. Mr. Sypinski asked if the setback requirements in the Entryway Corridor would change if Northwood
Land & Livestock were given the commercial designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded, in this instance, the setback requirements would not be affected. Mr. Henyon stated he
did not know the percentage of how much industrial use had been lost with the Story Mill Neighborhood proposal, but he thought M-1 would be needed for future industrial development as
it was limited; he noted his concern was that the owner would not be able to put a business into an industrial zoning. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a large list of
allowable uses within the industrial zoning designations. Mr. Becker asked if the letter was asking something that the Board should not discuss as it was a setback issue; he asked why
the parcels in question would be tied to the setback requirements on 7th Avenue. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that it was two separate requests. Mr. Becker suggested the proposed
change should be made in a formal application for a Zone Map Amendment after the Community Plan was adopted.
President Caldwell noted there were a number of opportunities within the Growth Policy to review the Entryway Corridors and those requirements. The Board concurred that the property
should remain industrial.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the one unresolved public comment that remained was from Mr. Delaney and the property in question was north of East Main Street. He noted Staff had
recommended an industrial land use designation on a portion of the property in question and there was a wetlands mitigation site in the adjacent area. He noted the City was allowed
to do more than the minimum requirement and spoke to the fact that the Charter stated it was the City’s choice to determine the degree of the correlation between zoning and planning.
He noted the property was currently zoned a combination of M-1 and B-2, but the Army Corp of Engineers had taken jurisdiction of the wetland area and noted they had not seemed supportive
of development of the area as it would affect other wetland areas.
Assistant Director Saunders noted Staff had determined that a large portion of the request was not within a wetland area and the property as a whole would still have a significant developable
area. He noted Staff was supportive of changing the portion outside of the wetland area to what had been requested. Mr. Sypinski asked if there was anything being developed on the
site currently. Assistant Director Saunders responded MT Rail Link and MT Pole were both developing in the area but nothing had been approved on the portion of area under discussion.
Mr. Henyon clarified that the part of the request south of the Village Downtown was within M-1 and B-2 zoning designations. Assistant Director Saunders responded he was correct. Mr.
Henyon asked if the area had been platted. Assistant Director Saunders responded a portion of the site had a plat, but there had not yet been development proposed for the rest of the
site. Mr. Quinn asked if the M-1 zoning had been included in one of Delaney’s earlier applications that had contained parkland in the wetland area. Assistant Director Saunders responded
Mr. Delaney could retain the wetland and other developers could purchase it for cash-in-lieu of parkland.
President Caldwell asked how the Land Use Map would be affected if a road network had to go through the wetland (such as the future extension of Highland Boulevard). Assistant Director
Saunders responded that a bridge would have to be built or land would need to be purchased and the wetland would have to be filled to provide for the road; he noted a road there would
have little value for immediate local access due to the necessary curvature and as it would be elevated either through fill or the construction of a bridge.
Mr. Sypinski noted he would need to leave for an appointment and stated he would prefer to see both parcels remain wetlands but would concede that he could see the reason behind the
owner’s request. Ms. Costakis suggested she would like to see the properties remain wetlands but was concerned that she should abstain as she owned property within the Village Downtown.
President Caldwell responded there seemed to unresolved issues with the Army Corp of Engineers and the viability of the wetlands would be beyond the information provided to the Board;
he stated he was supportive of Staff’s recommendations and that the map stays as depicted. Mr. Henyon concurred with President Caldwell that the property should remain as Staff proposed;
he noted the wetland was partly a result of grading and had occurred due to the topography of the area and the developed areas owned by the MT Rail Link; he noted he would
like to see the Highland Boulevard connectivity though he did not necessarily believe the “wetland” was a true wetland area. Mr. Quinn stated he believed the land had value regardless
of whether it was designated park and open space, especially if it were eventually used for a right of way, though he did not want to add parks and open spaces through the back door;
he suggested honoring what was proposed by Staff for the benefit of the City. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that there were several ways to draw value from the property. President
Caldwell noted the City would not require the existing zoning be changed on any property and stated he thought the designation should remain as proposed by Staff. Assistant Director
Saunders responded the City could undertake a zoning change if they thought it was in the best interest of the City and the ordinance provided that neither land use designation nor zoning
designations were “takings” unless the property was rendered valueless. Assistant Director Saunders noted specific analysis would need to be done on a site to site basis, though he
did not think a “takings” would occur if the color on the map went forward as proposed. The Board concurred (with Ms. Costakis abstaining) that the map should remain as proposed by
Staff. (North of railroad to revert to industrial and the balance to remain as depicted.)
Mr. Sypinski stated he would need to leave the meeting for an appointment.
2. Chapter 16 (Continued from 2/3/09.)
Assistant Director Chris Saunders stated he had received an e-mail from Ms. Swarthout regarding the education section of the Growth Policy and the addition of an action item under Implementation
Policy #49 and noted Staff had no objections to the proposed language. President Caldwell stated his personal objective was to forward a recommendation of approval for the Draft Growth
Policy to the City Commission with Staff and Planning Board comments.
President Caldwell called for public comment.
Lucille Pope, Alliance for Building Communities, noted comments she had made at another meeting regarding time frames of implementation policies for the Affordable Housing language (35,
37, and 39).
President Caldwell called for questions or revisions from the Board regarding Chapter 16.
Mr. Henyon stated he was not supportive of the word “ensure” being used in Affordable Housing language as people would need to qualify and apply for that type of housing and suggested
“ensure” be replaced with “for”. He stated on page 16-11 under Economic Development, “reducing the costs of locating businesses within City limits to make it easier for businesses to
locate within the City” or including incentives (such as grants, revolving loans, parkland credits, etc.) should be included. Assistant Director Saunders suggested “e” could be expanded
or “g” could be added under #49 to include the language Mr. Henyon had suggested. President Caldwell added that the chapter Prospera was preparing would more specifically address Mr.
Henyon’s concerns and the Board could discuss it at that time. Mr. Henyon stated that under Chapter 11 there should be an action item to provide for the timing of traffic lights and
it should have a priority. Assistant Director Saunders suggested it could be a lettered item under #45. The
Board concurred that the word “ensure” could be changed to “promote” in item #38. The Board concurred that item #49 should include an action item as a place holder to encourage businesses
to locate within the City limits until the updated economic development plan and chapter had been completed. The Board concurred the timing of traffic lights should be included in Chapter
11.
Mr. Quinn stated on page 16-9, #35, the priority should be moved up to one or two years after the plan’s adoption to provide for manufactured housing. He stated he had no further comments.
The Board concurred that the increase in priority for affordable housing should be included.
Ms. Costakis stated she saw nothing regarding adopting a Complete Streets Policy and asked if one would be adopted. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language had been included
in the document on page 4-4 as well as in other locations within the document and would be adopted when the Commission adopted the draft document. Ms. Costakis stated her concern was
that it should be included as an implementation policy. President Caldwell stated he thought it was a recognized term but it should be included as a clearly stated action item. Assistant
Director Saunders responded it could be added in #74 as an action item. The Board concurred that the language should be included in item #74 as an action item.
Ms. Costakis asked if the incentives for historic preservation could be included for sustainability features. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City would not require certification
for sustainability features but would encourage those features; he suggested the City should not reinvent the wheel and LEED certification and other programs had been provided for those
types of development. He stated they were looking at a pilot program with Greater Yellowstone Partnership for the City as a whole with regard to sustainability that would be a potential
option and noted that E-3.2 included some of the recommended language. Mr. Henyon stated contractors are required by the State to be licensed through the State and he thought as a business
owner that those businesses would use sustainability as a marketing technique; he noted he was hesitant to add specific language without giving local businesses the opportunity to comment.
The Board concurred that sustainability features should be rewarded through recognition just as historic preservation had been addressed. Ms. Costakis suggested the same steps for
sustainability had not been achieved and suggested the promotion and recognition of those practices. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be included in objective
#12. The Board concurred that a clear action item should be included in objective #12 to address sustainability (President Caldwell suggested a program like Green Blocks in Missoula
or Northwestern Energy Incentives).
Ms. Costakis stated “form based zoning” showed up in the document and she was unclear what the City would do with “form based zoning”. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City
did not know until they had completed investigations regarding how much “form based zoning” the City would need.
Mr. Henyon added that he thought it should be up to the contractor to receive certifications in LEED or Preservation, to construct under those requirements, and to market them as such
so he disagreed with including the language more specifically in the document. Assistant Director
Saunders responded it would be an informational and promotional statement only and there would be no certification requirements mandated through the City. Mr. Quinn agreed with Assistant
Director Saunders that the language should be geared toward education and promotion of sustainability.
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Henyon seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Draft Bozeman Community Plan in it’s entirety with agreed upon Planning
Board edits. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Henyon, and Mr. Quinn. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Henyon stated he would be unable to attend the TCC meetings as an alternate to President Caldwell and asked if any other member would like to volunteer for the position. President
Caldwell stated he would do his best to attend the TCC meetings and negate the need for a new alternate if Mr. Henyon would remain in the position.
President Caldwell stated he thought it would be important as an advisory board to the City Commission to check into adoption of the document and suggested the Board meet with the City
Commission to have a dialog over the Draft Community Plan. Mr. Becker suggested the Board attend a policy meeting at noon on a Thursday and added that the contracting market made planning
issues more serious and there would be implications that should be addressed. Mr. Quinn suggested it would also be important for both entities to understand each other.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman