HomeMy WebLinkAbout060209 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:02 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 David Skelton, Senior Planner
Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Erik Henyon, Vice President
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell, President
Chris Mehl
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Donna Swarthout Bob Hietala
Bill Quinn Dennis Foreman
Sally Hickey
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 APRIL 21, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of February 18, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice
President Henyon, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REIVEW
1. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-09001 (Cardinal MiSub) - A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application for a Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of
Record on behalf of the owner, CHB Properties, LLC, and the representative, Gaston Engineering, to allow the subdivision of 3.157 acres into two lots for M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial
District) development. The property is located at 1750 Evergreen Drive and is legally described as Tract B-1-A of Certificate of Survey No. 156D, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.
(Skelton)
Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report on behalf of Senior Planner David Skelton noting the location of the project and a description of what was being requested
with the application.
Dennis Foreman stated the application was a second or subsequent minor subdivision and explained the proposed layout of the subdivision.
Vice President Henyon asked how the building had been permitted straddling the lot line. Assistant Director Saunders responded the structure had been built when Building Permit requirements
allowed a lease agreement to be in place to allow the building to straddle the lot line.
Mr. Mehl asked the depth of the water table in that location and if any public comment had been received regarding the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders deferred the depth of the
water table question to Mr. Foreman and responded that no public comment had been received for the proposal. Mr. Foreman responded the depth of the water table was about 20 feet, several
pits dug on site show no ground water in them.
Vice President Henyon asked where access would be located. Assistant Director Saunders responded the access would be off of Evergreen Drive.
Mr. Sypinski asked if Certificate of Appropriateness review would be included in the Site Plan review for the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Certificate of Appropriateness
would be required.
President Caldwell noted that water/sewer could be financially guaranteed until Final Plat approval and asked why the lift station had been included for financial guarantee. Mr. Foreman
responded the lift station had been required to be completed prior to Final Occupancy for an existing building on the site.
President Caldwell opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed public comment.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinksi seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission with Staff conditions and the amendment suggested by Ms. Costakis if she
desired. Ms. Costakis declined to include her amendment. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis,
Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. A public hearing to present the draft Economic Development Plan prepared by Prospera Business Partnership and City of Bozeman. Discussion on integration of the Plan into the Growth
Policy. (Saunders)
Assistant Director Chris Saunders noted that the meeting was a public hearing for the proposed document.
Bob Hietala, Prospera Business Network, introduced Peter Bertleson and Cherlyn Wilcox. He stated he would give a quick overview of the Plan and mention some of the integration techniques
planned for the document to be included in the Growth Policy. He noted the three outcomes of the Economic Development Plan and stated the collaboration of public and private partnerships
would be mentioned throughout the document. He stated the Economic Development Advisory Committee had met once or twice a month and they had been a diverse group which had recognized
the diversity in the community; he noted the research process utilized had been to analyze comparable cities, had gathered local economic information, and had conducted a survey to gauge
Bozeman’s economic needs as well as conducted 34 in-person interviews. He stated the introduction to the Plan included the impetus to create the Plan and discussed the economic backdrop.
He noted the past growth of Bozeman and recent economic downturn and that had both been included in the document.
Mr. Hietala stated the second section contained the economic vision and values and the language had been taken from the Growth Policy. He stated strengthening and diversifying the local
economy had been included as well as the creation of higher paying jobs. He stated the profile was a snapshot of the local economy and contained demographics including; population,
employment and workforce trends, land use, etc. He stated the level of entrepreneurship in the community had also been addressed. He stated industry sectors had been specific to Bozeman
and included technology, retail, tourism, hospitality, etc. He stated Gallatin Field had emerged as an economic partner for the business community and had been recognized as an excellent
level of air service for the community. He stated construction was the third largest employer for the City and had been hit hard by the recent down turn in the community. He stated
MSU was the economic anchor for the community with government being the largest employment sector. He stated there were a surprising number of non-profit organizations providing employment
within the City. He stated an economic development analysis had been done as different factors identified different impacts from businesses. He noted the economic development survey
results had been included in the document to provide service and amenity ratings. He stated a large venue for statewide conferences was identified as a need for the community.
Mr. Hietala noted rankings from other questions from the survey and those ratings. He reiterated the ratings for the final fifteen questions and added that the downtown business area
had been one of the top eight priorities for the community. He stated improvements to infrastructure, technology transfer, and expanded vocational and certification job training had
been among the top eight priorities as well.
Mr. Hietala stated the next section of the Plan contained the SWOT analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in the community. He stated the development of the
goals and strategies had taken quite some time and noted what each goal was while noting that each goal contained six to eight specific strategies. He stated there was a strong recognition
that there was a young population with a highly educated workforce. He stated the fourth goal was included in most every Economic Development Plan and recommended looking at local,
state,
and federal economic resources. He stated the fifth goal suggested collaboration between the business community and the City and to see if there was a way to make the regulatory environment
more efficient. He stated the last goal was to maintain the high quality of life as it was an asset to the business community.
Mr. Hietala noted the last section, section 8, contained the priorities and responsibilities for the City.
President Caldwell opened the item for public comment. Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed public comment.
Ms. Smith asked for more information regarding the on-line survey; where it was located, who responded to it, etc. Mr. Hietala responded notice had been placed in the Chronicle and
the Chamber of Commerce, MSU, and other groups had distributed the survey with no specific group targeted so no specific demographic identified. Mr. Mehl added he had sent the survey
to the Planning Board as well as other groups. Ms. Smith suggested she would like to be certain that people in other areas of the work force had been encouraged to participate and not
just business owners. Assistant Director Saunders responded a public service announcement had been sent out and a link had been included on the City website. Mr. Hietala added that
the TV had also done an interview and there were slight differences in responses from different sources, but they were generally pretty close.
Mr. Sypinski asked Mr. Hietala to expand more on the suggestion of a liaison from the City for economic responsibilities and community development. He suggested his experience had been
that the City Manager or another member of City Staff had not historically been included. Mr. Hietala responded he was not sure if the model had occurred in Montana but thought someone
should be the main contact for the City and sit on the Economic Board.
Ms. Costakis stated the document had included that one of the more positive things was the quality of life with the parks and recreation being one of the more positive things as well.
She suggested there was some language missing as quality of life had not been specifically identified. She suggested differentiating the aspects of quality of life by including the
necessity of planning to maintain the quality of life. Mr. Hietala stated the Planning & Development process was seen as needing addressed, but the Plan did not detail how those items
would need to be addressed as it should be dealt with in a separate process. Ms. Costakis suggested seeing what Planning was seen to be inhibiting would have been helpful.
Mr. Sypinski stated there was a lot of discussion regarding tax increment finance districts in place already in the City and asked if the current processes had been found successful.
Mr. Hietala responded that those specific incentives had not been discussed and had been left general.
Vice President Henyon stated he found the report very informative with a lot of good detail that he enjoyed reading. He noted the document seemed to need to go one level deeper to answer
the “how” goals would be accomplished. He noted on page 2-1 the vision was discussed and then the values; he asked how higher paying jobs would be created for example. He stated on
page 3-
30 he thought there should be another bullet point at the bottom to include the language “green job training” such as solar or wind technology. He stated on page 3-36 the workers compensation
rates were of great concern, but no method on how to accomplish those goals had been included. Mr. Hietala responded workman’s compensation was a great example of framing the issue
without specifically citing the issue as the City’s responsibility.
Vice President Henyon stated the TIF districts should be better utilized but no guidance had been included. Mr. Hietala responded that a fair amount of time, resources, and development
would have to go into that level of specificity for those types of projects; he noted the Committee had concurred that those items would need addressed and had identified that there
should be a Board or Committee in place to deal with each individual issue. Vice President Henyon stated health care had been mentioned and had included expansion of the emergency room,
raising the trauma level, etc. which would take money; he noted all of the ideas would go back to the Planning process but should include ways to facilitate those changes. Mr. Hietala
responded that on the job certification and training side there would be opportunities, but that was as far as the discussion had gone. Vice President Henyon stated one weakness in
the survey results was that the Planning process had ranked as one of the lowest priorities and suggested there should be a clear and predictable planning process evident in the Plan.
He asked how the micromanagement at the Commission level could be halted to provide for a predictable way for businesses to come to the City. Mr. Hietala referred Vice President Henyon
to page 7-5, goal 5, which was the Committee’s language that had been included as the method of intent to address possible micromanagement issues. Mr. Mehl added that proper planning
would enhance long term value, but a process would need to be clear, consistent, and concise so a blend would need to be accomplished. Vice President Henyon stated that Legends @ Bridger
Creek had been approved by Staff and the Planning Board while the City Commission had ultimately modified the design of the infrastructure at the cost of the applicant. Mr. Mehl responded
that particular issue had been addressed in the document.
Vice President Henyon asked if there was any way to measure the implementation of the document and suggested the use of timelines and benchmarks throughout the document. Mr. Hietala
responded timelines had been included in implementation, but there was no real way to make specific recommendations on general goals. Vice President Henyon asked if there had been any
ordinances that had stood out that should be modified to encourage businesses to come to Bozeman. Mr. Hietala responded that level of detail had not been included but some ordinances
had been identified. Vice President Henyon suggested making North 7th Avenue an impact fee free zone or giving leases to businesses on Mandeville lane to relocate businesses and encourage
development. He stated the Chamber of Commerce had developed an Economic Development Committee and had proposed to bring together the business neighborhood that should be recognized
by the Commission, provided a Commission liaison, and would provide recommendations to the City. He stated the implementation matrix included the City Manager’s Office and should instead
reflect that the City be the supporting partner and the primary partner be the community members. Mr. Hietala responded the Economic Development Council language included in the Plan
was the intent of the recommendation.
Mr. Becker stated that a lot of what had been addressed by the Planning Board had been addressed during the process of compiling the Economic Development Plan and a lot of the implementation
would depend on the economic advisory body. He stated things change and there was a dynamic economy so the Plan would need to provide the ability for the City to decide how to implement
those goals. He stated social capital, with the role of volunteerism, seemed to be missing from the Plan and there were a significant number of community members involved in non-profit
organizations. He stated he was not sure the City should be the lead on economic issues, but if they didn’t, then who would. He stated the adoption and motion tonight would reflect
the Board’s concerns.
Ms. Smith asked where the service industry would fit in to the Plan; she noted she meant low level daily services such as lawn care, beauty salons, etc. Mr. Hietala responded that under
employment and workforce those services were included and the industry sectors focused more on retail, healthcare, technology, etc. Ms. Smith stated that left her wondering where the
entry level workforce was in the Plan and stated that element of the workforce was missing. Mr. Hietala responded the economic profile and unemployment information addressed that element
of the workforce and noted the labor statistics had changed dramatically. He noted entry level workers seemed to be something that was being taken care of in Bozeman. Ms. Smith stated
she thought it was unfair to put so much of the responsibility on the City of Bozeman; she noted the City and County were not part of their hurdles when she and her husband had purchased
their business and the most difficult thing for them had been financing.
Mr. Mehl thanked Prospera for presenting the Plan. He stated a variety of groups had been contacted and had not decided to participate. He stated the Economic Development Plan’s concern
was for the whole of Bozeman and individual task forces would be more specific as to methods and implementation strategies. He noted the balance between the City and the community would
be hard to achieve and the Plan was to encourage the City to promote the Plan as a whole.
President Caldwell thanked everyone for their time in review and thanked Prospera for their diligent work and time on the taskforce. He noted it was incumbent on the Board for them
to track the Community Plan and the implementation strategies with outreach to the public and private sectors to provide methods by which the goals could be implemented. He stated that
without a clear indication that the City was ready to promote economic development, it would be difficult to encourage people to participate.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the Economic Development Plan with detailed Planning Board minutes.
Mr. Sypinksi suggested implementing the Economic Plan as an appendix to the Growth Policy, but as that was not possible he suggested references to the Plan be included throughout the
document. He suggested discussing the implementation of the Plan into the Growth Policy.
President Caldwell asked if the edits as part of the three bullet points in the Staff Memo had been approved by the Commission. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would explain
which edits would need to be discussed after the motion had been formalized.
Ms. Costakis asked how the objectives in chapter 8 of the Community Plan and the Economic Development Plan would relate. Assistant Director Saunders responded the goals and objectives
in the Economic Plan were specific to that Plan and the Growth Policy goals and objectives would meld the two together, though there would be some differences; he added that some crossover
language had been proposed.
Mr. Becker suggested the resolution of adoption include language for the immediate organization of an advisory board for the Economic Development Plan. Vice President Henyon asked if
the Commission would be amenable to the existing Chamber of Commerce committee being that advisory board. Mr. Mehl stated he was in favor of forming the advisory board, the City should
form it, and he thought it would be a mistake to highlight that advisory board specifically as the Plan should stand as a whole. The Board concurred that none of the advisory bodies
should be specifically required to immediately organize. The motion carried 6-1. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski.
Those voting nay being Vice President Henyon.
Mr. Sypinski suggested the Economic Development Plan should be included as an appendix to the Growth Policy. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Commission had voted on some of
the language to be included in Chapter 8 of the Growth Policy and listed those items. He stated that the missing pieces in the Growth Policy to further integrate the Economic Development
Plan would be included as a formal amendment to the Growth Policy to include those items and it would have to go through the Commission review process as some of the items had not been
included in their previous action.
Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of why all of the changes had not been presented to the Commission. Assistant Director Saunders responded the modifications the Commission had approved
were amendments that the Commission themselves had requested and listed those amendments; he added that the Planning Board had not reviewed all of the proposed edits in the Economic
Development Plan and Staff was allowing time for those to be reviewed as well. The City Commission had not yet received the Economic Development Plan.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Vice President Henyon seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the proposed edits to Chapter 8, including clearly identifying
the Economic Development Plan, the Downtown Plan, the North 7th Avenue Plan, and the inclusion of TIF’s map and any other extraneous changes staff deems necessary. The motion carried
6-1. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being Ms. Smith.
President Caldwell stated he had a problem with specific references to the Economic Development Plan sections and chapters throughout the document. Mr. Sypinski suggested
referencing the document as a whole instead of sections and chapters. Mr. Mehl suggested a link could be provided to the document for reference instead of distinct chapters and sections.
Mr. Sypinski stated the Downtown Neighborhood Plan had not been included in either the Growth Policy or the Economic Development Plan. Vice President Henyon responded references to
the Downtown Plan had been included as well as other renewal districts and the North 7th Plan. President Cladwell suggested clearly referencing all the Plans in the front of the Growth
Policy.
Vice President Henyon stated he was supportive of the proposed amendments.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
President Caldwell reminded the Board that Thursday, June 18, 2009 there would be a presentation of the Downtown Plan and suggested members attend. He stated he thought it would be
a great opportunity to understand how to help downtown businesses. He noted there would be other presentations and he would forward times and locations to the Board. He reminded the
Board of the roundtable discussion with the Commission on Thursday, June 4, 2009.
Mr. Mehl asked President Caldwell to poll the members on what they would like to discuss.
Vice President Henyon stated he would like feedback on what the future mayor’s agenda would be and suggested it was a matter of predictability. President Caldwell suggested the Board
focus their time with the Commission regarding implementation policies of the Growth Policy related to UDO edits. Ms. Costakis asked who had called the meeting. President Caldwell
responded he had requested the meeting some time ago. Assistant Director Saunders responded there would be two items on the agenda and he was not sure which item would be first. President
Caldwell suggested communication between the City Commission and the Planning Board should be the main topic.
Ms. Costakis suggested the meeting should have been discussed quite a while ago if the Planing Board had instigated the meeting; she suggested she would like to discuss in-fill development
and the importance of design to make sure the development would fit in and be well done. She added in-fill done right could be a positive; otherwise backlash from the community would
be inevitable. President Caldwell concurred that those dialogs would be good for discussion; he noted there would be an opportunity to see how other changes to the code could promote
and encourage the Growth Policy. Ms. Smith concurred that the UDO should more strongly support the Growth Policy and should be discussed with the Commission.
Ms. Costakis suggested parking be discussed. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had already been looking into parking.
Mr. Mehl asked for clarification on how the Growth Policy had been adopted; he suggested it seemed that 99% of the document had been approved. Assistant Director Saunders responded
Mr. Mehl was close with the 99% adoption and stated there had been a few changes to the map on the east and west ends of Main Street. He noted there had also been a change to rename
future urban to present rural. He stated the definition of suburban residential had been changed to include subdivision outside of the City “80% or more built-out”. He stated the Commission
had decided that the supermajority vote was too small for a proposed amendment. Mr. Mehl added Mr. Rupp and Mayor Jacobsen had added language. Assistant Director Saunders noted that
none of the goals or objectives from the Planning Board had been modified. Mr. Mehl asked Mr. Saunders to explain the contrary votes. Assistant Director Saunders responded the change
to residential from future urban near Story Mill Road had prompted two Commissioners to vote in opposition.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman