HomeMy WebLinkAbout061609 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:04 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:
Ed Sypinski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Chris Mehl
Dawn Smith
Donna Swarthout
Bill Quinn
Brian Caldwell, President
Cathy Costakis
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Sean Becker
Erik Henyon, Vice President
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. DISCUSSION ITEM
1. GROWTH POLICY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A public meeting to provide opportunity for Planning Board members to discuss implementation of the Growth Policy and Economic Development Plan.
President Caldwell stated there had been a lot of passionate discussion regarding the adoption and implementation of the Growth Policy. He stated he thought ideals should be in place
prior to project reviews to provide for a streamlined, efficient review process. He stated not everyone was in attendance for the City Commission Policy Meeting roundtable discussion
of the Growth Policy. He stated the Improvement Plan was intended to be presented along with implementation policies. He stated he thought it was important to not postpone deliberation
if good ideas were included. He stated he felt it would be a good opportunity for the Board to pick items from Chapter 16 moving toward being forwarded to the Commission for action.
He stated he observed different strengths and weaknesses in individual Board members and suggested the Board divvy up those items within the Improvement Plan.
Mr. Mehl asked if the minutes would be forwarded to the Commission. Recording Secretary Hastie responded the minutes would not be forwarded unless the Board requested they be included
as a City Commission agenda item. Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of the evening’s discussion item. President Caldwell reiterated those items he thought should be discussed. Mr.
Mehl stated his understanding was that the Economic Development Plan would not be approved for a month with the Downtown Plan being approved shortly thereafter; he suggested UDO modifications
had not been approved by the Commission at this time and it would be premature to discuss those items until final approval had come from the Commission in case there were substantive
edits that addressed the Board’s concerns. He added the UDO edits were slated to be approved by the Commission all at once and the idea had been to split up the items in various meetings;
he suggested different meetings could address different items with invitations sent to interested parties. Mr. Sypinski added that, in a broader sense, discussion of boundaries and
best utilization of land use should be included as Assistant Director Saunders had earlier indicated. President Caldwell responded that interest in talking about the boundaries was
evident, but the Commission had changed three or four words within the Community Plan as it had been presented to them; he added the edges of the community could be addressed through
the Improvements Plan and he did not see the need to delay anything relating to the implementation of those policies. Mr. Sypinski noted there was coordination between the two documents
that would be crucial with regard to implementation strategies; he noted some of the strategies and incentives could be addressed prior to the Commission action. Mr. Mehl concurred
with Mr. Sypinski.
Ms. Swarthout stated she was a little lost due to being absent recently, but was supportive of splitting up the work between Board members.
Mr. Mehl reiterated that he did not think the UDO edits should be discussed prior to the adoption of pertinent documents (Economic Plan, Improvement Plan) by the Commission. President
Caldwell stated he felt as though he was being objected to right out of the gate. Mr. Mehl stated he did not agree that Mr. Caldwell had made an accurate summation of his comments as
objections.
Ms. Smith suggested following Staff recommendations regarding the prioritization of the Growth Policy. Mr. Sypinksi asked if Ms. Smith was suggesting the action type be discussed.
Ms. Smith responded that she did not want the Board to spend a lot of time commenting on items they had no jurisdiction over. Mr. Sypinski suggested focusing on particular strategies
within the priority list; he explained the Introduction, for example, could be reviewed where it was pertinent to the Municipal Code.
Mr. Quinn stated he had been out of the state for most of April and he had missed many of the items; he asked if the Board had a Commission meeting Thursday. President Caldwell responded
there would be a joint meeting on the coming Thursday.
Ms. Costakis stated she thought the Board would attempt to discern their priorities specifically; she suggested locating something that the Board concurred should be moved forward and
then the item could be prioritized. She stated she had just come back from an urbanism conference
and everyone had been discussing some sort of form based code; she noted it could be an underlying framework for the goals the Board was attempting to achieve. She stated many communities
were doing a rewrite of their codes or going to a smart based code system; she suggested the Board could review an example of form based code that she had purchased that depicted roughly
six zoning districts in transects that made sense. She suggested the strategy within the form based code could be used to help context the Growth Policy and Economic Development Plan.
She stated she had gone to a session on comprehensive plans that had included a community character manual and suggested the idea of what the community should look like might not be
enough. She stated the developers needed to know what was wanted by the Community and needed to know that if they provided what was sought it would be faster and easier for them to
get approval. Mr. Sypinski stated he agreed with Ms. Costakis, though he had questions for her, and added that the Board had generally discussed the regulations and felt that the ordinance
did not provide enough direction for developers.
Ms. Swarthout stated she thought it might be too ambitious for the Board to prioritize the entire document and suggested the Board provide a list of their top five priorities and focus
on those items. Ms. Smith stated she agreed with Ms. Swarthout and stated the Board’s personal priorities were already evident in the document.
President Caldwell noted the direction toward specific action items had been discouraged to appeal to broad implementation policy actions; he added the Downtown Implementation Plan was
very specific and would be easier to advocate for. He suggested parking would be a substantial issue though all of the material mattered so he did not think the Board should hesitate
to make comments on any of the goals of the Community Plan; he listed those items he felt it would be important to discuss such as; infill development standards, parking, off-site improvement
requirements, and addressing pre-existing conditions. He stated he did not necessarily mean the Board members should divvy up chapters, but rather implementation strategies that would
entail revisions to the UDO. He stated he agreed with form based zoning as Ms. Costakis had explained it and suggested it could be dovetailed into the PUD process. Ms. Costakis added
the form based code could be in place in only certain areas like an Overlay District and suggested the community would need to be educated via public outreach prior to the adoption of
form based zoning. She stated she would volunteer for the Complete Streets section of the document.
Mr. Mehl stated there had been recognition from the Board that the UDO would need to be discussed though he did not know if the community knew what form based zoning involved; he suggested
an educational body could be involved with the community but he thought the Board should begin prioritizing to make certain the UDO would reflect the implementation of the Growth Policy.
Ms. Swarthout stated the controversial issues within the Growth Policy had been pointed out and suggested a communication strategy be solidified prior to discussions of form based zoning
to provide the community opportunity to understand the implications. She stated the Board should attempt to lay the groundwork for form based zoning discussions through public outreach
and suggested she would be interested in working on public outreach. President Caldwell responded
he felt that some items would need to be forwarded sooner rather than later as many members of the community knew how the UDO worked; he added that he had been impressed with the folks
involved in the Downtown Improvement Plan and he felt like he could be effective in that area.
Ms. Smith suggested the Board move forward with delegation of priorities and stated that everything the Board had just discussed had been an implementation policy; she volunteered to
work on chapters 3, 4, and 5. Ms. Swarthout suggested the Board provide a list of five of their individual priorities and compare them at the next meeting to provide the five (or whatever
number) Board priorities.
Ms. Costakis stated that, in defense of the form based zoning, the idea was to become more compact as a community and it could assist in explaining how density would accomplish saving
the amenities of the community. President Caldwell suggested Ms. Costakis work with Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders to encourage and promote form based zoning.
Mr. Quinn stated he was supportive of Ms. Swarthout’s idea of public outreach to explain the differences in the document and prioritize the five most important items to present to the
community. He added he liked the idea of making it simpler. President Caldwell suggested the Board identify things that need to be changed within the UDO that will then be presented
to the Commission; he stated he thought it was incumbent on the Board to provide that the implementation strategies of the Growth Policy are reaffirmed in the UDO. He stated the Board
could recommend that Planning Staff take action on an item and could resolve issues as a Board. He stated he had thought there would be conflicts or issues within the UDO that would
need to be discussed by the Board and suggested the finally adopted Community Plan could be reviewed and a list provided.
Ms. Smith stated she had identified community outreach, investigation of expansion of design review/form based development, real needs, revision of zoning map to comply with land use
map, and implementation of a complete streets policy. Mr. Sypinski added that development review standards had been discussed at length as well. Ms. Swarthout stated Ms. Smith had
combined two tracks into one and she thought there were items that Staff could be directed to work on; she suggested the five most visionary things would need to be identified to lay
the groundwork with the public. Mr. Sypinski suggested coordination of approaches as the Plan contained references to other sections throughout and added the chapters were the priorities.
Mr. Quinn suggested that coordinating planning in the Gallatin Valley would be a high priority but in the sense of priorities how much would be put toward helping the County Commissioners
do the right thing. President Caldwell suggested Mr. Quinn talk to Bill Murdoch regarding his comment about the lack of “development pressure” in the County.
Mr. Mehl asked how the immediate UDO edits would be handled at the same time as prioritization of implementation policies. President Caldwell responded that using the Growth Policy
as the backbone to act on policies and promoting various aspects of the implementation strategies could be the first step; he suggested he would attend the meeting with the County.
He suggested specific recommendations for edits to the UDO would be necessary. Mr. Mehl asked
for clarification of what the Board’s duties would be prior to the meeting. President Caldwell explained that he and anyone else interested could pull out UDO edits for implementation
of the Improvements Plan.
Ms. Smith stated she would work on items 9 & 10 as they did not directly relate to the Downtown Improvement Plan.
Ms. Costakis stated the community had generally wanted what the Growth Policy entailed and those comments had been coordinated within the document. Mr. Sypinski asked if the Economic
Development Plan should be ignored at this point or if he could work on that section. President Caldwell responded he had not intended the Plan be ignored and Mr. Sypinski could work
on it.
Recording Secretary Hastie noted that it would be critical to discuss any proposed edits with Planning Staff as the UDO contained not only Municipal, but State and Federal regulations
as well. She suggested Staff also be consulted regarding meeting with the County as a liaison from the City would likely need to be present for those discussions and added that the
name of the City Planning liaison to the County would be forwarded to Mr. Quinn.
ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business forthcoming.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman