Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091509 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:22 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 Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Chris Mehl Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Cathy Costakis Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Donna Swarthout Dawn Smith Sean Becker Brian Caldwell, President Henyon, Vice President Members Absent: Guests Present: Bill Quinn Sue Hadak Mrs. Robert O. Smith Thomas Mosser Barbara Hanno David Loseff Anne Halligan Robert Evans Jim Walker Chris Naumann Deborah Penland Bear McKay Kevin Stein Paul Burns Bob Chase 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.} There was no public comment forthcoming. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to approve the minutes of September 1, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Mehl, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. Draft Downtown Improvement Plan (Bristor/Saunders) 1. A neighborhood plan to provide guidance and direction for future development that solidifies Downtown Bozeman’s place in the community and the Gallatin region. The plan identifies strengths and weaknesses of the current downtown Bozeman area, and suggests policy and practice to strengthen Downtown as a mixed use area and center of the community. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor introduced the Downtown Neighborhood Plan; she noted the plan was titled “Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan”. She noted the intention of the evening’s meeting was to discuss the plan and its purpose. She noted the plan would provide a supportive framework for private action and would support economic development by providing information about the community to prospective citizens and employers. She stated State law had authorized the preparation of neighborhood plans that must be in conformance with the overall Growth Policy for the community and were similar in that they established guidelines for the community but for a smaller section/area. She stated one of the first steps of the consulting firm was to find principles and issues that would need to be addressed; adding the downtown should be the focus of civic life. She noted housing for all income levels should be encouraged. She directed the Board to the outline of guiding principles within the Downtown Improvement Plan. She stated strategies had been included and had been based on national trends that would be demonstrative rather than prescriptive. Planner Bristor noted district identification could help celebrate downtown’s unique character and housing would play a key role. She noted national trends were showing a growing demand for downtown housing and the plan suggested building hundreds of housing units in various types and styles. She noted a network of open space had been cited in the document and improvements had been suggested. She stated the suggestions of façade improvements had been included in one strategy, and grants to assist property owners are already in development by the Downtown Bozeman Partnership. She noted the zoning ordinance would need to be revised before any of the parking recommendations were instituted. She stated the importance of public/private partnerships had been addressed; she listed the parking garage, public library, and Galligator Trail as examples of City projects for the community’s benefit. She stated the Bozeman Community Plan had been referenced for the relevant review criteria and the Downtown Improvement Plan would instead be an enhancement to the Growth Policy. She noted Staff was supportive of the Plan as it provided a closer examination of the current downtown conditions. She stated the adoption of the Downtown Improvement Plan had been found to be consistent with the policies contained in the Growth Policy and its intent; she added the Plan also contained all the criteria that a neighborhood plan must contain. She noted only the City had the authority to consider changes to future land use and zoning. She noted the document took a broader view and addressed an already developed area. She reiterated that ordinance revisions would have to occur before any of the parking recommendations within the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan were implemented. She noted Staff had publicly noticed the item in the newspaper, had posted various public sites, and everyone within the plan area and 200 feet beyond the plan area had been mailed the notice. She stated the plan noted the public comment concerns of availability of parking for customers and employees. She noted the “next steps” that would need to be taken after the adoption of the plan. President Caldwell suggested the Board listen to the applicant’s presentation prior to Board members asking questions. Chris Naumann, Downtown Bozeman Partnership, joined the Board. He stated the two current guiding plans had been the TIF Plan and the Makers Plan and that much of those plans had been accomplished within the last 6-10 years; he listed some of those items accomplished such as; timed signalization, ADA sidewalks, etc. He noted the intent of the Downtown Improvement Plan is to establish a public/private relationship. He stated the Board had been given more specific information regarding public participation in the formation of the Plan and listed those groups. He noted there had been three separate public forums and there was a public comment period through the release of the draft document. Mr. Naumann stated there had been three subjects of concern identified through the public comment period process. He stated the concerns expressed regarding the redevelopment of private property; those properties had been used as illustrative, theoretical, examples which were not intended to be specific references and all surface parking was not going to be eliminated. He stated the conversion of the one-way couplets had also been a public comment issue and the plan suggested it was not the direction of traffic, but that the streets were one-way instead of two-way streets that would provide for a more walkable community; he noted other strategies could be implemented prior to investigation of two-way streets and added a cost and benefit analysis would need to be completed prior to any changes. He stated the general fear of continued disruption and construction downtown had also been a concern; he noted as much as construction could be controlled it would be controlled and the consultant had included language to address those concerns. President Caldwell opened the item for public comment. Kevin Stein, co-owner of MT Fish Co., cautioned the Board in accepting the Plan for the parking strategy mentioned within the plan. He noted the parking lot behind his business was crucial to the operation of his convenience business. He noted the majority of his customers parked in the lot behind his store and he leased spaces in the same location as well. He stated number two of impediments to downtown Bozeman had been listed as too much surface parking; he suggested it did not seem to be an impediment to his business or the vitality of businesses downtown. He stated he would be happy to forward the Board a study from Boulder, CO regarding parking strategies such as one hour free parking, parking meters, structured parking. He noted the study mentioned a suburban mall hat used ample parking as a marketing tool and because of the complications of structured parking, the perception became that it would be easier to go elsewhere. He stated he thought those studies were worth examining prior to the adoption of the plan; he noted there were some good things, but he strongly encouraged the Board not to adopt the plan with the current parking language included. He stated he feared the City of Bozeman was headed in the same direction of Boulder, CO. David Loseff, Baxter Hotel, stated he thought there were some good points in the Plan, but he wanted to echo the previous public comment with regard to the parking proposal within the document. He stated he had invested a lot of time and money and the institution of the parking plan proposed in the draft Improvement Plan would kill his business. He stated the reference to the surface lots being underutilized was inaccurate as those were his customers and he had seen the popularity of those spaces. He noted a critical element of the downtown vitality would be removed with the removal of the surface parking areas. He stated he had gone up and down Main Street to have people signing a petition to disallow the removal of the surface parking spaces. He stated the City had spent 12 million dollars as a City to install 450 parking spaces after the elimination of the lot that contained 150 spaces; a net gain of 300 spaces. He stated the document referenced a new downtown parking garage and suggested that strategically and economically the new garage might not occur for several years. He stated Mr. Naumann had addressed properties as examples and the development of private parcels was to occur elsewhere and suggested that the language as proposed did not properly address the intent or meaning if renovation and redevelopment of private spaces was to be specific. He suggested the Board disapprove the Plan as it would be death to the vitality of downtown. Robert Evans, stakeholder in downtown Bozeman, stated none of the people here remembered he was on the first parking commission and they had convinced people in the B-3 district to pay for the parking spaces for 20 years. He suggested the Board not vote for the plan as words are very important and the language regarding the parking needed to be corrected. He stated he had not received any notice during the document’s drafting other than the notice for the evening’s meeting. Thomas Mosser, 21 E. Main St., stated he had been preoccupied and had not been able to participate in any of the previous meetings. He stated he had invested a lot of time and money to get a new hotel built downtown which had driven him to bankruptcy, though if the sheriff’s sale occurred he would have a year of indemnity. He stated in terms of the pedestrian and bicycle importance and the idea of encouraging north-south movement on Main Street and with respect to creation of unique places, he was in agreement. He stated a lot of the activities mentioned for the Conference Center already occurred in the Emerson Cultural Center and he thought it would be a great opportunity to include the Emerson in the downtown area. He suggested the elimination of the parallel parking along Grand Avenue and replacing it with a walking park to connect to the Emerson and presented the Board with a draft drawing of his suggestion. He stated if surface parking was so important, perhaps 12 million dollars should not have been spent on the parking garage. He stated he agreed with the plan with respect to the idea of using the lot next to the Armory. He stated adding to the demand would make the parking garage more sustainable. He stated it made sense to develop the parking lots downtown. He stated an immediate way to calm traffic on Babcock and Mendenhall Streets would be to include stop signs on both streets. Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion of the meeting. President Caldwell suggested the Board address comments regarding surface parking. He stated household sizes had been dwindling during the past few years, which was not the case in the 50’s when Main Street was the commercial hub of the community. He stated the plan’s goal was to bring a customer base to within walking distance of downtown Bozeman. Mr. Sypinski stated that as a former director of the Main Street Program, parking had always been an issue for the downtown. He stated the redevelopment of Mendenhall Street had shown evidence of commercial development as opposed to residential development. He complimented the Downtown Bozeman Partnership and Staff on their work on the Downtown Improvement Plan. He noted they would not be short term goals, but long term planning. Mr. Mehl suggested public comment items be addressed. Planner Bristor responded that the plan discussed much more than parking, but the discussions presented by the audience were vital. She stated there were only a couple references to surface parking; one which identified the surface parking as a problem, one which showed examples of possible redevelopment sites used to show what mix of uses could occur on those lots. President Caldwell noted the blush when the financing was referenced and the diagram depicted that every square inch of downtown would not be utilized and percentages of the Plan may not occur. Planner Bristor responded Staff had found the Plan overall encouraging to downtown businesses. Assistant Director Saunders added that the City’s overall approach to parking was that it did not stand or fall on its own but instead how it is a part of the community transportation system. He noted having too much or too little parking could be a detriment and determining the correct amount was the intent of the plan. He stated the ground surface was an essential component because there is a lot of air rights over the existing lots that were not currently being used to take advantage of the development potential that exists instead of letting it sit fallow. He stated extensive public process would have to occur prior to the development of any of those sites. President Caldwell asked if it would be detrimental to the Plan if it specifically referenced no detrimental loss to spaces. Assistant Director Saunders responded it would neither be detrimental nor inconsistent. Mr. Naumann added that he believed in keeping with the spirit and more varieties of ideas, the better. He stated the plan was in draft form and they looked forward to the process to expand or scale back as necessary. He stated he appreciated previous public comments, but he did not think a store did better because of its huge surface parking. He stated the ratio of building usage to parking for some parcels was evident and those sites could be reduced. He stated he agreed with Mr. Loseff regarding how the parking was distributed throughout the district, but other parking facilities would be critical. He noted that nowhere in the plan did it say to eliminate public surface parking. He stated the SID mentioned by Mr. Evans merited investigation as he had not been aware of the situation. He stated other recommendations in the plan referenced specific development such as a conference center and was supportive as there was a need for meeting locations as the Emerson and Library had some facilities that were in extremely high demand. He stated the document was open-ended and encouraged the utilization of vacant lots regardless of the use. He stated they provided an unbelievable parking asset by allowing two hours of free parking on downtown Main Street. He stated another slight mention in the plan was the issue of cabaret license restrictions; there was a lot of restaurant density downtown. Mr. Mehl asked if Mr. Naumann and Staff would be agreeable to a hold harmless agreement as part of the 10 or 15 year implementation plan there would be a review of the efficiency of parking downtown. Mr. Naumann responded they would be agreeable to provide for all the different ways to manage parking to achieve the mix of uses they were looking for. Ms. Costakis stated she appreciated everyone’s work on the document and had noted that parking was a big issue all over the country. She asked if there had been a parking management plan or a comprehensive study done. Mr. Naumann responded the parking facility had been born out of a plan for the development of the downtown district. He noted the parking Commission would have the ultimate authority for any modifications and the City Commission would make the final decision. He stated the parking garage changed the entire paradigm and noted the parking manager could do legwork and the downtown area was being completely overhauled and analyzed. He stated there was no parking management plan per se, but there was a strategic plan being developed which would play a pivotal role in any parking modifications. Ms. Costakis stated the idea was to reduce the overall parking requirements and grandfathering of surface parking areas could occur to provide for at least the number of spaces lost were regained. She suggested including language to provide for “no net loss to surface parking”. President Caldwell noted that on page 34 of the draft plan, reductions or eliminations in parking requirements had been referenced. Mr. Loseff suggested distinguishing regulatory requirements from actual spaces. He stated the dedicated spaces used for development of existing surface parking would cause a reduction in overall available spaces. Mr. Mehl listed items from the matrix and asked how those items would be covered partly by the City and partly by private entity. Mr. Naumann noted the list of objectives had included lead entities, completion goals, and the nature of the Plan’s objectives. He suggested those values were draft values, but had provided incentives through technical assistance. He stated none of the ideas included had been new ideas and Planning Staff had already identified many of the items in current UDO revisions/amendments. He stated great improvements to downtown had been proposed, but obviously grants and other entities would concentrate on those types of proposals to prevent financial burden to the City or the downtown area. He stated the TIF board had done all the investigation regarding the downtown streetscape. He noted which items were on going and which would have a target completion date. He noted the implication was the opportunity to have two different processes working at once which were both public and private in nature. Mr. Mehl asked where the boutique/hotel would fall into the matrix. Mr. Naumann responded that whether or not people wanted to build a boutique/hotel, the question was why Bozeman did not have one yet; he suggested the consulting team had attempted to identify a method by which to bring that type of development downtown. Vice President Henyon stated on page 23, there was reference with regard to transforming the alleys and he thought it was a great idea to help accent downtown; he asked how those improvements would logistically occur. Planner Bristor responded there would be a possibility of meeting both needs and the current right of way would need to be investigated; she suggested a different surface material could be investigated. Vice President Henyon stated he was more concerned with Northwestern Energy utilities. Assistant Director Saunders responded those locations would need to avoided and outside of the utility corridors/right of way could be investigated for green areas. Vice President Henyon stated on page 21, he now knew they were theoretical examples, and he thought parking requirements were an impediment on development. He asked the theoretical parking ratio currently. Planner Bristor responded 1.5 parking spaces were required for a single bedroom household, but parking reductions were often applicable; office spaces were 1 space for every 250 sq. ft. and noted the plan spoke to making reductions to office demand. Vice President Henyon stated he was challenged to believe people would be walking and biking and he worried about a net loss of parking for actual residential use. Assistant Director Saunders added the parking was considered one component of the larger transportation issue as there was a certain physical need that existed that would need to be addressed. He noted people traveled more often on foot in the downtown area. Vice President Henyon stated he was more concerned with the residents of the downtown area. Planner Bristor responded the discussion had come up and offsite parking could be provided, or it could be a matter of walking a couple blocks to the parking space. Assistant Director Saunders responded in some places there were parking spaces available and others could be purchased outright or rented. Ms. Swarthout stated that in the interest of time, she had identified which items the Board had expressed concern with and suggested the surface parking be addressed. She asked if there would be another hearing for the proposal. Planner Bristor responded another public hearing had been scheduled. President Caldwell concurred that the amendment to the surface parking language should be included. Ms. Swarthout stated the other issue she had heard was changing the one-ways to two-ways and suggested softening the recommendation. President Caldwell stated further study of the framework ideas as related to Mendenhall/Babcock had already been included in the language. Mr. Sypinski suggested it would be best to list those amendments to the plan when it was formally approved or disapproved. Mr. Becker suggested that for the record, it was easier to communicate to the Commission and the public with both lists and a clean motion to forward to the Commission. Ms. Smith asked if an amendment could be made that carried through two meetings. Assistant Director Saunders responded the amendment would carry to the next meeting with a motion to open and continue the item to the next meeting. MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the Plan as submitted, pending possible consideration at future meetings. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to add language to favor a hold harmless provision for public surface parking and recommend a study for public parking utilization. President Caldwell suggested including the language “no net loss of public parking stalls” instead of “hold harmless provision”. FINAL MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the Plan as submitted, pending possible consideration at future meetings with the intent of opening and continuing the discussion at the next meeting, to add language “no net loss of public surface parking stalls”, and to recommend a study for public parking utilization. The motion carried 7-1. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Mehl, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being Vice President Henyon. President Caldwell called for an open and continuance of the item to the October 6, 2009 meeting of the Planning Board. The Board concurred. ITEM 5. 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 Plans. Mr. Sypinski stated he appreciated Assistant Director’s Saunders efforts in updating the Board on Growth Policy Implementation. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Assistant Director Saunders noted there had been a lively discussion on Urban chickens at the City Commission meeting and the ordinance had been provisionally adopted. The provisions of the Growth Policy had been included in the discussion. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman