Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102009 Planning Board Minutes.doc PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:08 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: Bill Quinn Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Ed Sypinski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Cathy Costakis Dawn Smith Donna Swarthout Brian Caldwell, President Erik Henyon, Vice President Sean Becker Chris Mehl Members Absent: Guests Present: Russell Davis 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 left the comment period open in case any members of the public attended. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 (Cont. from Oct. 6, 2009.) Ms. Costakis asked for clarification of the use of the word “blush” by President Caldwell. President Caldwell responded he should cut down on the use of slang terms. MOTION: Ms. Smith moved, Vice President Henyon seconded, to approve the minutes of September 15, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2009 Mr. Quinn suggested the language on page 4, paragraph 1, should include when Mr. Naumann responded to Mr. Mehl; “he noted that the consulting budget of ~$75,000 had caused limitations in detail”. He stated at the bottom of the page, Ms. Costakis statement “ingenuities ideas” didn’t make sense and should be stricken. Ms. Costakis concurred; she added that above that the language “may necessitate more parking” should be included in the second paragraph during the discussion regarding intensification of development. On Page 5, Ms. Costakis stated she was supportive of wayfinding signs not only within the downtown core, but also locations within the greater downtown area. She asked for quotes to be included for “local and unique language” in the last paragraph on page 6. Vice President Henyon asked if on page 7, item 5, in the first paragraph, Downtown Improvement Plan should instead be Economic Development Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded he was correct. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Ms. Costakis seconded, to approve the minutes of October 6, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. City Initiated UDO Text Amendments #Z-09151 (Saunders) 1. The purpose of the public hearings is to consider amendments to various sections relating to subdivision development in Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC, as requested by the applicant the City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771. The changes would be applicable throughout the City in the districts and procedures as is specified in the text of the existing regulations. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the Board had received quite a large packet of materials. He stated on page 2 there was a specific list identified as being within the purview of the Planning Board. He stated Staff felt it would be more productive for the edits as a whole to be available when reviewed by each Board/Commission for those elements for which they had responsibility. He stated most of the items for the Planning Board were directly related to the process of subdivision of land and some were amended by State statute. He listed the legislatively directed changes and explained the revisions procedures and noted the proposed amendments reflected the statute changes. Assistant Director Saunders noted the standards as related to the development of a diversity of lots was a little different amendment in that there were three alternatives being brought forward; he noted the City Commission had decided to reconsider some standards which had sunset formally to allow for the creation of diversity in lots in a predictable manner. He noted the standards in place for exemption needed clarified that future development would be reassessed. He noted there was language that parks would need to be developed in a certain way and language had been included to allow changes if the Superintendent of Parks was agreeable to the modification. He stated the chapter relating to how improvements would be installed and the review process for those improvements had been addressed with regard to public parks and the set of edits specifically delineated who was in charge and at what point in the process. He stated the review criteria for amendments relating to subdivisions had not changed and Staff was supportive of the edits as proposed. He noted the amendments had been publicly noticed and no public comment had been received. Mr. Mehl asked if each edit would be addressed individually. President Caldwell responded he would prefer to focus on the revisions outlined on page 2 of the Staff Report. Mr. Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders if the purpose of the discussion was really for section 18.04.020 as the Staff Report had indicated 18.02.020. Assistant Director Saunders responded .02 had been a typo on his part and section .04 was under review. Mr. Mehl asked why parking and signs had not been included in the proposed amendments to the Board. Assistant Director Saunders responded parking and signage were zoning and not directly related to subdivision. Ms. Swarthout suggested the diversity of subdivisions was the issue the Board should discuss and asked for more elaboration and if the City Commission was expecting a recommendation from the Board. Assistant Director Saunders responded he thought the City Commission would appreciate a specific recommendation from the Board from one of the three options. President Caldwell directed the Board to the correct page reference by Ms. Swarthout. Ms. Costakis asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify the three options available to the Board. Assistant Director Saunders responded that in the five years the Restricted Size Lot standard was on the books, the strict letter of the law had rubbed against other issues the City was working on. He stated option A most closely resembled what had existed within the ordinance, but would allow flexibility within the code; he noted you would have to have more than five lots. He stated option B would require a range of lot sizes and would have a floating calculation; he noted calculations had been run and the arrangement had been proven to work. He stated option C required a defined area. He stated option A was closest to the past practice, and option C was the simplest calculation, but option B would likely provide the greatest possibility with slightly more effort in the calculations. President Caldwell asked if the options were intended to provide a more varied range of housing options. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was intended to provide diversity in lot sizes due to the needs of diversifying population. He cited an example of another community which had received a plat for 800 acres of 3,500 sq. ft. lots and how it would not provide diversity or market flexibility. Ms. Swarthout asked if option B were recommended, would affordable housing goals be affected. Assistant Director Saunders responded none of the options would affect affordable housing requirements or goals as they are in a different title of the Municipal Code. Mr. Quinn stated in his opinion, option A was certainly the easiest one to apply and was fairly straightforward. He stated he was impressed that option B might increase the density of building within a subdivision and would be advantageous in preventing sprawl. Vice President Henyon stated he had a few possible changes that he would like to suggest but had questions as part of the potential changes. He stated on 18.74, page 74-2, where Engineer had been stricken, he did not know why Engineer had been stricken. Assistant Director Saunders responded he could answer questions as they arose. President Caldwell suggested he was interested in answering any questions specific to the section; he added that his opinion was that option C provided variety, but the intent of option A should not be lost; he suggested blending options A and C to forward a recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Mehl asked why Staff had not recommended option C. Ms. Swarthout asked President Caldwell to explain the difference from his suggestion of merging options A and C and what had been proposed as option B as it seemed the same language as President Caldwell had suggested. Assistant Director Saunders responded that option B did not provide for the required creation of small lots. Mr. Sypinski stated he believed that option A was addressing the original RSL lots and the affordable housing ordinance had addressed RSL lots; he stated he thought option B was speaking to a larger purpose to provide for the local market and demographics and would provide more flexibility. Mr. Sypinski stated he was supportive of option B. Ms. Costakis asked if the amendments would speak to affordable housing within the subdivision. Assistant Director Saunders responded that affordable housing standards would not be affected by the proposed amendments. President Caldwell stated he thought options A and C together would remain in keeping with historic Bozeman had historically contained 50 foot wide lots and he thought the necessity was to hold smaller lots to allow ranges in affordability. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for all proposed legislative (M.C.A.) amendments with Staff conditions. Mr. Quinn stated he believed the intent of Mr. Sypinski’s motion was to clarify the legislative edits that the Board should approve. Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of whether or not the language regarding a public meeting “may not be held” should say “shall not be held” instead. Assistant Director Saunders concurred. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to modify the proposed language to include “shall” instead of “may”. The motion carried 8-1. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being Vice President Henyon. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Swarthout seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for proposed option B. Mr. Becker suggested a disclaimer could be added to say that a smaller than allowable lot size would provide for diversity instead of including “or”. Mr. Mehl responded he thought the “or” allowed for either of the options to promote a diversity of lot sizes at 10%. Assistant Director Saunders responded that any time a number needed to be picked, it would be the wrong number and suggested nesting the numbers to provide for both small and large lots; he added a scale could be included to be responsive to different scales of subdivisions, larger subdivisions have more flexibility. Ms. Smith asked for clarification of the spirit of the intent of the Commission when he stated option B did not address the intent. Mr. Becker responded he thought the 20% was a good start, but he did not think the 10% difference in lot sizes would be enough. Mr. Sypinski suggested the percentages could both be 20% and include larger and smaller. President Caldwell stated he understood the diversity of lots, but the linking of minimum lot sizes and requiring option A would force a more compact land development and discourage sprawl. He stated the reference to minimum lot size in option A indicated the intent of the City Commission and he hoped it was not something that would be lost in a recommendation to the Commission. Ms. Costakis asked if any consideration had been given to the form of the development on the site and suggested a diversity of housing types was not included in the diversity of lot sizes. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had investigated diversity of housing types and short of combining the residential zoning designations there weren’t many options available for the implementation of that method as it would be non-specific; mandating it at that level would be tough to do. Ms. Swarthout stated option B seemed to allow more diversity in developments and suggested changing the language to 20% and 20% which would still achieve the density goals. Mr. Quinn stated he thought President Caldwell’s comments were valid with regard to holding the developer at 10% while allowing movement away from the average; he suggested holding a portion of the development to the minimum size which option B would not actually facilitate. Ms. Swarthout stated she understood, but cookie cutter houses would be constructed and large subdivisions did not look like the downtown. Vice President Henyon stated he did not think it mattered what the Planning Board said as the City Commission was just going to change the language and suggested it should say “diversity of lot sizes.” MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Quinn seconded to cease discussion on the motion. 3 with Mr. Henyon. The motion failed 3-6. Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, and Vice President Henyon. Those voting nay being President Caldwell, Mr. Mehl, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Becker. MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to modify the proposed percentages to 20% and 20% in option B. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, that option B include that a minimum of 10% of the net area should be developed as lots do not exceed the lot size in the district as described in option A and at least 20% shall have a lot area larger than the average. The amended motion failed 4-5. Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, and Vice President Henyon. Those voting nay being President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Becker. The original motion carried 7-2. Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being Vice President Henyon and Ms. Costakis. Ms. Swarthout stated she was sympathetic to the amendment, but thought it was too complicated, though she agreed with Ms. Costakis. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Quinn for clarification of the purpose of his proposed language changes. Mr. Quinn responded that it was to provide diversity in lots with a range of low and high and averages. President Caldwell suggested the intent of the Mr. Quinn’s amendment would be that the minimum lot sizes in the development, one lot would be the minimum and the rest would be what the developer wanted them to be. Ms. Smith responded it would have to be specifically phrased to prevent a developer from doing 100% of the subdivision at the minimum size. Mr. Mehl explained that the 20% would provide for the creation of smaller lots. Mr. Henyon stated he had proposed edits that he would like to discuss and asked for clarification of 18.02.040D, #7 even though it was not on the section chapter. Assistant Director Saunders responded the item was included. President Caldwell asked if the Board was interested in continuing the public hearing. MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to open and continue the discussion to the next meeting of the Planning Board. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Smith, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. 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. There were no items forthcoming. ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business forthcoming. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman