Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020508 Planning Board Minutes*MINUTES* CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Members Absent: JP Pomnichowski, President Cathy Costakis (excused) Erik Henyon Randy Carpenter (excused) Chris Mehl Brian Caldwell (excused) Bill Quinn Donna Swarthout Sean Becker Staff Present: Guests Present: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary Members gave a brief introduction of themselves and how long they had served on the Planning Board. 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 there was none, President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 2008 Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated the minutes from January 15, 2008 would stand as written. ITEM 4. PLANNING BOARD TRAINING Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development, presented a PowerPoint presentation on responsibilities of the Planning Board. He highlighted three key reasons why Bozeman plans: to protect public health and safety, to balance competing interests that are individually considered to be “good”, and to help rationally distribute scarce resources. He noted the state statutes governing planning boards, and items within the purview of the Planning Board. Planner Saunders noted it is getting consistently more expensive not to plan as opportunities are lost, and actions that have been taken require backtracking to bring to an acceptable standard. Planner Saunders noted the specific requirements of the membership of the Board as required by Montana Code Annotated (MCA) and the two Bozeman Ordinances 1508 and 1686. He noted the Board is advisory to the City Commission and the Commission also dictates what areas the Board should focus on. Planner Saunders noted the Bozeman Planning Board updates and utilizes the adopted Growth Policy to review projects. Planner Saunders noted the Growth Policy must include: community goals and objectives; maps and text describing an inventory of the existing characteristics and features of the jurisdictional area and projected trends; a description of policies, regulations, and other measures to be implemented in order to achieve the goals and objectives established in the growth policy; a strategy for development, maintenance, and replacement of public infrastructure, including drinking water systems, wastewater treatment facilities, sewer systems, solid waste facilities, fire protection facilities, roads, and bridges; a strategy to implement the growth policy; a statement of how the governing bodies will coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions; an evaluation of the potential for fire and wildland fire in the jurisdictional area; and a statement explaining how the governing bodies will: define, evaluate and make decisions regarding the state subdivision review criteria regarding proposed subdivisions and a statement explaining how public hearings regarding proposed subdivisions will be conducted. Bill Quinn sought clarification on the responsibility of the Planning Board in regards to the initiating of a Growth Policy update. Planner Saunders noted the Board can make a recommendation to the City Commission, but the City Commission has to give the directive to proceed on an update. Chris Mehl sought clarification on how the directive was affected by newly seated Commissions. Planner Saunders noted that once a directive to proceed on an update had been given, it did not need to be restated. He noted the requirement which directs an evaluation of the adopted growth policy every five years does not always necessitate the update of the document. Planner Saunders noted the Growth Policy can incorporate other information such as neighborhood plans which are consistent with the Growth Policy, establishing infrastructure, describe zoning regulations implemented to address the state subdivision review criteria, and arts and culture can be included along with economic development. He noted if a project meets the requirements of the UDO, it is generally considered to have met the criteria of the Growth Policy. Sean Becker sought clarification on why Bozeman has Growth Policy Amendments. Planner Saunders responded that Growth Policy Amendments change the underlying policy. Planner Saunders noted the upcoming update will address the Business Park zoning designation, and noted the changes adopted would be carried forward as an ordinance change. Mr. Mehl noted Bozeman does not have many neighborhood plans. He noted there was a recent Montana Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the Neighborhood Plan. President Pomnichowski noted the ruling was given in an area where County zoning had not been pursued and the Court gave weight to the Neighborhood Plan because it was a more restrictive plan than the Growth Policy. She noted Bozeman has the overarching Growth Policy, then ordinances, and then the Neighborhood Plans. Planner Saunders noted Bozeman would not have Neighborhood Plans which conflicted with the Growth Policy. He noted municipalities cannot zone without a Growth Policy. Planner Saunders noted the Board is required to meet four times a year in January, April, July, and October. He noted the roles and the establishment of officers, and he noted the definitions of a quorum. Mr. Mehl sought clarification on the designated members from the County and the Commission and if they had additional requirements to be present to meet the quorum. Planner Saunders noted there was not a designation of specific members of the board to be present to constitute a quorum. Planner Saunders presented information regarding the Planning Board’s participation in subdivision review. Erik Henyon sought clarification on the likelihood of having applications provided to the Board digitally. Planner Saunders noted Staff presented the Story Mill application digitally due to the size of the project, but he noted it did not work as well as Staff had hoped. He noted Staff would like to get to the point where digital versions were the standard. Planner Saunders presented the difference between a subdivision and a certificate of survey for the Board. He presented an overview of an application undergoing review. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on what happened if the review did not happen within the 60 days allotted. Planner Saunders noted the applicant could grant an extension or they could sue. He noted the City wants projects to get through the review process in a timely manner. Planner Saunders noted the review criteria for each application and how Staff incorporated them into the Findings of Fact. He noted the Staff normally incorporated the Findings of Fact in the same format within the Staff Report. He noted the date of the Findings of Fact is the key date for when an appeal can be made. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on how covenants fit within the planning process. Planner Saunders noted covenants were not a part of the planning process as a City enforced regulation although they are recorded. President Pomnichowski asked for clarification on the differences between deviations and variances. Planner Saunders noted a deviation is regarding a zoning standard. He noted through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, an applicant can propose something outside of the UDO which would result in a development superior to what would have been allowable following the letter of the UDO. He noted a deviation can also occur when a property falls within an overlay district. He noted the relaxation of one adopted standard to allow for a better end product than what would have been otherwise allowed. He noted these deviations were specifically oriented around historic preservation and the entryway corridor. He noted a variance is when the applicant is being asked to do something excessively burdensome and is unique to the project and the property. He noted the Board needed to be able to record the uniqueness and the distinct factors in granting a variance in order to avoid charges of favoritism. President Pomnichowski stated the granting of a variance needed to be based on hardship rather than on preference. Donna Swarthout sought clarification on how variances related to exemptions. Planner Saunders noted Staff tries to build in fallbacks in the Ordinance for exemptions while variances are unique circumstances to a specific property. Mr. Quinn sought clarification on how much the Board should be relying on the 2001 Transportation Plan when reviewing streets for neighborhood connectivity. Planner Saunders noted the Plan took a broader look at streets and concentrated mainly on the arterials, where the Planning Board would be looking more at local streets and their connectivity. Mr. Quinn noted a requirement for improvements to an intersection before the development of a subdivision could proceed off of Cottonwood Road. He sought clarification from Staff on how the Board should review conditions similar to those. Planner Saunders noted the Board would first look within the Bozeman 2020 Plan which provides for the infrastructure to be in place before development can proceed. He noted the second place the Board would look would be in the Transportation Plan which addresses cross sections for various streets. He noted the Board would then look at the standards addressed within the UDO for streets, and the final place would be in the submittal itself. He noted the Traffic Impact Study is utilized by the City Engineers when evaluating and making the recommendation found within the Staff Report. Planner Saunders also noted the Board should be stating concerns about a particular condition rather than recommending a change in the text of the condition or striking a condition when forwarding their recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Henyon noted sometimes common sense says the information presented in the TIS is incorrect and the relating mitigation does not make sense. Mr. Becker noted subdivisions which went under separate phase reviews usually only provide the TIS related to the phase under review rather than presenting the impacts of the entire subdivision. Planner Saunders noted if the Board feels the information presented is not sufficient to make an educated decision on, the Board should make a recommendation of insufficient materials or denial to the City Commission. He noted the Board would then be able to back up its recommendation if someone challenged their decision. Planner Saunders noted the wide range of subdivision design concerns the Planning Board will be viewing over their term. Mr. Quinn sought clarification on the Planning Board’s interaction with the Design Review Board. Planner Saunders noted it was unlikely both boards would review the same project unless it was a PUD. Planner Saunders noted ways to build a better Planning Board, recent legislation, and ways to stay out of trouble. He highlighted substantive due process which insures that adequate public health and safety requirements are met within an application. He also highlighted procedural due process and the need to set, publicize and follow procedures, document actions, and notice the affected parties in a timely manner. He described quasi-judicial actions and noted the members of the Board should not be lobbied on projects. He noted it was important to stay within the local and state criteria. He noted all public comments, all materials, and minutes are open to the public. Planner Saunders noted the City cannot put a condition on zoning, and he noted covenants are not the same as zoning as covenants only bind people who have ownership. He noted covenants can be more restrictive, but the City does not enforce them. He noted covenants do not have authority over public space, and most covenants have a defined time frame where they are in effect. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on which party had jurisdiction in cases of narrower streets where the covenants restrict parking. Planner Saunders noted it depends on the street if it is public the City has jurisdiction and if it is private the HOA has jurisdiction. President Pomnichowski noted covenants can govern things such as paint color, location of satellite dishes, etc. Planner Saunders stated Montana tends to have weaker covenants. Planner Saunders provided additional references and opened up the discussion to questions from Board Members. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on finding the Planning Board Minutes. Planner Saunders noted the only accessibility was through the Planning Office in hard copy at this point although the long term expectation is to have them available to the public through the web on laserfiche. Mr. Henyon asked when the projected date of availability was. Planner Saunders noted the software was available, but the actual document creation and implementation still needed to be defined. President Pomnichowski noted the importance of having a quorum and notifying Staff and the President of the Board if they could not make the meeting. Planner Saunders noted the Board can meet even without a majority in order to continue the hearing to a later date. President Pomnichowski also noted that outside of a scheduled meeting, five members of the Board still constituted a quorum. President Pomnichowski went over contents of the packets and documents the members should have to review applications by. Planner Saunders noted questions that arise during application review can be emailed to staff and become part of the public record. President Pomnichowski stated the importance of avoiding conversations having to do with specific applications or applications that may come under review. She noted various ways to mitigate conflict of interest concerns. She also stressed the importance of visiting the site of the applications under review. ITEM 5. PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS REVIEW AND ACTION Amend the Planning Board By-laws to clarify staggered terms as adopted by Ordinance 1686, project review procedures, and the date of election of officers. Mr. Mehl sought clarification on Article II where it states “plan for the future development of the city of Bozeman and areas adjacent to the City.” Planner Saunders noted the City has the jurisdiction to insist on actions taken within the limits, but it can also advise areas in the County as to the actions the City would like to see in an area. Planner Saunders noted Article VB could be struck from the Planning Board By-laws as there is no zoning budget function. Mr. Mehl noted under Article X, there are not specifications on noticing requirements for regular meetings. He also noted Article X and XII seem to be inconsistent. He noted Article XIIC3 should be clarified. After Board discussions on Article XIIC3, Planner Saunders noted Staff could work with the wording and bring back a clarified statement. It was decided to continue Item 5 to the next public meeting for review and action. ITEM 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Planner Saunders noted the Board could consider a motion to table the election of officers to the next scheduled meeting. It was moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Ms. Swarthout, to table the election of officers until the next scheduled meeting. Those voting Aye being Mr. Becker, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Quinn. Those voting No being Mr. Mehl, Mr. Henyon, and President Pomnichowski. The motion failed 3-3. It was moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Mr. Mehl, to nominate JP Pomnichowski for President. Seeing no further nominations the Board voted on the motion. Those voting Aye being Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Henyon, Ms. Swarthout, and President Pomnichowski. Those voting No being Mr. Becker. The motion carried 5-1. It was moved by Mr. Mehl, seconded by Mr. Quinn, to nominate Erik Henyon for Vice President. Seeing no further nominations the Board voted on the motion. Those voting Aye being Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Henyon, and President Pomnichowski. Those voting No being Mr. Becker. The motion carried 5-1. ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Mehl invited members of the Planning Board and Staff to the Mehl residence for an informal barbeque on Thursday, February 28th. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there were no further issues before the Board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chair Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman