Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061708 Planning Board MinutesMINUTES CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:07 p.m. and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, President Brian Caldwell Donna Swarthout Chris Mehl Cathy Costakis Sean Becker Members Absent: William Quinn (excused) Erik Henyon (excused) Staff Present: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary Guests Present: I. Edward Sondeno Suzan Kozub Tracy Poole 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 MAY 27, 2008 Sean Becker commented that he thought Bill Quinn had said something else regarding commercial density downtown. The minutes of May 27, 2088 were continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Board. JUNE 3, 2008 Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated that the minutes from June 3, 2008 would stand as written. ITEM 4. BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE Review and discussion of the analysis and the issues with the current/new chapters of the Bozeman Community Plan as related to Land Use. Ed Sondeno, Director of Facilities for Bozeman Public Schools, shared where the district owned properties and the intended use of those properties. He stated the ultimate disposition of the properties could be sold or exchanged with the exception of their property on Highland and Kagy which was to be used by the school for a school site. Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, sought clarification on the number of students the school board was considering for the location on Highland and Kagy. Mr. Sondeno responded it would probably be around 500 students. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on the streets bordering the school properties. Planner Saunders responded that each property was bounded by a public street with some having a classification of collector or higher. President Pomnichowski noted complaints about the amount of traffic on local streets at locations such as Morning Star. Chris Mehl noted most of the sites were located in the Southwest corner of the City rather than closer to the center. Mr. Sondeno noted the school’s long range planning committee had talked with the City and the County regarding where growth is anticipated. He stated property was acquired when and where it was possible so they had the asset to utilize. Planner Saunders responded that there is potential for significant growth in the southwest since the access to sewer facilities has been made available. He stated the High School had been built on the edge of town, but now is centrally located due to growth. He stated it is easier to find the site acreage required as a single ownership closer to City limits. Susan Kozub sought clarification on the stipulation on the Highland and Kagy property. Mr. Sondeno responded it was a conditional purchase agreement because of the structure of the contract with the former land owner. Cathy Costakis stated she would like to see elementary schools located on local streets within neighborhoods to provide a safe environment to walk or ride bicycles to school. She sought clarification on the site acreage requirements for new schools. Mr. Sondeno responded the Education Facility Guideline for an elementary school is 10 acres, 30 acres for a middle school, and 50 acres for a high school. Ms. Costakis asked how many acres Longfellow and Hawthorne are. Mr. Sondeno responded Longfellow is the smallest in the City and was roughly 2 acres, but did not have a good guess for Hawthorne. Ms. Costakis noted that they were some of the most desirable schools in the City. She stated some school districts were lowering site requirements because of the lack of available acreage. She stated it was very important to site schools in neighborhoods and to grow more compactly. She sought clarification on the requirements the City could place on developers for including school sites. Planner Saunders responded local governments are prohibited from requiring land for school districts through subdivision review. Brian Caldwell sought clarification on the districting of neighborhoods for the school districts and the transition time. Mr. Sondeno responded a five year phasing plan was being utilized to establish the attendance areas. He stated the districts are subject to revision and will need occasional realignment. Mr. Sondeno stated developers could now donate school property in lieu of parkland requirements. He also stated larger schools cost tax payers less to operate and the existing multistory schools have limited play space and a smaller footprint. President Pomnichowski noted the community’s use of the fields when school is not in session and the importance of having that available. She suggested creating an agreement with the Recreation and Parks Board and the School Board to encourage more shared use of those amenities. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on the possibilities of extending the end wall and building on more classrooms. She would like to utilize building plans to accommodate additions instead of having to move students to new schools. Mr. Sondeno responded the Board has talked about adding onto Morning Star, but the cost of what is being obtained has to be weighed against building something new. Mr. Sondeno noted the Board had a plan to accommodate growth over the coming years, but the revenue was not there to accommodate so another plan would be developed to mitigate the growth. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on the review of attendance areas. Mr. Sondeno responded an annual review of the districts would be taking place, and realignment of the boundaries would take place until there was a need. Donna Swarthout sought clarification on the high school project. Mr. Sondeno responded the current high school would not be abandoned, and that the present Chief Joseph Middle School would be utilized for classrooms. Ms. Swarthout sought further clarification on the “unused” portions of the current high school. Mr. Sondeno responded it would probably be utilized as storage area and would not be “unused”. Ms. Swarthout noted the Board needed to be realistic in their persceptions of a neighborhood school because it was unlikely that 1st graders and kindergarteners would walk to a school still over a mile away. She noted there should be an increase in foot traffic, but to still be planning for vehicle traffic. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on the dedication of school land in lieu of parkland. Planner Saunders noted it was in State Statute and in the UDO with the ultimate decision being made when it came before the City Commission. Mr. Caldwell stated if it promotes school communities it could be highlighted in the 2020 plan as something the City would like to see. Planner Saunders responded the legislative change was not in effect when the 2020 plan was last updated. Ms. Costakis noted it should have a joint use agreement if school property is accepted in lieu of parkland. Mr. Saunders noted details could be worked out on the City level to encourage functionality of a joint use agreement. Mr. Sondeno agreed as the statute provides a general framework. He noted joint use agreements are in use for the current facilities. Ms. Kozub sought clarification on the types of land uses Mr. Sondeno would like to see around the various types of schools. Mr. Sondeno responded a higher standard of protection was generally sought out for elementary schools, but a fair amount of commercial worked well around the high school. Mr. Becker thanked Mr. Sondeno for coming and noted he would like specifics on how to work with the schools. He noted maps are a good tool to show what the projections are. He would also like to include statements about joint use and interlocal agreements for things such as parking and park use. Mr. Sondeno responded he did not think those would be in conflict with the School Board, but he would like to talk with them first. He noted a map for the district areas was available on the school’s website. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on the schools’ desire for accepting land in lieu of parkland requirements. Mr. Sondeno responded the School Board would like to see the statute encouraged, and further noted other entities would fight for the parkland to remain parkland. Planner Saunders responded developers could also advocate donated school property as an assest to a development. President Pomnichowski thanked Mr. Sondeno for his participation. Mr. Caldwell suggested the idea of creating a subcommittee to hold focused discussions related to land use. Planner Saunders noted Staff would not object to a subcommittee. Mr. Mehl sought clarification on how the process would be different than the current meeting. Mr. Caldwell noted the subcommittee discussions would be in addition to what is being discussed and would address a topic in depth rather than the overview. Mr. Mehl sought clarification on the difference between the white paper and the subcommittee. Mr. Caldwell noted addressing urban village designs had been talked about, but addressing it in a white paper would not be as complete as a discussion between a subcommittee. He noted he did not want to devalue the current form, but wanted to get into more detailed discussions. Ms. Swarthout noted she would not be opposed to the idea, but she would like them to come back with a recommendation and after discussion something to be voted on at the regular meetings. Planner Saunders noted if a subcommittee was established he would like them to develop the goals, objectives, and follow up for the next step in implementation for their recommendations. President Pomnichowski stated she was hesitant to have a subcommittee due to the lack of noticing and the process of selection for those on the subcommittee. Mr. Caldwell responded the results of the subcommittee would still be open to public comment and Board discussion during the regular meetings. Mr. Becker noted the subcommittee would be able to include professionals who might not be able to attend a regular meeting of the planning board. Planner Saunders stated Board members can discuss the update with citizens at any point until it becomes a quorum as ex parte does not apply to the process, and unless the Board disagrees and feels it would be inappropriate, he does not see it as a problem. President Pomnichowski put the topic on hold until the end of the meeting and opened public comment. Susan Kozub of Intrinsik and Tracy Poole of Eighteen89 Equity Group sought clarification from the Board when the land use map was going to be opened up. She noted that without knowing the format it is going to be difficult to engage the public. President Pomnichowski responded the map would be available at the next meetings regarding land use. Ms. Kozub noted that having everyone together and gathered to address land use is important. Planner Saunders responded Staff needed more direction from the board before moving forward. Ms. Kozub sought clarification if Staff had a record of potential applicants who were waiting to submit applications until the Update process was completed. Planner Saunders noted he had an email list, but not all potential applicants were on it. Ms. Kozub noted she would like to individually contact people who she knows would be interested for the next Planning Board meeting. President Pomnichowski encouraged her to do that. Mr. Caldwell stated the County has taken bold steps recently toward implementing county wide zoning. He noted the future urban land designation which is generally at the outskirts of the planning boundary could be utilized to help with the transferable development rights program through the County. (The County currently refers to the program as transferable density credits or TDCs.) Mr. Mehl responded it could change the “future urban” designation and allow it to become a full urban use. Mr. Caldwell responded there would be criteria to mitigate that possibility. He noted it would put the development where it is most desirable while preserving open space. He also noted it could be an example for Four Corners and Belgrade in implementation. Planner Saunders noted a balance needed to be maintained between what is attainable in the next five years and what is reasonable for the next 20 years. He noted the growth policy is a reasonable projection of what could happen and he did not want to mislead people as to what is developable property. Mr. Mehl noted that the memo stated it could cause some unrealistic expectations. Planner Saunders responded it depended on timing, and there is value in having it incrementally adopted. He also stated some people may not have any interest in changing. President Pomnichowski noted future urban implies future city. She noted that municipalities are the key areas to establish densities and she would like to see a statement along the lines of having the City being a receiving area for TDCs. She noted the Update could encourage TDCs to be received within a ½ mile radius of City limits. She stated people only sell TDCs if they have an incentive. Mr. Caldwell noted a supply of TDCs is being created and a program would create a demand for them. He noted that developing a demand could be done not through demanding them, but through incentivizing them. Planner Saunders responded one way to deal with TDCs is to create an implementation policy that would benefit the owner, Gallatin County, and the City to make it viable for all the parties involved. It was moved by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Mehl, to include a policy statement or implementation goal in the 2020 Update Land Use Chapter which clearly states the City is desirous of the County’s success with their Transferable Density Credit Program, and states the City will pursue options to create a demand to for those credits to encourage the County’s vision. Those voting Aye being Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, and President Pomnichowski. Those voting No being none. The motion carried 6-0. Ms. Swarthout noted community supported agriculture was supported by code but could be encouraged within the Update. Planner Saunders noted the parkland requirement was for the community and a more intensive agricultural program could be included. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on the zoning designations which allowed for the keeping of chickens. Planner Saunders stated Staff have discussed it and noted some concerns with the issue. He noted the allowance of chickens would be a substantial change. Ms. Costakis sought clarification on how the code currently fit into the density picture as she supported both denser developments and encouraging community agriculture. Planner Saunders noted it is currently balanced in the agricultural uses within the R-S designation. He noted other agricultural uses could interact in numerous ways including within the parkland requirements and possibly could be utilized within the 100 year flood plain with appropriate buffering. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on the community garden idea within the parkland. Mr. Saunders responded gardens could be included within the park plan and the City Commission still made the ultimate decision. Mr. Caldwell noted the 2020 plan could incentivize the development of gardens by having them be considered a higher acreage. Ms. Swarthout noted it was addressed in economic development, but could also fall under 6.6.4 in the natural environment and aesthetics portion of the Land Use Chapter. Planner Saunders responded 6.6.4 would be the logical location for the inclusion of community gardens in the Land Use Chapter. Ms. Costakis noted she would vote for it. Mr. Mehl sought clarification on where it would be utilized within the Plan. Ms. Costakis responded it could also occur in the housing chapter, but she would like to see it included in the land use chapter as well as in the parks section. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on the table which talked about vacant areas. Planner Saunders clarified how the information had been collected and what it actually represented. Ms. Swarthout noted she supported a separate Downtown designation to accommodate its unique character. President Pomnichowski noted a shift in the current “downtown area” might be appropriate. Mr. Caldwell noted there is a parking district, a tax increment district, and the B-3 zoning designation which don’t currently overlap, but he would like to see them adjusted. President Pomnichowski noted the Planning Board did not have the jurisdiction to change some of those districts. She would like to see a statement with Downtown as the Heart of the Community. Planner Saunders noted he did not anticipate many moves on the B-3 zoning designation, but some could be moved. Mr. Mehl sought clarification from Staff on what information they needed clarified. Planner Saunders responded direction regarding B-P was necessary. He noted that it currently is a commercial transition zone to serve as a buffer, but determining if and what type of a buffer are needed still has not been discussed. He also noted that B-P could be altered to allow for more uses. He noted that subarea plans are being addressed through other review processes. He stated that neighborhood plan has great viability. Mr. Mehl noted he did not agree that all of objective two should not be dropped. Mr. Saunders stated neighborhood plans are set in statute and do not require anything within the growth policy, but parameters could be included. Mr. Mehl sought clarification on encouragement of neighborhood plans, and he would like to see it in the updated 2020 plan. Mr. Caldwell stated subarea plans are misleading. President Pomnichowski noted that neighborhood plans were more applicable for mixed use zoning rather than for subdivisions, and if form based zoning was implemented it would become more important. President Pomnichowski responded neighborhood plans could communicate the ideals of the area to neighbors and property owners. Mr. Becker responded the neighborhood plans incorporate public participation early in the process to mitigate future controversy. President Pomnichowski stated she does not feel that B-P and R-O are serving their intended purpose. She noted the zoning designations were intended to provide a buffer between commercial districts and residential districts which people appreciate. She noted she appreciates new urbanism, but also recognizes that people appreciate the quiet neighborhoods. She would like to expand the opportunities within the B-P district, but does not want to eliminate it. Mr. Caldwell noted he hears her desire to fix her B-P rather than delete it, but he does not feel her description is in agreement with the other statements in the document. He noted that it does not allow the type of mixes and the setbacks are land consumptive. He would like to see a minimum floor area ratios established for the district. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS President Pomnichowski noted the upcoming deadline for “white papers.” She stated anyone willing to be a liaison to any service groups or organizations would be appreciated. She also noted there were more upcoming opportunities for op eds in the paper. Ms. Costakis noted the opportunity to utilize a booth at the Farmer’s Market. President Pomnichowski noted Sweet Pea was coming up and the Board. President Pomnichowski stated Randy Carpenter had sent in his resignation. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there were no further issues before the Board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman