Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091608 Planning Board MinutesMINUTES CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD COMMUNITY ROOM, GALLATIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, President Erik Henyon Donna Swarthout Chris Mehl Dawn Smith Sean Becker Brain Caldwell Cathy Costakis Members Absent: Bill Quinn (excused) Staff Present: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Shoni Dykstra, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Lucille Pope Kathie Callahan Susan Kozub Rosemary Bourne David Peck 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.} Kathie Callahan, 702 Bridger Drive, presented an overview of the letter sent to Planning Board members from Alliance for Building Communities. She noted they appreciated the solutions suggested by the Work Force Housing Task Force and recommended utilizing the model to explore home ownership solutions. She noted they would also like the growth policy to identify manufactured housing as an important component of the affordable housing stock. She also suggested the growth policy promote affordable community models such as housing cooperatives, land trusts, non-profit governance models, or non-traditional neighborhood designs. Donna Swarthout thanked the Alliance for Building Communities for submitting the document, and noted her support of the recommended goals and objectives provided regarding chapter 5. Chris Mehl noted he would prefer to discuss the revisions in conjunction with the draft chapter. Erik Henyon sought clarification on the word usage of development rather than construction. Lucy Pope responded construction often has the connotation of stick built houses. President Pomnichowski noted she appreciated the suggestions presented and thanked the Alliance for Building Communities for their efforts. Seeing no further public comment, President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2008. Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated that the minutes from September 3, 2008 would stand as written. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-08010 (Lot 70 Babcock Meadows MiSub) - A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of the property owners, Mountain High Homes, Inc. and the City of Bozeman, and the representative, C & H Engineering and Surveying, Inc, to allow subdivision of 0.96 acres into two lots for R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) development. The property is legally described as Lot 70, Babcock Meadows Sub, Phase 2A, SW4, Sec. 11, T.2S., R.5E., P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Bristor) Staff Report Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on Lot 70, Babcock Meadows minor subdivision preliminary plat application. She noted that it is generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of West Babcock Avenue and Donna Way. She noted it was a second or subsequent minor subdivision to divide approximately .96 acres into two residential R-3 (Residential Medium Density District) lots. She noted the growth policy land use designation is residential. She stated the City owns a portion of the development along Donna Way which the owner is in the process of developing a purchase agreement with Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, in order to meet access and frontage requirements. She stated no public or agency comment had been received to date. Questions for Staff Brian Caldwell sought clarification on the frontage requirement not being met through open space. Planner Bristor responded the tract was a drainage requirement and was not designated as either open space or parkland. Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning, added the requirement Mr. Caldwell was referencing also required alley access which this particular property did not have. Mr. Mehl sought clarification on the size of the City-owned parcel being transferred. Planner Bristor noted the arrangements were being made with Ms. Arkell and she did not know the exact size of the parcel. Mr. Mehl sought clarification on the precedent for situations like these. Planner Saunders responded the parcel owned by the City was the result of a ten-year-old argument which the City would have liked to have resolved 10 years ago, and as a result was not likely to set precedent. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on any variances the project would need. Planner Bristor noted the required sideyard setback was being addressed with the land acquisition and no variances were needed. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on the stormwater mitigation with the land ownership change. Planner Bristor noted engineering ensures stormwater requirements will still be met even with the transfer of City land. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on what changes would be made if the subdivision was not approved. Planner Bristor noted no changes would be made with the already approved projects. The ranch-style house facing Babcock exists and two condominium buildings are currently under construction through a currently approved site plan application. Applicant Presentation Dan Barnes noted the subdivision would allow the exclusion of the existing house in the condominium covenants, and the applicant had no objection to the recommended conditions. Questions for Applicant There were no questions for the applicant. Public Comment Seeing there was none, President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the hearing. Motion and Vote It was moved by Mr. Henyon, seconded by Mr. Mehl, to approve the preliminary plat of Lot 70 Babcock Meadows Minor Subdivision #P-08010 as conditioned by Staff. Those voting Aye being Mr. Henyon, Mr. Mehl, Cathy Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Ms. Swarthout, Dawn Smith, Sean Becker, and President Pomnichowski. Those voting No being none. The motion carried 8-0. ITEM 5. BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE 1. Selection of a member to participate on the Downtown 2020 Neighborhood Plan. President Pomnichowski noted Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Henyon had both emailed her regarding their interest in participating in the creation of the Downtown 2020 Neighborhood Plan. Seeing no other members expressing interest, she noted the meetings would likely take place on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays over the lunch hour. Mr. Henyon noted those times would not work well for him. Mr. Caldwell was selected. Review and discussion of Chapter 17: Review and Amendments Planner Saunders noted the materials presented are fairly standard and only addresses the review and amendments to an adopted growth policy. Mr. Henyon stated including a reference to the location and possibly the abbreviated summation of the reference in the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) could be helpful within the Chapter. Planner Saunders responded it could be placed in 17.4. President Pomnichowski responded it could be stated in 17.1. Planner Saunders responded a reference could fit there as well. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on how the supermajority vote of the Commission was established. Planner Saunders responded the Commission had adopted the policy within the last Update and was not required by the UDO or by the MCA. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on the definitions within the chapter. Planner Saunders responded the map and the text within the Land Use Chapter were used as definitions. President Pomnichowski stated the definitions were circular. Planner Saunders noted he could reference Chapter 7 with the definitions within Chapter 17. President Pomnichowski noted Chapter 7 was the chapter within the growth policy most likely to be amended. Mr. Caldwell noted you could make the argument for an amendment founded out of other portions of the growth policy. Ms. Swarthout noted the statement regarding the significant alterations could be struck altogether. President Pomnichowski responded she would like acceptable land use patterns defined. Ms. Smith noted that rephrasing it in a positive statement rather than a negative statement would be beneficial. Planner Saunders responded he would work on the wording. Mr. Caldwell noted the triggers for review was not sufficiently clarified in the update. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on the availability of a handout in the Planning Office. Planner Saunders responded Staff had developed a handout regarding Growth Policy Updates and Amendments. Planner Saunders responded 17.3 should address the questions Mr. Caldwell had brought up. President Pomnichowski noted the goal RA-1.3 was outside of the five year review period, and noted her fear of having cumulative reviews of amendments take longer than stated in the Update. Planner Saunders responded having different small amendments can impact the whole and so to mitigate the problem the cumulative review was developed. President Pomnichowski noted more frequent review could be in order. Planner Saunders responded the timing was a City Commission decision. Review and discussion of Chapter 14: Regional Coordination and Cooperation Planner Saunders noted addressing coordination and cooperation across the region were required components of the growth policy. He noted the stand alone chapter regarding the coordination was a recommendation from the Clarion Report, and shared some of the coordination and cooperation currently taking place. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on the street and infrastructure coordination on the federal level was important to include. President Pomnichowski noted it could be referenced along with MDoT in RCC-2.6. She sought clarification as to why RCC-1.4 referenced Bozeman specifically instead of the Planning Area. Planner Saunders responded Bozeman City limits was important in that clause due to jurisdictional responsibilities such as responding to fire and police calls. Ms. Swarthout noted the list provided in RCC-2.4 should either be less definitive or be a more extensive list. She noted a general statement could be to address health, safety, and environmental issues. Ms. Costakis noted she would like the broader statement utilized. Planner Saunders noted the list was comprised of areas which had been discussed specifically to date. He noted the Update could include the list as well as the broader language. Mr. Becker sought clarification on the interdepartmental efficiencies and coordination such as the County addressing the mental health department and how that could be included in the Update. He noted institutionalizing the agreement with the forest service due to the proximity of federal lands and the location of Bozeman’s watershed was important. Mr. Henyon stated he agreed. Review and discussion of Chapter 4: Historic Preservation – Goals and Objectives Planner Bristor noted Staff had developed two goals for the Historic Preservation chapter, the first focusing on the protection of historic resources and the second focusing on the advocacy and education of historic resources. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on funding sources and noted his concern of looking to federal sources as a main funding source. Mr. Mehl noted the impact the private donor had made on the Library LEED certification. Mr. Henyon noted the funding sources should include private funding. Mr. Caldwell noted the establishment of an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) could have an adverse impact on the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) as it would be a volunteer board. Planner Bristor responded Bozeman is unique in the fact that it does not have an ARC. President Pomnichowski noted the Design Review Board reviewed projects in the entryway corridors, and sought clarification on the feasibility of DRB reviewing NCOD projects. Planner Bristor noted DRB review criteria is often not triggered by COA projects, but if review by the DRB started taking place, she would advocate including an additional member of the board with a background in historic preservation or architectural history. President Pomnichowski noted many of the implementation policies seemed like a Staff to-do list. Planner Saunders responded the Clarion Report suggested an action plan format for the implementation policies, and some implementation would be carried out by the public while others would be directed more at Staff. President Pomnichowski noted the language utilized in the goals was very firm. Planner Saunders noted a time line would also be included with the goals and ultimately the City Commission determined how hard to work to meet the Growth Policy. President Pomnichowski noted she did not disagree, but since the growth policy is the vision document the specific list of implementation policies might belong elsewhere. Ms. Smith noted commercial properties were not addressed as well as residential. She noted re-use of commercial buildings would be at odds with preservation at times and addressing the balance was important. Planner Bristor noted the text should address both residential and commercial projects. Ms. Swarthout sought clarification on usage of demolition/delay rather than demolition/affirmative maintenance. Planner Saunders responded demolition could only be delayed it could not be denied. Affirmative maintenance would promote the upkeep of historic buildings with punishments applicable if a building is not maintained. Mr. Henyon noted the provision of staff seemed more like a budget item than an implementation policy within the Update. Planner Saunders noted level of service standards including staff were included within the public safety documents, and he noted it did not denote the number of FTEs. Ms. Swarthout noted the growth policy is the vision document and it denotes areas we place value. Mr. Becker noted the wording could be changed to emphasize competency and expertise in historic preservation for Staff of the Planning Department. President Pomnichowski called for public comment. Suzan Kozub of Intrinsik Architecture noted she was representing RTR holdings. She noted her previous presentation of the campus village project southeast of the intersection of Kagy Boulevard and South 19th Avenue. She noted the UMU district was the key to the previously presented mixed use development. She noted the given growth policy designation only allowed for 30% commercial development and noted the mixed use development could fail because of the inflexibility of the percentages of usages. She noted the burden of the right balance should fall on the developer, and urged the board to change the designation to allow for a UMU zoned district. Review and discussion of the Second Draft of the Updated Land Use Map. Planner Saunders noted the updates to the Land Use Map. He noted the inclusion of the existing conservation easements, MSU lands, and outlying suburban residential areas such as Tripletree. He noted the changes to the downtown community core area, North 27th Avenue, and the commercial node along Fowler and Patterson, and the portion along Patterson and Goldenstein had been changed from future urban to residential. Mr. Caldwell noted understanding the new growth policy designations was key to their decision making as well as the establishment of the basis of percentages. He stated there were a lot of unknowns at this time. Ms. Swarthout sought clarification on the need for housing in the area Ms. Kozub had mentioned from the ABC representatives. Ms. Pope responded there was not an easy answer as affordable housing required pricepoints. Mr. Caldwell responded the development would be subject to review under the affordable housing ordinance, but the basis of the percentage was really important. Ms. Kozub noted she could depict how the basis of the percentage would affect the project, but she noted the UMU allows for at least 20% commercial use. She clarified the property owner was not looking at the entire property to be UMU, but only the northern portion of the property. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on the ability to utilize a PUD application for the area with the current growth policy designation to develop the same type of project Ms. Kozub had presented earlier. He also noted including a list of zoning districts allowable in each growth policy designation would be helpful to include in the Update. Planner Saunders responded the fundamental use of the corridor needed to be kept in mind as well. Ms. Smith noted the mixed use commercial designation was only allotted in two areas and the commercial district did need to end at some point. Mr. Henyon noted he would be in favor of exploring the changes Ms. Kozub had brought up. Ms. Smith noted the letter from Chris Naumann and sought clarification on the extension of the community core or the creation of another category. President Pomnichowski stated she did not have a problem extending the district. Planner Saunders responded the edges of districts such as the community core are always going to be merging. He stated an inclusive plan could be created with a subarea plan for the downtown area. Mr. Caldwell noted he would like to review how the changes in the designations affect the area and how it impacts property owners. Planner Saunders noted the intersection of 11th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard was an area where the proposed designation was different and a commercial node could also be an option for the area. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS President Pomnichowski noted she had contacted the water court regarding language for the Update. She noted the County Planning Department had invited the planning board to speak to them about the update process on October 28th. She stated she would also like to see the ABC’s proposed wording included into the housing chapter. Mr. Mehl stated he appreciated the change from construction to development. He sought clarification on the singling out of mobile housing. President Pomnichowski responded the growth policy currently had a paragraph regarding manufactured housing. Mr. Mehl noted he would not be at the October 7, 2008 meeting. Mr. Caldwell noted the County had recently conditioned a project to meet City water and sewer standards, and noted wording or encouragement of similar conditions should be included in the Update. Ms. Costakis stated she would develop a presentation regarding her tour of the Northwest if Board members would like. It was agreed that she should present on October 21, 2008. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there were no further issues before the Board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman