Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110508 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:05 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: Erik Henyon, Vice President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Cathy Costakis Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Donna Swarthout Chris Mehl Brian Caldwell Sean Becker Bill Quinn Members Absent: Guests Present: JP Pomnichowski, President 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 no public comment forthcoming, Vice President Henyon closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2008 Ms. Swarthout stated that on page 3, half way down, the language should read “USEPA” instead of “USPCA”. Ms Costakis stated that on page 6, the second paragraph, the language should read “children are indoor and safe” instead of “connected to television or video games”. She stated that on page 6, the third paragraph, in the third line, it wasn’t Vancouver she was citing, and she was just noting examples. She stated that on page 6, the fourth paragraph should include the language critical for “health” instead of “obesity”. Mr. Becker stated that at the end of Item 5, 3 paragraphs prior to the end of the discussion, he had not intended the discussion be so harsh and requested it be softened. MOTION: Mr. Becker moved, Ms. Costakis seconded, to continue the minutes of October 21, 2008 to the November 18, 2008 meeting of the Planning Board. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Mr. Mehl, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Caldwell. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE 2. Review and discussion of Chapter 4 – Community Quality (Krueger) Planner Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the chapter included preservation, arts & culture, and public health issues. He stated Staff felt community quality issues should have been focused on while the other issues were discussed in separate chapters. He directed the Planning Board to the layout of the chapter and noted which items Staff would like the Planning Board to discuss. He stated goal 1.3 was a rewritten portion of the first goal in the last 2020 Community Plan and it was related to the design of products in the context of compatibility. He noted it would apply at smaller and larger levels, such as a single household or a large commercial development. He stated spatial relationships were addressed through the use of objectives c1.1 and c1.2 and noted c 1.3 and 1.4 were carried over from the DOP. He noted where projects were reviewed under the standards of the Entryway or Conservation Overlay Districts and that they would not have the same standards applied as projects in other areas. He stated the time it would take to expand the design review process would be worth the effort and the plan was illustrated and graphic but was more geared to a suburban development. He noted the current expansion included higher density commercial design that was far more urban. He noted language had been included to address compatible infill. He stated one of the goals went back to what people would remember when they left the City. Most would remember, as character defining features, the overall circulation throughout the City. He stated he thought it was appropriate to include the challenge of connecting the existing transportation infrastructure to the rest of the community; he noted the same general language was included in the DOP, but had not been as thoroughly addressed. He stated private drive aisle language had been included, but it was unclear whether or not it could be a requirement to provide a bicycle/pedestrian safe environment with regard to site circulation. He stated the requirement for complete streets would be a challenge, but would be good to investigate. Mr. Mehl suggested Staff define complete streets; he noted one of the goals seemed more passive and asked if it was deliberately so. Planner Krueger responded the language was deliberately passive due to various circumstances such as a trail and boulevard sidewalk combined for shared use; the requirement would be a ten foot wide concrete facility no more the fifteen feet from the edge of the street. He suggested investigation and community debate before the issue would be clear enough to require shared use pathways. He noted transit systems had been included but created issues due to the transit agency not having master plans or a better designed program. He stated Staff had been working with Streamline toward requirements through the Planning process to provide bus stops within new development. He stated he did not add to c3, but may have removed a couple of objectives while the goal remained the same. He stated c4 was the section in the 2020 Plan that lead to the DOP and NCOD Plan as it laid out the goals and objectives of the previous plan. He suggested changing the language to include evolving the design guidelines throughout the years. He stated, with regard to the development of subdivisions, the way he approached the layout was to be a proponent of alleyways as they tackled issues regarding circulation, placement of utilities, etc. Planner Krueger stated a more restrictive, intensive type of zoning would be “form based” zoning which would control the physical shape of the development, defined down to the shape of the roof. Mr. Caldwell stated a true PUD was a type of form based zoning as it ignored the underlying zoning requirements; he suggested exploring form based zoning and in the interim bringing back a true PUD. Planner Krueger responded he would argue that a PUD would allow relaxations for excellence in design and the form based zoning would require those items be completed and anything else would be disallowed; he noted it would be more formal and more restrictive. Planner Krueger stated goal c.5 was an imitation of a goal contained in the 2020 plan; adding the objective was important to have, but might not be necessary. He stated the continued development of design guidelines was a new objective being proposed due to the anticipated type of development expected to be seen in the next ten years. He suggested one of the objectives had been included as code provision requiring storm water facilities be integrated into the landscaping on the site; he noted there was an opportunity to make functional aspects of the site beautiful as well. He stated site development could include functional systems integrated into the framework of the site; such as bioswales in landscaped areas to provide a lighter hand to the land. He stated some communities had necessarily developed a functional storm water system due to the amount of storm water they had to deal with and one of the things seen often by Staff is the development of storm water infrastructures in public parks. He stated 6.2 addressed site based energy and noted five or six applications for alternative energy sources had been processed within a short time frame and there was no clear language in the DOP that addressed the installation of those features. He stated he had included wind energy as there was technology available that did not include the standard turbines and associated noise. Seeing no public comment forthcoming, Vice President Henyon closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Becker suggested goal c2, community circulation, should have the implementation policies expanded upon. He suggested Staff would need to acquire development standards for the Streamline bus stops and included a plan of intent with regard to requirements for providing bus stops and transit systems. He suggested parking should be included in the circulation section as it tied in strongly to community circulation. He stated that in objective c5.3 the words “public arts” should be stricken and c5.5 should be included to separately address “public arts”. He suggested sustainability could be more specific than to include only two objectives. Assistant Director Saunders noted other chapters would specifically discuss the sustainability in more detail in an attempt to resolve redundancies. Mr. Becker cited the T&C site as an adaptive re-use and an inadequate intersection; he suggested the document could allow the public to participate in an objective manner as opposed to it being dropped in their back yard. Mr. Caldwell stated he thought the chapter was obvious and he had a clear understanding of the objectives within the chapter. He stated Mr. Becker had a valid point in wishing to include parking in the objectives. Ms. Costakis stated she really enjoyed Planner Krueger’s presentation of the chapter, she had looked forward to it more than any other, and most of her concerns had been addressed. She stated she had taken a tour of the west and she thought landscaping changed the character of how a business looked. She suggested the language should include “be easy, safe, pleasant, and available to all”. She suggested Staff investigate the form based zoning designation and she thought alleys should at least be encouraged if not required. She stated the public realm was a high priority in many communities and there would be great opportunities to do the same in this community. She stated she agreed with Mr. Becker that the sustainability language should be beefed up. Mr. Mehl asked if objective 5.4 had already been required by the City. Planner Krueger responded storm water detention was a code provision. Mr. Mehl suggested making it a requirement. Planner Krueger responded the development guidelines for the current program were included, but objective 6 would more thoroughly address the requirements through storm water treatment facilities within the landscaping or along street edges in subdivisions. Mr. Mehl asked for clarification regarding the current requirements. Assistant Director Saunders noted the storm water facility plan had been recently adopted and the City as a municipal government had to handle the community as a whole in certain situations to provide for best practices. Mr. Mehl asked that the photos that were not taken in Bozeman be labeled as such. Planner Krueger suggested not labeling the photographs in case someone took offense to a photo that was being used. Mr. Mehl suggested keeping the photo credits available for design purposes and asked if the chapters had been reorganized. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Land Use chapter had been moved to the beginning as it was most often used so the labeling had been shifted. Ms. Swarthout commended Planner Krueger on his work and presentation and noted it was in keeping with Ms. Costakis’ presentation. She stated she agreed with Mr. Becker regarding sustainability. Ms. Smith stated she agreed with previous Board comments. She stated objective c2.3, shared use pathways, already existed in her mind as sidewalks because no one wants to be out in the street. She suggested a stronger, more defined term than investigate be included in the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Transportation Plan more thoroughly addressed the issue as it was more often a review of each site individually. Ms. Smith asked if the language for shared use was included in the Transportation Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language was included. Ms. Smith asked if there was anywhere in the City that specifically allowed for path construction. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City was getting close to linking a 2 or 2 ½ mile distance between the Cattail Creek area and Bozeman Pond, but it would be a slow process with the systems under development for the last 10 to 15 years and would take longer before it was fully functional. Planner Krueger added that either the Transportation Plan or the 2020 Community Plan would take precedent unless the community would want to make trails more of a priority. Mr. Quinn thanked Planner Krueger for his presentation and concurred with previous Board comments. Vice President Henyon stated that on page 4-3, he questioned the use of the word “most”, and the third line could be presented in a different manner. He asked Planner Krueger to explain the jurisdiction of the DRB as he thought they had reviewed most of the projects within the City. Planner Krueger explained that there were two types of overlay districts that the DRB reviewed projects within and noted those locations. Vice President Henyon asked what was trying to be accomplished with the language to expand design review. Planner Krueger responded there were areas within the city that had different requirements than those located elsewhere; he added it would be easier to require the more urban landscape if the requirements were more design oriented outside of the Overlay Districts. Vice President Henyon asked the cost of going through the design review process. Planner Krueger responded the review did increase the cost of projects, but most that do spend the extra money receive the benefit of notoriety in the community; he noted it was difficult to put a specific dollar amount on a project. Vice President Henyon stated he liked the objective regarding working with Streamline. He stated c5.3 should have the word “art” removed and alleyways should be discussed as a separate objective. He stated integration of the site based power generation should be kept open ended to allow for any kind of energy that would meet the standards. He suggested solar, wind, or geothermal energy should be added. He stated he believed that storm water and wetlands should be considered as parkland in the allocation of those requirements. Ms. Smith argued it could be considered as open space but would be unusable space for parkland. Vice President Henyon responded the benefits to the community would be viable and there should be an incentive to do those things; he noted he would be fine with crediting it toward open space. He suggested lighting requirements could be included in community quality. Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be touched on in the chapter, but more thoroughly addressed in another chapter. Mr. Caldwell stated he had seen storm water facilities that were intentional features that were nicely designed/maintained that could be credited to open space requirements. Ms. Costakis asked if Staff considered the buildings along N. 19th Ave. as addressing the street; she noted she did not know for sure where the entrances were located and what was meant when the language included “addressing the street”. Planner Krueger responded some of them did not address the street well, but everything could be improved. Assistant Director Saunders responded Bennigan’s or Cold Water Creek had been constructed with features that caught the eye of the passers by. Ms. Costakis stated she had not meant to be critical, but it was not her concept of addressing the street. Mr. Quinn stated he agreed with Mr. Henyon regarding emphasizing lighting and thought it could be included in community quality; he added the human scale fit into the category and should be included in c1, human scale and compatibility. Ms. Swarthout responded that lighting had been addressed in environmental quality and could be cross referenced in the community quality chapter. Mr. Becker stated the language should be included to allow for the community to exchange features for the greater good. Assistant Director Saunders directed the Board to a photograph of a dog park near New York and added that attempting to come up with some way to create a balance between development and open space/recreation areas would be difficult and there had been some recognition included in the ordinance. Ms. Costakis stated the lighting adds to her quality of life when she walks to the library at night and suggested the lighting be included to allow people to feel safer. ITEM 4. COMMUNITY HEALTH THROUGH PLANNING–FOLLOW-UP – (Costakis) She stated her only point was that there were health aspects beyond water and air quality. Mr. Becker stated the over-arching priorities would be a very important aspect though he did not know where the language would be included; he suggested the table Ms. Costakis provided be included in the 2020 Community Plan. Ms. Costakis stated she wanted to encourage people to ride bikes, but there were a lot of people in the community that did not know how to ride bikes; she suggested bicycle training and providing incentives for alternative forms of transportation. She stated the maintenance issues would be crucial in encouraging the community to use alternative forms of transportation. Ms. Swarthout encouraged the Board that the focus on political will would help make the changes which would substantially benefit the community. Ms. Smith stated she enjoyed Ms. Costakis’ presentation and she had been thinking about pedestrian safe zones and who would enjoy their time along N. 19th Ave.; she added incomplete pathways caused people to have to ride on the side of 19th Ave. at Home Depot. She added waiting for the development to come through before developing the trail connections would never allow for a complete pathway. She suggested political will should be used to force the construction of those connections and suggested Ms. Costakis give the same presentation to the DRB. Review and discussion of Chapter 7 – Arts & Culture (Bristor) Assistant Director Saunders stated the chapter contained many component parts that would be cross referenced in other chapters and locations within the document. He stated the question would be whether or not the local government should be an active participant or an enforcer; he noted the City did not necessarily directly go out and mandate those items. He stated there were a variety of objectives with potential implementation policies. Mr. Mehl asked if Staff was hoping the Planning Board would endorse the private plan that would more thoroughly elaborate those requirements. Assistant Director Saunders responded he did not think a private document should be included in public requirements and it would be separate. Ms. Swarthout distributed suggested language to the Board and clarified that her drafted objectives pertained to city sponsored arts & culture events and to support opportunities for low income residents to attend fee-based arts & culture events at reduced rates or without charge. Mr. Caldwell asked how a third party could be required to reduce fees. Ms. Swarthout responded she was simply attempting to encourage the community to consider low income residents and the plan should emphasize the community’s objectives to that end. Mr. Becker concurred and did not think it would be a dangerous thing to adopt. MOTION: Ms. Swarthout moved, Mr. Becker seconded, to adopt draft Objectives AC 1.7 – “Encourage City sponsored arts and culture events to reflect the diversity within our community.” and AC 1.8 – “Explore and support opportunities for low income resident to attend fee-based arts and culture events at reduced rates or without charge.” as presented by Ms. Swarthout. The motion carried 8 - 0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Mr. Mehl, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Caldwell. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Quinn suggested incorporating the language in one of the existing objectives. Ms. Swarthout suggested combining objectives 1.5 and 1.6; she stated she preferred to keep her proposed objectives separate. Vice President Henyon stated he saw the need for the City to support these types of activities and he was supportive of the proposed objectives as drafted. Ms. Costakis stated the City of Olympia had provided a vision statement and the document as presented was not very inspiring; she suggested including something more visionary. Mr. Mehl concurred. 3. Executive Summary (Saunders) 4. Implementation Appendix (Saunders) 5. Glossary of Terms Appendix (Saunders) MOTION: Mr. Caldwell moved, Mr. Becker seconded, to open and continue Items 3, 4, and 5 to the November 18, 2008 meeting of the Planning Board. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Mr. Mehl, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Caldwell. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Caldwell stated he thought it was amazing that Town & Country was getting the hot poker again with regard to the requirement of the City to improve the intersections near the site. He stated they would need to seek a Variance, which would be difficult to obtain, and suggested the Board members express their support to the City Commission. He stated it was disheartening to hear how difficult it would be to put a grocery store on the south side of town and the store was already willing to improve one intersection. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City had specific language regarding what constitutes a traffic study and can grant a waiver from that traffic study if the impact is small. He noted the theater had historically been a significant generator of traffic, but the shift in timing of the traffic would be the issue at hand. He stated the site was less than a mile from several sizable intersections; he added the City had known for awhile there were issues at those intersections and the City had committed significant funds to help alleviate them. He stated the developer could take advantage of CIP listing and the City would reimburse those developers provided the improvements were completed to a certain standard. He noted City Staff was aware of differences between infill projects and other projects and added that part of the solution would be included in the Growth Policy, but would also be a regulatory amendment at some point. He suggested the Board could weigh in that infill and redevelopment had significant impact on the community. Vice President Henyon added that the south side of town needs a grocery store; the location would encourage pedestrian activity in that location. He stated his view was that any existing traffic locations that were operating at a D or F rating should be included in the CIP and repaired. Mr. Caldwell suggested he would like to present a rationale to the Board that could be presented to the City Commission. Mr. Becker suggested Staff provide information to the Board regarding the Town & Country Application. Assistant Director Saunders suggested reduction of travel and infill be the focus of the Planning Board discussion instead of getting too caught up in the details of the application. Ms. Swarthout stated she would not feel comfortable discussing something that no member of the public had been noticed would be discussed at the Planning Board meeting. Assistant Director Saunders suggested the Board submit their public comment, as every other member of the public, after they had come to the office to review the file and discuss its content with the Staff Planner. Mr. Caldwell stated people had been asking him how the 2020 Plan designation would affect their property. Vice President Henyon asked the status of the Plan as a whole and the updated map. Assistant Director Saunders clarified. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Transportation Plan Draft had become accessible and would be available for review at the library and the Engineering Department. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, Vice President Henyon adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Erik Henyon, Vice President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman