Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-06 Planning Board Minutes.doc** MINUTES ** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 7:30 P.M. 0:00:00 [20:12:43] ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair and President, JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 8:14PM and directed the secretary to record attendance. Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, Chair and President Steve Kirchhoff, Liason and Commissioner Brian Caldwell Randy Carpenter Caren Roberty Edward Sypinski Staff Present: Andrew Epple, Director of Planning and Community Development Jody Sanford, Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Bob Lee, Morrison-Mairele Rex Easton, Golf Course Partners Jack Burns 0:00:08 [20:12:45] ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) Seeing there was none, Chair Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 0:00:40 [20:12:50] ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 15TH, 2006 Mr. Ed Sypinski noted the motion failed unanimously and wanted the record to reflect that (pg 12). Ms. Pomnichowski motioned to accept the minutes as amended. Randy Carpenter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 0:01:50 [20:13:18] ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 0:01:53 [20:42:43] 1. Growth Policy Amendment Application, #P-06046 (Bridger Creek Subdivision, Phase I). 0:02:00 [20:13:22] Staff Report Planner Jody Sanford presented this GPA application. She noted this property, totalling 7.11 acres, was annexed around 1993 or 1994 and has been zoned B-1 since then. Ms. Sanford stated if this application is approved, the applicant is proposing to change it to a residential zoning designation. The property to the north is all residential and the property to the east is residential. She noted most of the property south of this is industrial and commercial in nature and certain portions are not annexed. Planner Sanford stated the planning staff evaluated this against the review criteria and found it would satisfy all the contingencies and the planning department is recommending approval. She noted the applicant has received numerous letters in favor of this, however she did received two letters of people opposed. 0:08:00 [20:13:37] Applicant Response Bob Lee, a land use planner from Morrison Mairele representing the owners and notes the property consists of 3 lots that were final platted in 1996. He stated this property has been sitting there for 10 years with no commercial activity and speculated that the reason for this is due to the fact the number of residences there is not high enough to demand neighborhood commercial use. Mr. Lee noted this property does not have good visibility and limited road access, is too close to the wetlands and flood plains, and too many complications to support a commercial business. He also commented on the fact that there are other business that are in this vicinity that would be in direct competition with this as a commercial development. Mr. Lee states there are several letters of support to change this to a residential designation because of it's minimal impact on the surrounding area. He notes the applicant has received good direction and guidance from the planning department and states this meets all their requirements. 0:09:08 [21:09:05] Public Comment Jack Burns lives at 1050 Boylan road. He noted to the board that he is in support of this application and stated residential zoning is a good way to go. Mr. Burns asked members what type of residential zoning would this be, possibly R1? Chair Pomnichowski explained the process to Mr. Burns and stated the process is to go through the growth policy amendment phase first, then this issue is addressed during the zone map amendment phase. She noted this application is only to determine a change from commercial zoning to residential. 0:10:54 [20:13:40] Questions for Applicant Board member Erik Henyon questioned applicant if they had any inclination as to what type of R zoning would be pursued. Mr. Henyon asked if it was single family homes, condos, or apartments. The applicant, Mr. Rex Heaston from Golfcourse Partners noted that commercial development has never panned out on this property. He stated it would be their intent to either be townhomes or small single family homes to keep in the style with the golf course. Mr. Heaston confirmed they are still under home-owner covenants and will be limited to what they can do, but know it will be very nice. He noted they are still in discussion for either R-1 or R-O, but have not yet determined this. Board member Brian Caldwell commented to Director Andy Epple that the Business Park zone is fading. He asked Mr. Epple is this BP zone considered a neighborhood service. Mr. Epple responded by noting Business Park designation provides for employment through light manufacturing, tech research, professional offices, but not neighborhood services such as the grocer or laundrymat. He stated business parks are considered employment centers and not neighborhood commercial. Ms. Caren Roberty commented to the upcoming Story Mill project and wondered where this was in the process since it seems to connect to this application. Mr. Epple noted the preliminary applications were eminent, but so far all discussion has been informal. Planner Sanford stated they have only submitted an annexation and zone map amendment application. Mr. Ed Sypinski addressed the applicant and noted they had inferred to the fact that they have looked at commercial development for that parcel and questioned the type of commercial that did not fit. Mr. Rex Heaston stated there was some interest in that property for a grogery store, but there was minimal drive by traffic, access, and visibility. He noted there was talk about a restaurant and lounge type business, but the neighbors concern was of issue. Mr. Heaston stated overall, there has been very little interest and everything that has been explored has never worked out. He noted it has been on the market since 1994 and it was the location over any other reason that has stopped possible development for commercial uses. 0:16:01 [20:14:40] Discussion Chair Pomnichowski commented she is not inclined to support this application because she feels the city is not applying and enforcing it's B-1 neighborhood centers. She stated doctors offices and daycare centers are all allowable and encouraged in B1 zones. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the neighborhood center model on this property would be more acceptable to the community and serve this area better than putting more homes on this property. She stated it would better than crossing Bridger Drive, Bridger Canyon Road to enter a service center there that may not pan out. She noted she was encouraged that this was B1 from the start. Ms. Pomnichowski also stated the DRC comments given regarding their issues with storm water gave her some pause. She noted she really likes this site as a buffer in between residential homes to industrial companies. Mr. Erik Henyon stated he was a former member of the Bridger Creek Covenants Committee. He noted this has no bearing on his decisions with this application since he has no financial interest in this property. Mr. Henyon commented to the fact that this property has been on the market for over a decade, does not have good access or visibility to it, the lot maintenance is overgrown, has noxious weeds, and the property owners and association would like something to be done with this property. He noted the residential zoning fits into this appropriately. Mr. Henyon stated if Story Mill goes forward and this stays as buisness park zoning, the businesses here would be in direct competition with Story Mill and could possibly go out of business. He noted this proposal matches the 2020 plan and yes, the neighbors want this change considering the 12 letters of support. Mr. Henyon will support this application and it's in the best interest of the property owners out there. He noted just doesn't see it working for a business in that area. Ms. Caren Roberty wondered what would happen if the applicant just waited. She noted there are a lot of questions with what is going to happen with Story Mill and stated this property, the neighborhood commercial area, doesn't have to be a drive-by type of center and could be a destination point. Ms. Roberty noted her main concern is the street and traffic danger, referencing the application states nothing can be built until the intersection is improved by this property. She stated sometimes it's just best to just wait. Mr. BrianCaldwell noted this would be the first step in many steps to improve this site. He also wanted all present to be aware that the street dangers, traffic and site improvements, and other issues that came up will be addressed during one of these many steps. Mr. Caldwell noted that after looking at the patterns in the area, he would recommend approval based on the staff recommendations. Mr. Randy Carpenter states he agrees with Mr. Henyon and Mr. Caldwell. He notes that it is not often that a client wants to change from a commercial designation to a residential one and therefore thinks this is a viable option. Mr. Carpenter There are no numbers to support this as a commercial site. He will support this application. Mr. Ed Sypinski commented that he is neutral on this appliction. He feels that although this proposal makes sense, there is a need for a neighborhood commercial project in this area. Mr. Sypinski states if you look at the development to the east, this can be supported by the surrounding new residences being built. He notes he is inclined to oppose this application. Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff commented that Mr. Carpenter made a strong point that also makes sense. He states that the city doesn't want to push auto-dependent 'commercial', but he truly doesn't see this as a viable center regardless of whether or not the Story Mill project happens at all. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted that based on this property's history with no activity in the past twelve years, it's probably not the greatest spot for a 'commercial center'. He states it would make more sense to change this to a residential designation. Mr. Kirchhoff will be supporting the application with the recommended conditions from staff. 0:27:42 [20:14:51] Motion and Vote Mr. Brian Caldwell moved to recommend approval of file #P-06046. The motion was seconded by Steve Kirchhoff and carried by the following vote: Those voting for the motion being Brian Caldwell, Steve Kirchhoff, Erik Henyon, and Randy Carpenter; Those voting against the motion being JP Pomnichowski, Ed Sypinski, and Caren Roberty. In light of the 4-3 split vote, this item is being forwarded to the City Commission without a formal recommendation. Chair Pomnichowski noted this will go before City Commission on September 18th) 0:28:45 [20:17:57] ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Seeing none, Chair Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 0:30:30 [20:41:12] ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Director of Planning, Mr. Epple commented to all board members about a workshop on LEED building certification. It will be held at City Hall in a couple of weeks. He stated Cath Williams will be the seminar presenter and is a national, renowned expert in LEED certification. Mr. Epple noted it would be a great opportunity to learn about reducing enery consumption and recycled materials. He asked that anyone wishing to attend to please RSVP to him at the Planning Department. Randy Carpenter noted the Yellowstone Business Partnership is in the process of developing a regional LEED that goes beyond energy efficiency in buildings and attempt to address sustainability on a reginal scale. This will help them address land use planning and transportation issues. He stated that Dan Burton, who is a nationally known speaker and writer on walkability, pedestrian, bike issues and will be present in Bozeman at the Art Institute. He stated Mr. Burton will be coming back in October for a four hour workshop. Chair Pomnichowski reminded all present that all meetings until the end of the year will be at the County Courthouse. 0:31:48 [20:42:30] ITEM 7. MISCELLANOUS DISCUSSION Mr. Caldwell queried to Mr. Epple about his education credits and whether or not they apply if he attends the LEED conference. Mr. Epple noted that in his experience, he's a certified presenter for realtor conferences and has to renew that every year, however Cath is precertified through the AIA or Montana Architects and it would be better to ask Cath. Mr. Epple commented to the board about how the City Commission resoundingly rejected the Kraft GPA. He noted the message planning staff is getting from this recent trend is 'that's enough' especially from the decision by the planning board tonight. Mr. Epple stated he will take this back to the planning department and discuss this among the group to not bring projects that are not in sync with city policies. He noted the department will hold the line until we get closer to the update of the 2020 plan. Mr. Caldwell took notice to Ms. Pomnichowski of the absence of members Dave Jarrett and Mike Hope. Chair Pomnichowski noted Mr. Jarrett was excused from this meeting and will follow up regarding Mr. Hope. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated to Mr. Epple regarding his comment of taking the information regarding decisions of late to staff and asked him to elaborate. Director Epple noted it's more about the response to tell applicants, prior to these recent events, our department has been telling applicants to move ahead with their GPA's and ZMA's. He also stated the when the applicants have been going to the county offices for direction and they have been forwarded to us to apply for annexation and like applications. Chair Pomnichowski suggested to Mr. Epple that recent annexation and ZMA submittals, if applicable, were not contiguous. Mr. Epple agreed but noted the City of Bozeman is surrounded by 'Elk Grove' county subdivisions or 'Baxter Creek' and the county actively promotes the public to get into the Bozeman area. He also stated he wishes the planning department was closer to updating the 2020 plan, however other projects such as affordable housing and manufactured homes have taken precedence, but will start as soon as possible. Mr. Epple notes the path the department was taking is obviously not the same path policy makers are taking. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated it is not his job to set policy for annexation and ZMA submittals to the planning department, but possibly make suggestions on how to address the public in dealing with these applications. Mr. Kirchhoff noted there are questions as to where the reasoning is behind all these recent annexation applications and wondered if this is good for the community. He further noted there seems to be a ‘turning of the tide’ with the recent rejections of annexation applications by the Commission. He stated that both arguments for and against the three annexation applications at last night’s commission meeting made substantially good points and feel that conversation could be filtered to the County Planners and County Commissioners. Mr. Kirchhoff stated the County Commissioners have a completely different view of growth and development than the City does. He further added that any body that has a greater oversight like the County Commission can easily negate everything the City does. Mr. Kirchhoff stated he encourages the public to come forward and apply for GPA's, annexations, and ZMA's due to the fact that 'future urban' means something. Mr. Kirchhoff understands the development pressure is strong and notes that turning people away or telling them that the commission is fed up with growth could be the wrong approach because the city cannot afford to land-lock itself. Director Epple notes the planning department has been a little cavalier with the ‘future urban’ designation, yet the growth projection of the 2020 plan was only estimated at 2 ½ -3% and we are now at 6% so technically we are looking at the year 2010 when you look at the plan. Mr. Epple states his department will not turn the public away, but tactfully advise them that their property is not ripe and waiting a year or two to apply is not necessarily a bad thing. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the City/County Commission still meet on the fourth Fridays of every month for breakfast. Mr. Kirchhoff responded by noting they took a hiatus at the County’s request, but are planning to meet again this month. He added there has been no definite date set as of yet. Chair Pomnichowski stated she would love to see the presentation and argument by Mr. Kirchhoff be repeated at that forum so the county can see the greater vision of the 2020 plan. Randy Carpenter noted he would encourage more support towards the County Commissioners and notes they share the same future vision of land use that the City Commissioners do and have taken some bold moves. He would like to see the city be more aggressive and pursue an inter-local agreement with the county and states they would like to see that happen as well since they are trying to move in the same direction as we are. Mr. Epple notes the land they are looking at tonight is zoned AS and it would take a pro-active move by the county to change it. Director Epple stated he fully appreciates and supports Mr. Carpenter's views, but notes there are people in the city who are paying very close attention to the City's decisions with zoning in relation to 'Elk Grove'. Caren Roberty commented that the 2020 plan has a policy of holding growth policy ammendments as to present them all at once. She wondered if this will help to get a more comprehensive view and wanted to know if that was a practicle application. Mr. Epple notes the city should adhere to that policy and she noted that this policy is what led to her decision. Mr. Caldwell wanted to know how far the county has gotten in it's county-wide zoning attempt. Chair Pomnichowski noted they had 8 to 12 meetings and have completed their formatting of plans and findings that will go to the commission. Mr. Caldwell stated the issue of unzoned lands in the county is in the process of being addressed and reminded the members of 'The Elk Grove' zoning issue was barely approved. Ms. Pomnichowski notes she commends the county because they did have to deny many applications knowing how much the fees were for these applicants. She did state that the denials had ground. Randy Carpenter noted there is an issue on the ballot this November, #154. Mr. Epple stated this has potentially disastrous effects for any efforts to newly zone an area. This relates to new regulations enacted after the effective of November 7th and there's no other zoning the county could give to a parcel that AS to further reduce it's value. He also notes the places that do not have zoning are pretty solid. Mr. Carpenter asked about the "heir in title" that is subject to 154 to which Mr. Epple responded that he's not aware of this. Ms. Roberty commented that smart land use and density is not a simple concept and difficult for the public to be as involved as the planning board members are which makes 154 hard to understand. Mr. Caldwell notes that maybe putting out an ad would help the public to comprehend the magnitude of this measure. Chair Pomnichowski stated that reading their voter guides are important and should be sufficient. 0:55:00 [20:22:11] ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 9:19PM. _______________________________ _______________________________ JP Pomnichowski, President & Chairperson Andrew C. Epple, Director City of Bozeman Planning Board City of Bozeman, Planning and Community Development