Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-05 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Harry Kirschenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Dave Jarrett Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Dev. Harry Kirschenbaum Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Ed Musser JP Pomnichowski Jane Stroup Visitors Present Ken Smith Sandy Dodge David Cook Ron Norby Kathy Bushnell Kathryn Norby Cecilia Vaniman Anne Banks Joanne Jennings Mike Elliott Kyle B. Sipes Dan & Linda Fillinger Erik Henyon Terry Wolfe Bev Tweedale Sue Harkin Clark _____ Pierce C. Mullen Kimerick Hayner 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.} There was no public comment. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2005 President Kirschenbaum called for corrections or additions to the minutes of October 18, 2005, and hearing none, he stated they were approved as presented. ITEM 4. JOINT MEETING WITH ZONING COMMISSION President Kirschenbaum called the joint meeting with the Zoning Commission to order. A. Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Board 1. Introductions John Harper, Ron Dingman, Sue Harkin, Sandy Dodge, David Cook, Joanne Jennings, and Anne Banks were in attendance from the RPAB. 2. Proposed UDO Edits Ms. Pomnichowski noted that many of the UDO edits were deferred until the PROST plan was developed. She asked if a draft had been presented. Mr. Dodge noted the document was not yet completed, but was moving forward. Mr. Dodge noted he was unsure of the status of the edits at this time. Planner Saunders noted the among the first edits City Commission reviewed were the ones pertaining to parks. However, most of the parks edits were delayed until after the PROST Plan could be completed. He described the process thus far. He noted the appropriate amount of land to be dedicated per dwelling had not been revised and the question of how much per dwelling was appropriate still existed. He noted the parks inventory has been completed. Ms. Stroup asked if the interim policy on parkland dedication would be moved forward. Planner Saunders noted the policy had been adopted until there was an updated basis for comparison with the PROST Plan. Ms. Stroup asked what the Parks Board would like for parkland in the future – all land or is a combination of land and cash-in-lieu acceptable. Mr. Dodge noted that cash-in-lieu is a problem at this time as they have no idea how much cash is involved, and they don’t know how to calculate it. He noted the Board is leaning for a set price per acre for all development. Mr. Jarrett noted that would not be feasible as the different zoning densities require different commitments and each parcel is different. He noted his concern is how the money is spent. Ms. Harkin noted the monies are held in escrow for distribution by the City Commission for park development. Planner Saunders noted the newest UDO requires a subdivision parks plan and explained the requirements for cash verses land. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if a cap had been established for cash-in-lieu. Planner Saunders noted the UDO sets a quantity of parkland to be provided, when land is required, and when cash-in-lieu is acceptable. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the City was moving towards a Parks Maintenance District for more uniform maintenance. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the City could bill the HOA if the park wasn’t being maintained. Planner Saunders explained how a lien could be charged to the tax bill. Ms. Harkin asked for the status of the 23 edits they reviewed. Mr. Harper noted the City Commission has acted on all the edits affecting Chapter 50. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the Main Street to the Mountains Trail is part of the PROST plan. Anne Banks noted it is and they work closely with GVLT. Mr. Dodge noted they review the subdivisions in regard to the trails systems. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the contradiction in the UDO would be addressed – impervious surfaces in water course setbacks, yet trails are required along a lake or water course setback. Planner Saunders noted the item would be reviewed and remedied if needed. Ms. Stroup asked the Parks Board to comment on the formation of a Parks Maintenance District. Ms. Banks explained it would work similarly to Tree Maintenance District. Mr. Dingman noted the District would be self funding. Mr. Jarrett asked if the public parks are controlled by the Parks Board, and what are the criteria for parks maintenance. Mr. Dingman noted there are specific criteria. Mr. Jarrett stated he would like to see some of the open lands on the south side of Bozeman be maintained for public use. Planner Saunders explained the difference between parks in a subdivision and open space in a PUD. Ms. Stroup noted she didn’t understand how the park maintenance budget was allocated. Mr. Dingman explained the budgeting process. Ms. Stroup asked how the parks maintenance district monies would be distributed. Mr. Dingman explained the monies collected would not be part of the General Fund and any unspent funds would be carried over to the next year. He noted he had a budget of around one million dollars and has six employees. Park Maintenance funds would be special purpose and could not be diverted. Mr. Lutes noted the Joint Board/Commission had a question as to the definition of a “park.” Ms. Banks noted they have been working on the definition for “park” and “parkland.” She noted the work on the PROST Plan includes reviewing the different types of parks. Mr. Lutes noted he would like them to look at where certain amenities are located. Ms. Stroup noted that some people don’t want large parks with soccer/ball parks located in their neighborhoods. Planner Saunders noted there are few subdivisions large enough to fully develop a park with ball fields, etc., so several property owners are encouraged to work together to aggregate their parkland to create larger, more usable parks. It was noted that parkland is very stable while cash-in-lieu monies are very portable. It was also noted there was little land available in the northeast quarter for parkland. Ms. Pomnichowski asked for the make up of the Board and how they are chosen. It was noted that the Board is City Commission appointed. President Kirschenbaum thanked the Parks Board for attending the meeting and sharing their thoughts. A brief recess was called. 3. Other discussion by the combined boards/commission There was none. B. The Remaining Proposed UDO edits (Beginning with #220A-#244, less the ones completed.) (Saunders) BRING YOUR COPIES WHICH WERE DISTRIBUTED WITH THE OCTOBER 18TH PACKETS. Edit 232-234 – all the same edit from three different people. Planner Saunders noted the edits are to change the definition of casino. He described the options. He noted the proposed changes would overturn the Casino Overlay District chapter, noting Staff is not supportive of the requested changes. He noted the proposal would have some negative down sides, and noted a more detailed description of issues is provided on the edit sheet. Dan Fillinger, owner of Outback Steakhouse building, stated he just wants fair play. He noted some facilities have 20 machines and he wants the right to have that many also. He stated he felt he was being treated differently than other bars and restaurants in Bozeman. He noted he was being hogtied in respect to the additional revenues an additional six machines would create. Ms. Stroup asked how the existing establishments were allowed more machines. Planner Saunders noted the City hasn’t tried to make ordinances retroactive, therefore, the existing businesses with 20 machines were grandfathered when the ordinance was adopted in 1998. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if a casino overlay district could be formed along Valley Center Road. Planner Saunders stated a casino overlay wouldn’t be permitted as Valley Center Road in within the Entryway Overlay District. The board asked why the number of 14 was originally chosen by the City Commission. Planner Saunders gave a brief history of the ordinance. Mr. Lutes stated the definition of a casino should be based on square footage or percentage of business. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she didn’t want to change the definition because the code currently allows an overlay to be created. Mr. Fillinger noted the limitation of casinos is based on the number of liquor licenses issued by the State. He noted he has room for about three more machines. He noted it makes no difference on the outside of a business regarding the additional machines as the people are already in the building and the signage is already addressed. Planner Saunders reviewed the reasons for the establishment of a casino overlay district. Mr. Jarrett noted he would support Option #3 for 20 gaming machines. Kathy Bushnell, Jackpot Casino, asked where the discussion goes from tonight. President Kirschenbaum noted a recommendation is made to the City Commission, with the City Commission making the final decision. Ms. Bushnell noted there have been several new casinos added in the last few years under the 14 machine limit. She noted the new businesses advertise Keno and Poker therefore making them casinos. She asked that the Board look at what the city would/should look like in the next few years. Kyle Sypes, Old Chicago principle owner, asked the Board/Commission for a level playing field. He noted they want to have the 20 machines just as the grandfathered casinos have. They wouldn’t need to remodel their building; however, the additional machines would help pay for the liquor license and generate revenue for the City and State. He stated he doesn’t want to see Bozeman with a casino every other store. President Kirschenbaum asked if casino owners would like a new section. The owners noted they want to change the number of machines permitted. Vote on each of the three edits: Option 1 – 0 Option 2 – 0 Option 3 – 5 Option 4 – 1, with Ms. Pomnichowski noting the elimination of the definition doesn’t meet the need of the code. Other sections would also be involved. She noted she had no problem with the numbers being either way. Edit 242 --- Planner Saunders gave background of the proposal, and Staff’s concerns. Kimerick Hayner, 1 Hill Street, stated the intention was to bring back the language of the old code to expand and define a B-1 area, limiting the size of a business, including all uses inside the structure. He questioned the validity of the statement that the edit could cause legal concerns. Mr. Musser asked if one building were a meat shop, one a canned goods store, one a bakery, would those business be permitted as a B-1 business? Ms. Pomnichowski noted if they were under separate operations and not interrelated, they would be permitted. Mr. Hayner noted the current wording created a loop hole for a Town and Country type proposal. Ms. Stroup noted the term under question is “single, principle activity,” which is quite vague. Ms. Pomnichowski noted that the meat of the paragraph evaporated. Mr. Jarrett stated he didn’t think the proposed edit would solve the problem. Planner Saunders noted the wording referred to by Mr. Hayner had moved to 18.16.030 “Lot Coverage…” Ms. Pomnichowski stated the new language addressed only the foot print of a building. She noted the previous code referred to activity and size. Mr. Jarrett suggested the limitation be a 5000 sq ft footprint. He noted that if a property owner wanted to do 5 or 6 buildings, they should have subdivided the lot into 5 or 6 lots. Vote – Option 1 – 2 Option 2 - 4 Edit #243 --- Planner Saunders gave the background for the edit, which would permit the City Commission to take jurisdiction of the final decision by a simple majority rather than a super majority. He reviewed Staff comments and noted one challenge is to provide equitable treatment in project review. Staff is concerned that decisions diverted to the Commission may boil down to who has the most influence with the elected officials rather than whether or not the project was in conformance with the ordinance. Pierce Mullen, 11 Hill Street, noted the current wording appeared in the UDO without any notice. He noted that a process is needed to allow the neighbors to have an outlet up front. Mr. Hayner noted they are requesting a more democratic process with decisions being made by elected officials. He stated it would be a more open process than an administrative decision. He noted he is opposed to the Staff comments in the next to the last paragraph as he stated he felt the decisions of the planning director are more arbitrary than a decision by the five member City Commission. Planner Saunders explained the appeals process and that all planning director project decisions may be appealed. He noted the edit would eliminate the planning director decision making and force the decision making directly to the City Commission. He noted the shifting of venue requires a 4/5’s majority, the decision on the proposal is a simple majority. Vote – Option 1 – 5, with Ms. Stroup voting in opposition. She stated the idea was to streamline the process and there should be some burden on the opposition to convince the City Commission to take jurisdiction. President Kirschenbaum noted he has the utmost respect for the planning director and staff, however, he felt the City Commission had the purview to make the decisions. Edit 244 -- Planner Saunders reviewed the edit. He noted several of the suggestions have become moot due to Statutory changes by the Legislature. He noted the City now has the ability to refuse to review an application if it is lacking substantial information. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the edit gives the planning staff the discretion to refuse an application. Planner Saunders described the completeness and sufficiency tests for subdivision applications. Pierce Mullen, 11 Hill Street, noted the proposed edit is an attempt to move a project through the process and allows the neighbors time to review the application. He stated it would give the applicant 30 days to respond to any deficiencies, if no response, the applicant would have to begin again with fees, application, submittal materials, etc. Mr. Hayner read from the last paragraph above Proposed Actions. He noted Planning Staff should not provide the applicant with loopholes to circumvent the requirements. Ms. Stroup noted there is so much micromanagement already and this proposed edit seems to add to that. President Kirschenbaum noted he felt that very few applications are going to be without flaw. Mr. Jarrett noted he supported making no change. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she would support all of the suggested changes. Vote – Option 1 – 1 Option 2 - 5 It was determined that due to the lateness of the hour, the review of the rest of the proposed UDO edits would be put off until December 20, 2005. C. Other business for the joint board/commission – There was none. ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS There was none. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Pomnichowski requested, when information is available from an informal review, could the Board be given the minutes from the Planning Board and the City Commission informals and language from the annexation agreement for history on the project. She requested a copy of the parks inventory map and a description of the existing parks. Planner Saunders noted the parks’ map is nearly completed and the Parks and Rec. Board are working on the descriptions of the parks. Ms. Pomnichowski asked for the cash-in-lieu of parkland details from Planner Sanford. In regard to the City-County Boards’ Coordinating Committee meeting, Ms. Pomnichowski asked that the County bring the new map of “donut” area. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the joint Planning Board/Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ______________________________________ _____________________________________ Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board ____________________________________ Ed Musser, Chairperson City of Bozeman Zoning Commission