Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-10 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2010 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Brian Caldwell, Vice President Tim McHarg, Planning Director Ed Sypinski Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Jodi Leone Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Chris Budeski Jeff Krauss Trever McSpadden Erik Henyon, President Members Absent:Guests Present: Eugene Graf, IV Bill Quinn 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 no public comment forthcoming, President Henyon closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Budeskimoved, Vice President Caldwell seconded, to approve the minutes of The motion carried 7-0 September 21, 2010 as presented.. Those voting aye being President Henyon, Vice President Caldwell, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Krauss, and Ms. Leone. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. FORMAL DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Planning Board recommendations for changes to Site Plan Application/DRC review process. President Henyon stated the intention of the item was to provide suggestions to Planning Staff and the City Commission. He recommended the suggestions be formally voted on. Mr. Budeski stated he had presented the flow chart in its current form for discussion purposes. He stated the chart was based on a Wednesday submittal deadline which was noted as day 0. He 1 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 5, 2010. stated the proposal included a checklist of items that would be reviewed by a Planner to be determined for completeness and prepared for the applicant. He suggested Staff make sure items such as a topographic survey were accurate and complete. He stated the review of Staff would be more efficient after a counter check by Staff; he had first encountered the method in Oregon. He stated if the application was deemed complete it would be forwarded to a Staff member for review and scheduled for appropriate meetings. He stated day 10 would be the first DRC meeting and suggested the applicant not be involved in the first meeting; prior to the second week of DRC, Staff would provide comments and recommendations to the applicant. He stated he had suggested the public comment period be incorporated into the timeframe during which DRC review was to take place. He stated he had also included a fast track option to challenge conditions or interpretations to City Commission that would be roughly one and a half weeks after submittal of the application; care would need to be taken to require justification for City Commission review. He stated a typical application would take five weeks from submission to approval. Mr. Sypinski clarified the public comment period would need to include other advisory/review boards and asked when those entities would review the application. Mr. Budeski responded other advisory body review would take place during the DRC review period as well. President Henyon stated his understanding was that if comments from other review agencies were not received in a timely manner (two days prior to the second week DRC meeting) they would not be included in the approval. Mr. Krauss responded some advisory bodies only met once a month and the projects would not fall within their review time. Vice President Caldwell stated an application needing review by anyone other than the DRB or HBAB currently only took roughly the same time frame for review. Assistant Director Saunders stated there had been a desire and need to get a better clarification of the role of the HPAB in the review process; as it stands they are not a really active development review body. He added the TIF Districts had not been mentioned, but would be an important part of the review process as well. Vice President Caldwell asked how Mr. Budeski would describe the differences in the proposed review process from the current review process. Mr. Budeski responded the intent was to shorten the review period and to provide the applicant with a firm time frame for approval. Vice President Caldwell clarified that the review would have a due date. Mr. Budeski added the public comment period and other agency review at the same time as DRC review would be the best method of expediting the whole process. Assistant Director Saunders added that there could be a period of a year during which an automatic hold could be placed on a project; three days after the last advisory body meeting is the current review period ending date to allow interested parties time to review the information and comment – there was currently no public hearing process at the site plan review level unless it involved a deviation or variance. Mr. Krauss suggested including the Neighborhood Coordinator notification after the application was deemed complete. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Neighborhood Coordinator received the material upon submittal by the applicant after the application had been deemed complete for review. Mr. Krauss suggested Neighborhood Coordinator be notified on day 3 of the flowchart; he suggested that adding predictability could be achieved by notifying the Neighborhood Coordinator. 2 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 5, 2010. Vice President Caldwell asked for clarification of when the Neighborhood Coordinator would see a proposal. Assistant Director Saunders suggested day 6 would be the best location to allow the Planner time to deem the application complete and would allow adequate time to send the information out to affected neighborhoods. Vice President Caldwell suggested the proposal include an opportunity to answer to public comments prior to final review of the proposal. Mr. Krauss responded the current flowchart did not change the final approval authority. Director McHarg asked if the Board would be considering issues that would be affected by changes to the review process such as approval authority, noticing requirements, etc. or if they would be making recommendations on the flowchart items as proposed. President Henyon stated the flowchart had come out of the Work Session meetings and the Board’s intention was to make recommendations to that affect. Planner McHarg stated that there was an easier way to provide public notice; he suggested that when the application was deemed complete the adjacent properties could be noticed immediately so that more options were available to the applicant earlier in the process. He stated there needed to be coordination from the TIF boards and suggested a letter from them be included with an application upon submittal. Mr. Budeski added the whole application could be made into a PDF for online or e-mail distribution. Assistant Director Saunders added that the City Commission had already been receiving digital submittals that were available online; there were concerns regarding records retention when using digital documentation as well as incompatible software issues. Mr. Krauss suggested that one paper copy of everything be kept. Mr. Budeski stated he would like to see the number of sets of plans required to be submitted by the applicant be reduced. Director McHarg stated it was his experience that members of the public did not want the plans as a whole but were more concerned with the elevations, site plan, and landscape plan. Vice President Caldwell added that two days notice of concern regarding an application was not sufficient for the applicant; he noted that in the past he had requested two week DRC review instead of three week review and suggested that could be incorporated into the flowchart to allow nd the DRC to approve the proposal at their 2 week review. He stated there were questions of thresholds on when an application would be reviewed by the City Commission or the Planning Director; he asked if applications with fewer issues could be approved by the Planning Director to lessen the congestion of the Commission agendas. Mr. Budeski clarified that his intention had been to give the Planning Department more approval authority. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the way the current ordinance read, the City Commission had the right to review everything and had delegated specific types of projects to specific review bodies. The discussion had been that the Commission would reclaim jurisdiction if they were asked to reclaim it. He stated there was some discussion as to what would be considered reclaiming and what would be considered commenting; reclamation would be two Commission meetings – one to reclaim and one to review what the applicant was proposing. President Henyon suggested a measurable threshold, such as four letters of public comment against a proposal, could be included in the language. Assistant Director Saunders responded the threshold would need to be relevant and not 3 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 5, 2010. just that the neighbors were mad at the applicant. Mr. Budeski responded his intent was not to remove the approval authority from the Planning Department, but to take the specific issue at hand to the Commission for determination if it could not be agreed upon. Director McHarg responded it would be difficult to separate the specific issue from the review of the proposal though he understood the intention of the Board. Mr. Krauss agreed with Director McHarg. President Henyon suggested when the applicant met with the DRC and everyone was in rd agreement, the 3 week of DRC did not need to occur. Mr. McSpadden stated President Henyon had overlooked the DRB review; the applicant could agree with DRC and DRB recommendations or could disagree and go to the Commission. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that the role of the Planning Director was not to just say yes to every advisory board recommendation; the Staff Planner included each advisory body comment, as well as public comment, in a Staff report to the Director who would have the authority to remove or include conditions of approval. Mr. McSpadden added there was an opportunity at any point in the review for the applicant to say they were in disagreement with the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Krauss suggested Staff would need to determine whether or not the Commission should review the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders responded a list of suggestions for types of projects that could be approved by the Planning Director could be compiled for the Board’s review. Mr. Krauss stated that every person that wanted to appeal to their elected officials would be heard for at least the next year; the Commission had always been viewed as the final approval authority. Mr. Budeski suggested that if the applicant was only concerned about one or two issues, the specific condition of contention could be ruled on by the Commission without ruling on the proposal itself. Mr. Krauss stated he did not think they could roll on Staff in that way and asked if the Commission would be viewed as quasi-judicial or legislative during those reviews; when reviewing formal projects the Commission was quasi-judicial. Mr. Budeski suggested the DRB dates could float to be in accordance with the last meeting of the DRC. Assistant Director Saunders responded the DRB met twice per month which would allow time for their review though a fifth week might extend the review time. Mr. Krauss added that when the Board Of Adjustment was reinstate they were not granted all types of projects for review and approval. Vice President Caldwell reiterated the request from Mr. Krauss to direct Planning Staff to review and make recommendations to the City Commission regarding modifying the review authority of the Planning Director. President Henyon stated he would feel more comfortable allowing the Planning Department to facilitate those amendments to the approval authority of the Planning Director themselves. Vice President Caldwell concurred. MOTION : Mr. Krauss moved, Mr. Budeski seconded, to direct Staff to provide a list of decisions the Planning Director would be comfortable with making for presentation to the Planning Board for recommendation to the City Commission. Director McHarg responded an outline and hierarchy of items could be compiled to be considered by the Board for administrative approval. Mr. Krauss suggested there were a lot of things that 4 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 5, 2010. could be recommended for Planning Director decision; an Appeal would be different, but having the Appeal process would free up projects that could be approved relatively quickly. President Henyon suggested an amendment to the motion to ask Staff to provide comments for both site plan and subdivision review. Mr. Krauss stated subdivision review was more complicated due to State requirements and suggested the item be kept separate. Director McHarg suggested that at the next meeting the Board discuss the parameters for changing things once they were approved during subdivision review; he added it would be an opportunity to provide more flexibility. Vice President Caldwell suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include advisement to Staff to compress the site plan review period and provide a date certain on project decision. Mr. Krauss suggested a section to allow the applicant to Appeal the decision be included. President Caldwell suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include the Appeal language as suggested by the proposed flowchart. President Henyon suggested including the distribution of the submittal materials after the application had been deemed complete on day 3. Mr. Krauss responded he would still need the materials hard copy and Staff would likely need hard copies as well. Mr. Budeski stated his intent was not to have the applicant submit the application wholly digitally. Mr. McSpadden added that distinct time frame changes would need to occur and there may be the necessity of changing the language in the UDO. Vice President Caldwell clarified that the Board was asking Planning Staff for recommendations to accomplish the goal of compressing review time and certainty on an approval date. Mr. McHarg responded procedural identifications would be made by Staff as the list was being compiled. Ms. Leone stated she did not know if there was currently a flowchart available for the public; she suggested providing a level of training such as meetings with new architects. Mr. Sypinski responded there was a flowchart included in the UDO. Ms. Leone stated she liked to see dates included in the flowcharts. Director McHarg added the applicant had the opportunity to submit an Informal application for review and would be provided with advice and comment as well as alternatives to what was being proposed. President Caldwell suggested a friendly amendment to include review of the public noticing process. FINAL MOTION: , Mr. Krauss moved, Mr. Budeski secondedto direct Staff to provide a list of decisions the Planning Director would be comfortable with making for presentation to the Planning Board for recommendation to the City Commission, advisement to Staff to compress the site plan review period and provide a date certain on project decision, to include the appeal , language as suggested by the proposed flowchartand Staff review and recommendation for the The motion carried 7-0. public noticing process.Those voting aye being President Henyon, Vice President Caldwell, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Krauss, and Ms. Leone. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Krauss stated that he would like to discuss having the city taxpayer pay for the Appeal process; the message to the community seemed to be that the Appeal would cost more than the 5 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 5, 2010. modification of the approval and he thought that was wrong. Director McHarg responded there were two ways to prevent spurious appeals; a high fee or a decent set of criteria associated with an appeal to make a determination by the Commission to accept or reject the appeal. President Caldwell stated that at the next meeting the Board would be switching back and forth between site plan and subdivision review and suggested more work on specific code standards as they related to site plan review as well as the applicability of UDO code requirements and how they were applied instead of moving to subdivision review. He stated there could be an opportunity to modify the thresholds for review if proposals were within certain Districts; he suggested the Site Plan review process be discussed in more detail at the next meeting of the Board. Mr. Budeski stated the Board would need to have support from the Mayor and Commission as Planning review would be dictating review timeframes to other City Departments. He stated he thought it would take Planning Staff longer than two weeks to provide the requested information to the Board and added that the subdivision review process was pretty smooth already. Director McHarg responded he had informed affected City Departments that the review process was up for discussion by the Planning Board and the Commission Work Plan had included the discussion as well. He added he would like to see the subdivision review process discussed sooner rather than later and added that he had been having review process discussions with local entities. President Henyon suggested sticking with the planned schedule for discussion of the review processes. Mr. Krauss stated he agreed that there were substantive code changes that might need to be made to provide predictability and more options for the applicant. ITEM 4.5. NEW BUSINESS Director McHarg noted the City offices would be closed for Election Day and asked if the Board had a preference on when they would like to meet that week. Mr. Krauss suggested no meeting be held if there were no projects scheduled for review so the next regular meeting would be held on October 16, 2010. The Board decided to meet on Wednesday, November 3, 2010. Director McHarg asked when the Board wanted the recommendations for the Site Plan review process. Mr. Budeski responded the second meeting of November was when he was expecting to see those recommendations. The Board concurred. Assistant Director Saunders stated that Site Plans were not the only review process included in the UDO and noted re-use’s, COA’s, etc. were more expedited and may not have been part of the general knowledge of the Board members. Director McHarg added those types of zoning applications were really the meat and potatoes of the Planning Department but were also the ones that most people did not pay attention to though they could create a lot of friction. He added he would love to come up with a better system for those types of applications. Mr. Krauss stated he had read that Dee-O-Gee had their signs permitted and asked how that decision had been made. Director McHarg responded Staff had suggested the owner review the Comprehensive Sign Plan to temporarily reallocate the unused signage allowance for the tenants on the main floor. Mr. Sypinski applauded Staff for their negotiations with the applicant and 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 5, 2010. property owner to resolve the matter. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff was working on sample comprehensive sign plans and permits on the website for members of the public. Mr. Budeski asked if there had been a fee associated with modifying the Comprehensive Sign Plan. Director McHarg responded there had been a minimal fee. Mr. Krauss stated the lesson was that Staff had worked with property owner to find a way to allow their signage; he noted the tenant had made three attempts to increase their signage allotment but was held by the lease agreement. Vice President Caldwell stated the real issue was that a poor signage plan had been submitted; a thoughtful example could be ready to be implemented. Mr. Krauss suggested the development at rd 3 and Kagy could be an issue in the future with regard to the sign code due to multiple tenants on multiple floors. Mr. Budeski added it was often unknown what size of sign would be requested when the land was developed. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Henyon adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Erik Henyon, President Tim McHarg, Planning Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 5, 2010.