Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-10 Planning Board Minutes (2) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2010 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Pro Tem Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:30 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 Trever McSpadden Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Jodi Leone Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Chris Budeski Jeff Krauss Bill Quinn Eugene Graf Members Absent:Guests Present: Erik Henyon Ed Sypinski 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 general public comment forthcoming, President Pro Tem Caldwell closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Budeskimoved, Mr. Krauss seconded, to approve the minutes of October 5, The motion carried 7-0 2010 as presented.. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem Caldwell, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Krauss, Mr. Graf, and Ms. Leone. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. FORMAL DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Planning Board recommendations for changes to subdivision review process. Director McHarg explained subdivision review was a little different from site plan review as it was largely dictated by State Law. He stated the memo and example had been included as a result of one of the Planning Board Work Session meetings. Assistant Director Saunders stated the memo had been formatted in terms of before and after subdivision final plat and added Mr. McHarg was correct in stating most of the subdivision 1 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 19, 2010. requirements were regulated through the State. He stated there was a fair degree of latitude before final plat; sometimes in response to a condition of approval. He stated if the bounds were fundamentally retained, modifications to the subdivision layout could occur; it was not uncommon for a subdivision to go through preliminary plat review and file final plat for only a portion of the initial development. He stated Harvest Creek had done the development in phases and the City had no problem with the mechanics as long as infrastructure was installed. He stated there were a few instances where the property could not comply with City conditions of approval; he cited a moratorium on wells with a subdivision being denied a well by the State regardless of the City requirement to use one. He stated that at any point in time a person could ask to modify the approval; the reason the mechanism was in place was to allow flexibility with regard to impacts on adjacent properties. He stated approval for a subdivision was 1 year and no longer than 3 years while an extension to the duration of the approval was pretty pro-forma; the next extension of a year would be discretionary and approved by the City Commission. He stated the ground could always be formally re-platted after final plat approval but did not occur often. He stated the subdivision exemption review covered many aspects of a property and held a pretty big range; a common exemption was used to relocate a common boundary and those applications were handled administratively typically within 30 days. He stated if an exemption affected six or more lots, State law required the applicant to go through formal subdivision review. He stated exemptions were pretty useful and seen roughly 12 times a year, but had a six lot limitation. He stated if an error was found there was a procedure to record a corrected plat and there was a procedure to vacate a recorded plat which was ordered by the City Commission or District Court. Pro Tem President Caldwell asked for clarification of the preliminary plat extension procedure and if it was a City of Bozeman authority or was an MCA code requirement as well as the pros and cons of extending the plat approval. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff was following State statute as closely as possible. He stated the pros for preliminary plat extension included time for the developer and a thorough review of circumstances in place. One of the cons being that if a subdivision were approved for 15 years, the circumstances on the property may have become irrelevant as well as the evolution of the communities values in applying an antiquated standard that might not be appropriate any longer. He stated the market may slow down as might the absorption rate as well as the process of developing the subdivision; without a long enough time frame there was no reasonable opportunity for a return. Mr. Budeski stated he had identified previous problems with subdivision review and suggested one was a subdivision going through Staff review and being redesigned by the City Commission during review; he suggested it needed to be included in the UDO if it was going to be required for the subdivision. He stated it was not appropriate for the proposal to be redesigned by the City Commission. He stated the County deemed a subdivision approved for life. Assistant Director Saunders responded he had spoken with the County and they tried to hold to the 3-5 year approval with the exception of the Big Sky area. Director McHarg clarified whether Mr. Budeski’s suggestion was a five year approval with no allowable extensions. Mr. Budeski responded his suggestion was to grant five year approval with one year extension thereafter if nothing in the UDO had changed. 2 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 19, 2010. Mr. Budeski stated it was always put on the developer to include a trail connection and suggested it was not really appropriate to require full funding from the developer instead of half from the community. He stated he felt there should be a more comprehensive plan in place for water rights as different areas were negotiated; a cash in lieu could be expected. He stated his last item was a suggestion to develop the parkland with a phase in proportion to what was being platted and suggested the requirements should be in proportion to the lot development. Mr. Krauss stated his interest was more triage related. He stated a lot of the review was tightly controlled by State statute and suggested subdivision re-review could be included in the UDO if a landowner could prove extreme duress. He suggested sticking to the minimum number of review agencies; he suggested a smaller fee could be charged for these types of review. He suggested most landowners would not come in and wipe the slate clean, but would remain close to their original approval while anything over six lots would have to go through subdivision review. President Pro Tem Caldwell asked if Mr. Krauss was specifically addressing fees for changes to the plat. Mr. Krauss responded Mr. Caldwell was correct as most of the impacts and infrastructure would already be calculated; it should be an expedited review anyway. President Pro Tem Caldwell responded more than six lots could be modified during an active preliminary plat review. Assistant Director Saunders responded Mr. Caldwell was correct though lots could not be added, just relocated or modified; exemptions were only pertinent after final plat review. Mr. McSpadden stated he thought City Staff had some latitude with regard to when there was a request to modify conditions of approval; they had the ability to discretionarily determine whether or not the approval would be materially altered. Director McHarg responded Mr. McSpadden was correct. Assistant Director Saunders added the Commission would have to decide whether the conditions of approval had been met or not; he noted there were instances where the intent and spirit of the condition of approval had been met and the Commission would ultimately make the decision. Mr. McSpadden stated that situation would be when the applicant had not met a condition of approval as written and his suggestion was more geared to a situation where an argument could be made that the condition of approval could be met at a later date. Ms. Leone stated the extension of the subdivisions was a good idea and the RSL lot requirement was no longer being advocated. She stated revision of the final plats Mr. Krauss was speaking of would be those plats where there was no longer a market for the property. Mr. Krauss responded Ms. Leone was correct and suggested RSL lots were a good example of those sites that could come in for modifications to their approval in a relatively short amount of time. Ms. Leone asked if five lot pieces could be reviewed at a time to avoid subdivision review. President Pro Tem Caldwell responded the five lot review would be an attempt at avoidance of subdivision requirements. President Pro Tem Caldwell stated he had spoken with the banks and there was no clear mechanism for a third party verification of what impacts were being made when there were 1200 lots in every quadrant of town; he stated that extending plats would further cloud or muddy the water for projects moving forward and suggested keeping track of preliminary plats. 3 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 19, 2010. Mr. Budeski stated that to prepare a subdivision application was a lengthy and expensive process; he was currently in the middle of recreating a failed subdivision. He stated the affordable housing recommendation should be removed and suggested it is inappropriate to continue with the Workforce Housing ordinance during the current economy; it would put more deed restricted property on the market that would dilute the market. President Pro Tem Caldwell suggested the ordinance allowed the developer to relocate the affordable housing out of the subdivision. Mr. McHarg stated the ordinance was so restrictive relative to deed restrictions they would still not be built on and would likely not be bought if they were built on; right now there were no discounts from the current market for those lots. Mr. Graf asked how many Workforce Housing units had been built at this time. Director McHarg responded there were none. Mr. Graf suggested the Board make a formal recommendation to the Commission to abolish the affordable housing requirement. Mr. Krauss suggested the item should be separately discussed on a future agenda for a formal recommendation to the City Commission and to give the public the opportunity to comment. Mr. Krauss stated he heard a lot about not being able to borrow against a condominium due to not owning the property itself and suggested another argument for triage would be to remove the condo lots and perhaps use zero lot lines to make it easier to borrow money against the property. President Pro Tem Caldwell responded the common water and sewer utility connections did not allow a manifold of sewer lines into one sewer connections on individual lots; he suggested taking a large R-3 or R-4 with townhomes instead of condos might achieve the same goal. Mr. Krauss asked how hard it would be to run another service. Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be site dependent, but of all the inquiries over the years, none had run another service. Mr. Budeski responded the number of units the service supplied became a State Code requirement for the size of the line after two units. Mr. Krauss stated he was referring to bare ground. President Pro Tem Caldwell suggested cutting in extra lines, new vegetation, street cutting, curb cutting, etc. would be too cost prohibitive for existing developments. Mr. McSpadden suggested the Board should discuss the minimum density requirements in the UDO which were currently 5 units per acre. President Pro Tem Caldwell suggested Affordable Housing should be scheduled on a future agenda. He stated the subdivision extension process seemed fair to allow the City time to review the circumstances of the site and gave a total of five year approval. Assistant Director Saunders stated there had been one circumstance that he could think of where the maximum allowable initial review period had not been granted. Mr. Graf asked how the process worked with regard to the state CIP when it showed an improvement that needed completed and the improvement was added to the conditions of approval for a preliminary plat. Assistant Director Saunders responded that generally the City would not require a developer to make improvements outside of their site; when something was specifically listed on a CIP a variety of sources would come together to make those improvements happen – scheduling could moved forward, the City could reimburse the developer, etc. Mr. Graf stated the County CIP had been consulted during one of their proposals and at the end of the review process the project had been removed from the CIP list or rescheduled out 15 years. 4 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 19, 2010. Assistant Director Saunders responded he was not familiar with the County subdivision review processes with regard to CIP projects. Mr. Graf asked for clarification of the capacity of an approved preliminary plat application and asked if the City would say they could not provide capacity after three or four years of approval. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a situation where a former City Manager had supposedly indicated a properties capacity was determined already; the capacity for whoever is in line must submit a capacity report. Mr. Budeski responded the Engineering Department was consulted and used their model to determine capacity, though occasionally the engineer would have to do a flow study; he added the Engineering Department was doing very well monitoring those capacities. Mr. Krauss stated he could understand how the pipe could be filled up in front of you if projects came in before yours, but one of the reasons a dam had been discussed was that the engineers were thinking if there were full build out of all the lots in the City it would be close to using the water rights and the storage rights would become very valuable. Mr. Budeski suggested it would be valuable for the Board if they read the Affordable Housing language. Director McHarg suggested he would walk through the ordinance. MOTION : Mr. Krauss moved, Mr. Budeski seconded, to direct Staff to investigate a subdivision “triage” review with regard to a reduced review process timeline, reduced fee amount, a minimum timeline, and a minimum amount of paperwork. President Caldwell stated Staff would need to determine how the process would be implemented. Mr. McHarg responded they would take the recommendations under advisement and cobble something together for the Board. President Pro Tem Caldwell stated reduced fees should be discussed as it would gut the Planning Staff. Mr. Graf stated the development community was being gutted. Ms. Leone stated the economy had gutted the community and steps should be taken to alleviate the difficulties. Mr. Krauss suggested it was a circumstance in the community where he would like to see subdivisions back in play and some of the general fund money allocated to Planning Staff could be used to provide for these reviews. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem Caldwell, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Krauss, Mr. Graf, and Ms. Leone. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Krauss asked the meeting schedule during the holiday season. President Pro Tem Caldwell suggested the regular schedule would be easier to adhere to and suggested he would contact Mr. Henyon regarding the possible cancellation of any meetings during that time frame. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Pro Tem Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m. 5 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 19, 2010. __________________________________ __________________________________ Brian Caldwell, President Pro Tem Tim McHarg, Planning Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 19, 2010.