Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-11 Planning Board MinutesPLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Pro Tem McSpadden called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 6:02 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: Trever McSpadden, Vice President Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Jodi Leone Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Adam Fruh Erik Garberg Eugene Graf Members Absent: Guests Present: Ed Sypinski, President Bill Quinn Jeff Krauss ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {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 McSpadden closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 2011 MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Fruh seconded, to approve the minutes of March 1, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Staff recommendations for subdivision review process. (Saunders) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders addressed the Planning Board and asked if the Board members had any questions on the memo and how they wished to proceed with the discussion. President Pro Tem McSpadden clarified that the items in the memo had been broken down into three sections and asked for clarifications of the more difficult amendments. Assistant Director Saunders responded that section #1 would be fairly simple to execute and would be taken care of administratively; he added that the difference between sections 2 and 3 were that the City would invoke self governance powers to execute any of the items in section 3 but would still require the same method of approval through an ordinance forwarded to the City Commission for their approval. He stated there were several bills working through the legislature at this time related to subdivision and Staff would need to address those amendments once those items were handled at the legislature. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated his thought was that the subdivision process had been partially addressed with discussions regarding the approval authority of projects and many of the items were dictated by State legislation. He stated the Board could not go too crazy in terms of redoing the method of subdivision review as it was largely outlined by State requirements. Assistant Director Saunders responded that subdivision statute was a much more scripted process, but self government powers could still be invoked; he added the statute had not kept up to current development needs and Staff was investigating that option. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated the Board could recommend some of the amendments, none of them, or just specific ones to the City Commission. He stated there were still some of the subdivision requirements pending in legislation and asked the best way to address those items specifically. Assistant Director Saunders suggested going ahead and making the recommendation and if the item didn’t pass legislation it would be moved by Staff to the self government powers list of items. President Pro Tem McSpadden noted the list was in ascending level of difficulty and his personal thought had been that he would like to see more energy put into tweaking the site plan process as opposed to subdivision review. He stated he was supportive of forwarding a recommendation to the City Commission to adopt all Staff recommendations as presented and asked if that would be too much of a difficult task. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were items that would be pretty simple to execute; Staff was prepared to tackle the process on a local level through the self governing powers of the City. He stated some of the items would be more difficult and would depend on what the legislation adopted. President Pro Tem McSpadden asked if the Planning Board, under section 2, item 1, would still review subdivisions. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Planning Board would still review the proposal for compliance with the Growth Policy, but it would not require a public hearing. Mr. Garberg clarified that State law only mandated one public hearing. Assistant Director Saunders responded it required one but you could have two public hearings. Mr. Garberg suggested the Planning Board could hold the public hearing with the City Commission making the final decision. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated he thought there were many items that could be easily taken care of and most of the proposed items sounded good to him. Mr. Graf stated it seemed like the Planning Director had different ideas with regard to recommendations for the review requirements. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had been working with advisory bodies in ongoing discussions regarding their capacities. Mr. Graf asked if the section 1, second recommendation was now in place or would the Board need to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding items Staff was already executing. Assistant Director Saunders responded no recommendation needed to be made specifically as Staff was currently monitoring the situation and those items had been included primarily for information due to previous Board discussions. President Pro Tem McSpadden suggested the Board group items they would like to see forwarded to the City Commission. He stated the first items in section 1 were already in a trial run including Staff forwarding recommendations from the DRC to the applicant prior to final week review. He asked if minor modifications to a subdivision had been included in the re-review recommendation. Assistant Director Saunders responded that typically a modification only required the materials relevant to the change be submitted for review but noticing requirements would still take effect. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated the notion of starting all over again from an applicant’s perspective was a little bit scary whereas if the modification had nothing to do with the findings for the original proposal, it seemed like the applicant should not have to repackage the proposal in its entirety. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Staff was attempting to require materials digitally to negate the need for a whole new submittal of materials with the exception of what would be pertinent to the modification. Mr. Garberg clarified the current policy was not to require a whole new submittal but only the amended material. Assistant Director Saunders responded Mr. Garberg was correct. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated the applicant would be allowed to ask to be exempt from submitting a whole new proposal and asked if the Board was agreeable. The Board concurred that the applicant should be allowed to request the exemption. Ms. Leone asked if a date certain should be included to allow re-review of a subdivision up to a certain age. President Pro Tem McSpadden responded that Assistant Director Saunders had touched on the time frame and asked him to clarify the length of time a subdivision could be approved. Assistant Director Saunders responded the State dictated a three year approval with the opportunity for a one year extension thereafter. Beyond that requires a determination of whether the circumstances have significantly changed. President Pro Tem McSpadden clarified that section 2, item 1 was in essence alleviating the need for one of two public hearings. Mr. Fruh asked if the Planning Board and City Commission would meet together. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the Board and Commission would not meet together and one or the other would be decided upon to conduct the public hearing. President Pro Tem McSpadden responded he thought people wanted to say their piece at the City Commission hearing and would be disconcerted if they were not given the opportunity. Mr. Graf stated he liked the idea of having one public hearing at the Planning Board as the Commission would see the comments made by the public forwarded as part of the recommendation from the Planning Board instead of people voicing their opinion at the Commission meeting as those comments might sway the decision due to the emotional involvement. Mr. Graf stated the difficult thing was when the proposal was being redrawn at the City Commission meeting as opposed to working through the review process and bringing forward a proposal that was agreed upon. Ms. Leone concurred that the Planning Board should still hold a public hearing. Mr. Garberg responded he saw the first public hearing as practice for the applicant and would give them the opportunity to correct any issues prior to the City Commission meeting. Mr. Graf asked a rough estimate of the number of people that made public comment to the Planning Board. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the Planning Board likely saw less than half of the public comment that the City Commission heard. Mr. Graf responded that emotion should not be part of the City Commission’s decision and suggested he would prefer to see the Planning Board hold the public hearing. President Pro Tem McSpadden suggested forwarding recommendation to the City Commission that the Board would be in favor of trimming the public hearings from 2 to 1 and charging the Planning Board with the public hearing requirement; if the recommendation were not agreed to, the Board would prefer to maintain the current requirement for both public hearings before the Planning Board and City Commission. Mr. Garberg stated he would be concerned that the applicant would not have the opportunity to provide a presentation that would be as honed if they weren’t able to respond to public comment; he added that if a neighbor presented emotional issues the applicant could be more prepared from a technical aspect. President Pro Tem McSpadden responded the requirement for two public hearings did not extend the review time substantially. Mr. Graf stated the applicant would prefer to take the stress of hearing public comments just once due to the amount of emotional involvement. President Pro Tem McSpadden responded the Board would be curious to see how the City Commission responded to having the Planning Board hold the public hearing. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that the City Commission would still review the proposal and the noticing requirements would not change the time frame. Ms. Leone stated she felt the City Commission would want to retain the public hearing and suggested she would hate to lose the opportunity for a Planning Board public hearing; she added she would prefer to see both public hearings available to the public and she would hate to see the Board lose the public hearing to the City Commission. Mr. Garberg suggested a public hearing be held with the Planning Board at a minimum. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated the delegated review authority, section 2, item 2, suggested the Planning Board give the approval authority to Planning Staff for minor subdivisions. Assistant Director Saunders added that first minor subdivisions already had an expedited review process. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated he was supportive of the delegated review. Mr. Fruh asked if the Planning Board would still review significant proposals even if they were considered minor. Assistant Director Saunders responded Mr. Fruh was correct. President Pro Tem McSpadden responded he was supportive of removing one box from the flowchart for the review process; the intention was to simplify the process. The Planning Board concurred. Assistant Director Saunders stated the option for extension of subdivision approval had been included. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated the issue had recently been more prevalent in the community; he added if House Bill 522 did not get approved, the City could still attempt to invoke self governing powers. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff was not sure if the item would be free standing and Staff would await the results of the legislation. Ms. Leone asked how difficult it would be to modify the phasing of a subdivision. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was not usually difficult to modify the phasing of the development as long as it wasn’t directly tied to a condition of approval. President Pro Tem McSpadden asked if the exemption certificates were more of a housekeeping issue. Assistant Director Saunders responded President Pro Tem McSpadden was correct and lending institutions were not being notified of the exemptions; it had not previously been a problem and Staff was attempting to avoid people getting into difficult situations by ensuring use of a mortgagee consent certificate. President Pro Tem McSpadden directed the Board to section 3, item 1, development agreements that was also a part of the extension of the approval of subdivisions; he liked development agreements if executed properly as they allowed more flexibility. He asked if the Board would like to direct Staff to draft a genesis of the development agreement and added that there would be an opportunity to work with the City for logical extensions of services and would give the City the opportunity to require their installation. Ms. Leone stated she concurred with Mr. McSpadden and added that it was important to realize that some ideas would no longer work in the current economic situation. President Pro Tem McSpadden suggested Staff should draft a development agreement and added he would be interested to see the result. Mr. Graf stated he was not a fan of development agreements; the ones he had heard of opened up departments to enforce things outside of the law; he suggested it was almost extortion when a project hinged on the requirement from someone such as the Fire Department. Mr. Fruh asked for clarification. Mr. Graf responded more infrastructure might be required than in other areas if the Fire Department determined that facilities were not adequate. Ms. Leone stated she saw the most challenges in the subdivision process and it was difficult to modify; her concern was not with the development agreement but instead to correcting the current challenges. Mr. Fruh asked what types of additional flexibility Staff was hinting at. Assistant Director Saunders responded a lot of issues could be spanned; annexation agreements addressed certain issues while subsequent applications would address the rest of the components. He stated Staff was attempting to handle longer term, bigger picture layouts; no one would be required to do a development agreement. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated the impact would need to be mitigated and the conditions of approval would reflect the mitigation requirement and would possibly allow a rational improvements schedule. Mr. Graf suggested if the City saw value in a development they should make it easier for the development to happen. Mr. Garberg suggested instead of putting all the site improvements on a specific project or within an SID the City would fund the growth. Mr. Graf suggested recommending the Planning Department provide something tangible to the Planning Board with regard to development agreements. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that a development agreement would allow the formal entitlement process to occur at a pace the developer could agree to. Mr. Garberg responded it would be a like a master plan. President Pro Tem McSpadden responded they had seen much the same in development agreement as the PUD process though the PUD process was stricter. President Pro Tem McSpadden asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify the exemption process, section 3, item 2. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was an existing authorization allowing modification to a boundary on five or fewer lots and Staff was recommending modification to allow more lots to be affected. He added some developed properties had also been affected by the six or fewer lot requirement for subdivision review. President Pro Tem McSpadden directed the Board to subdivision by rent or lease, section 3, item 3. Assistant Director Saunders responded it did not have bearing on the actual division of land and suggested the site plan review process would suffice without having to go through subdivision review. He stated a bunch of bills had been generated this legislative session but Staff did not know if any of them would pass. Mr. Graf stated he concurred with Staff’s recommendation. President Pro Tem McSpadden directed the Board to extended approval times and asked for Board comments. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that if House Bill522 did not pass the item would move to the self government powers category. President Pro Tem McSpadden stated the last item was a big deal. Assistant Director Saunders clarified that the proposal would be approved administratively without requiring review by the Planning Board and City Commission. President Pro Tem McSpadden asked if, were issues identified, a final determination of noncompliance would occur. Assistant Director Saunders responded that compliance with the requirements would be determined prior to review of the proposal. Mr. Garberg clarified that there was an appeal process if the decision was not what the applicant wanted. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was an appeal process available to applicants. Mr. Garberg stated he preferred incentives but he was concerned with sticking points in the conditions of approval. Assistant Director Saunders cited a waiver of a parks district as one kind of method of dealing with impacts and it would be a pretty short list of conditions. Assistant Director Saunders responded a clause could be included to allow reclamation of the approval of the proposal by the City Commission; he added Staff would like the City Commission to tell Staff to pursue the issues or not prior to Staff spending a lot of time on it. Mr. Garberg suggested the priorities of the Board should be included. President Pro Tem McSpadden responded he felt changes to the site plan process would be more substantial though he understood Mr. Garberg’s point that these were great proposed changes; he thanked Staff for their hard work on the proposal. MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Fruh seconded, that section 2 be amended to include that if a single public hearing were approved by the City Commission, the public hearing would be held by the Planning Board. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Graf seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City Commission to investigate amendments to the subdivision review process as outlined by Planning Staff and amended by the Planning Board. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Pro Tem McSpadden adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Trever McSpadden, President Pro Tem Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman