Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-11 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President McSpadden called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 6:00 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 Tim McHarg, Planning Director Jodi Leone Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner Eugene Graf Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Erik Garberg Jeff Krauss Members Absent: Guests Present: Adam Fruh Erik Nelson Ed Sypinski, President Jason Bacye Bill Quinn 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, Vice President McSpadden closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Vice President McSpadden stated the Board as a whole had intended to work on the items scheduled for the evening's meeting. He suggested the Board should consider whether or not to consider the items this evening with so many members of the Board absent. Mr. Graf joined the Planning Board. The Board decided to discuss the items. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 MOTION: Mr. Krauss moved, Mr. Graf seconded, to approve the minutes of September 20, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none. Pagel of 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 18,2011. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. North 7th Avenue Urban Renewal Plan Implementation (Thorpe) Assistant Planner Keri Thorpe stated she was representing the North 7th Board (NSURB) with regard to the items they would like to discuss with the Planning Board. She stated she assists the North 7th Urban Renewal Board with their plan implementation. She stated the Planning Board had offered their assistance with the plan implementation by supporting the streamlined review process. She stated Staff and the NSURB were having to grapple with inconsistencies in Planning documents. These items are included on the list submitted to the Board members in their packet materials. She directed the Board to an aerial photo of the district and its boundary. She stated she and NSURB member Susan Riggs prepared the list and could point out what the NSURB thought needed additional discussion. Vice President McSpadden stated there were some really great examples of situations contained in the information but he thought the discussion might be better served by full membership of the Planning Board. Mr. Krauss stated the district had suggested removal of DRB and Certificate of Appropriateness review if the proposal met the district plan criteria. He stated it might eliminate two steps going through review. Planner Thorpe stated elimination of the COA process would lead to naming it something else; she added she did not know how much the Urban Renewal Board wanted to participate in the review process as it would add a review process. Vice President McSpadden stated Planner Thorpe had kind of touched on the difficulties with bullet point #10 from the memo. He suggested the idea of stripping review requirements from the process might facilitate development within the district. Director McHarg responded he did not think it was necessarily strip away part of the review process but rather pulling specific pieces of the requirements out and codifying them as a separate zoning district. Vice President McSpadden stated he agreed with Mr. McHarg and suggested removing hurdles during stages of review. Planner Thorpe responded she thought it would be possible to remove the pertinent sections from the Design Objectives Plan and including it in the District Plan; the presumption was that the Design Objectives Plan would still be in place and would still be used. Director McHarg added that Staff would administer the new requirements and if relief or additional density were sought another review process would kick in; compliance could be procedurally incentivized. Mr. Garberg clarified that the intent of the zoning district would be moved to the district plan and asked how one would be moved to the other. Mr. McHarg responded the District Plan was really a subarea plan and would be easier to codify as some of the requirements were specific to North 7th Avenue and there was a lot more detail that the Growth Policy; the big picture plan would be to use this as an experiment that could be replicated in other parts of town. President McSpadden stated it sounded like where Staff would like to see the experiment go would be to essentially create a checklist for the applicant that would be a hybrid COA application and provided there were no variances from the checklist, Staff would verify the criteria had been met and the proposal would be approved. Director McHarg responded that a good example was Page 2 of 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 18,2011. the Aaron's store on North 7th Avenue which had gone through the Administrative Review Process. Vice President McSpadden stated his worry that all the issues would not be caught. Director McHarg responded Staff would go through the Goldilocks process; Staff would need to earn the right to review more controversial projects that the community might want to participate in. Vice President McSpadden responded some of the responsibility would fall to the review entity. Director McHarg concurred with Vice President McSpadden and cited the Verizon cell tower proposal that the City Commission had reclaimed review jurisdiction for when the proposal was an Administrative Project Review. Mr. Krauss stated an item that would be easily identified would be parking on the street and in the neighborhoods; he suggested establishing relaxations for such things as how many parking spots could be counted on the street. He stated there were a lot of places like N. 7th that were far worse; full of abandoned strip malls and car dealerships. He suggested elimination of curb cuts, parking incentives, etc. should be included. Planner Thorpe cited the Little Brown House as an example which was an instance of ADA Accessibility and fagade improvements; there had been two deviations identified that were minor, one of which was the ramp, which added a review step and could have been approved administratively. Director McHarg stated the B-2 zoning district was very generic and was intended for new development; the zoning district did not have either dimensional or procedural standards that were realistic in an infill context. He stated the design intent of the district could be finalized to recognize that there were unusual site constraints. Mr. Garberg clarified that Staff was suggesting moving things like ADA requirements to an administrative decision. Planner Thorpe responded that Mr. Garberg was correct and added NSURB had already implemented a funding method for incentivizing development in the area. Vice President McSpadden asked how much input from the NSURB would they be willing to provide. Director McHarg responded Mrs. Riggs would be an asset as she has a planning background and the other members had varying professions; he suggested a subcommittee from the Urban Renewal Board could be formed to create a bridge to the Planning Board and then the public would be notified of the process for their participation. Planner Thorpe responded the she and Engineer Dustin Johnson handled the NSURB pretty well and noted she did not think they would want to form a subcommittee, but would rather all be involved in the process. Vice President McSpadden suggested educating the NSURB so they didn't get bogged down in some of the details. Mr. Krauss stated Planner Thorpe had a good idea with regard to Deviation requests and suggested Staff could approve deviations caused by ADA requirements; he did not think they would need a whole set of criteria for those requests and suggested a short set of rules for the whole area to lessen the perceived risk. He stated that rarely would a site be perfect on an infill development. He suggested explaining this to people on West Main Street might also incentivize that area. Vice President McSpadden stated the success of these changes could be profound City wide; he stated it was a great testing ground but his worry was that it would become too complicated and would not succeed. Page 3 of 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 18,2011. Mr. Garberg stated he liked suggestion 94 regarding stormwater. Director McHarg stated it would be tough to pull off, but it was the best way to go. Mr. Garberg responded there were be a lot more State and Federal agencies that would have to buy into the recommendation. Director McHarg responded that perhaps a grant for a study might be available. Vice President McSpadden stated that the proposed list was a good start and suggested future discussions might clarify items. Mr. Krauss clarified that some development might require review beyond administrative based on site conditions. Director McHarg responded Mr. Krauss was correct. Vice President McSpadden responded deviation requests were the problem. Director McHarg added that the allowable uses for the new district should also be reviewed. Vice President McSpadden suggested the Board move on to item#2. 2. Northeast Urban Renewal Plan Implementation(Nelson) Erik Nelson addressed the Planning Board noting he was attending on behalf of the Northeast Urban Renewal Board and district. He stated the elements as identified were almost identical to those identified for the N. 7th District and were attempting to incentivize infill development. He suggested using the existing NEHMU District ordinance language to modify the district and make it more specific to conditions as they exist on the ground. He stated the idea was either the removal or renovation of the COA application process and the modification of the HMU zoning district to be more specific to the Northeast District. He stated the required setbacks were a large issue and added to the cost of people doing development there; their dollars could be spent more effectively in design. Mr. Garberg asked where the 20 foot setback requirement came from. Mr. Nelson responded the mixed use nature of the neighborhood had been identified and they had attempted to provide a greater distance between industrial and residential uses. Director McHarg added the scale of the use could be broken down as well; gradients of use could be identified and specified in the language so that a deviation didn't need to be requested. Mr. Nelson stated some of the Northeast District sat inside a true Historic District; the idea preservation of historic districts would have a greater level of review and other locations the expedited review. Director McHarg stated Staff was not certain where future historic districts would be located so they had erred on the side of caution; the inventory had not been updated and future historic districts had not yet been identified. Mr. Krauss stated he had always thought the Northeast part of town was where one would find many of the home based businesses and asked if people who lived there liked that or not. Mr. Nelson responded those uses were occurring and the Urban Renewal Board liked it. They had gone through the process of relocating a shipping company and people in the neighborhood had not liked that business that much; there was a unique balance. He added that allowing the things that were fiscally sound to remain would be a good idea and suggested a natural evolution would be best for the District. He stated if some Urban Renewal Board members were asked what they Page 4 of 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 18,2011. would like to see in their neighborhood, they would say nothing. Mr. Krauss stated if"nothing" was applied to the Depot, it would be an egregious thing. Mr. Nelson agreed with Mr. Krauss though he thought there was a sympathetic ear with how uses were balanced by both the City Commission and the Planning Department. Mr. Nelson stated he thought it was okay to have parking on the street and noted it helped slow traffic; he suggested allowing parking to be counted on street would help to incentivize development in the district. He stated the Urban Renewal Board was currently reviewing street standards to provide a launch point for street standards within the District. Mr. Krauss stated he was not certain a natural evolution would provide for something like the Depot. Mr. Nelson responded the Urban Renewal Board was currently discussing pre-leases but he did not see how that would be affected by the ordinance. Mr. Krauss responded it would take someone's investment and the City would have to take away some of the risks for them. Mr. Nelson stated the Brewery Wall had been the elephant in the room for the Northeast Urban Renewal Board; it was unrealistic to ask for relief from the public side. Mr. Krauss stated people probably got the wrong idea about the Brewery and it had been sitting and rotting before the wall was left. Mr. Nelson suggested the infill development standards would be applicable to the area and those standards would not pull away from the ordinance language. Mr. Nelson stated that when a single development came in, it would not impact the district, but a larger development had a greater impact. Mr. Garberg suggested removing asphalt from the cost of a developer would be a huge relief and suggested investigating those avenues. Vice President McSpadden asked if it would be possible for Mr. Nelson, Engineer Johnson, and the Urban Renewal Board could run through the HMU zoning district and make recommendations that would identify particular standards within the zoning district that were relevant to the district. Director McHarg suggested they would take a look at the language and had the Urban Renewal Board review the language and provide their recommendations. Vice President McSpadden responded that the existing standards could be used to identify standards that might be better for the district and provide a unique zoning district. Mr. Nelson stated there were items that could be easily amended, but street standards and code provisions might be more difficult to sort out. Director McHarg suggested it would be a good idea to provide the City Commission with these ideas to get an idea of where their priorities lie. Vice President McSpadden asked if there would be an opportunity for the Planning Board to help with those amendments. Director McHarg suggested the Planning Board should forward recommendations of what they would like to see Planning Staff working on. Mr. Nelson asked if the new district boundaries and other items should just be proposed. Planner Thorpe suggested contacting the property owners first. Director McHarg stated he thought it was great for each advisory board to have an annual goal setting process and he thought the City Commission would be enthusiastic in their reception of those recommendations. Vice President McSpadden responded the Commission would need to make the project a priority. Mr. Garberg stated that the undertaking would have no value if the neighborhood did not want to participate. Mr. Graf suggested it would be helpful if the Urban Renewal Board could create a Page 5 of 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 18,2011. list of the changes to determine which would benefit the City more than it would hinder development. Mr. Nelson responded it might be difficult to determine why development had not occurred. Vice President McSpadden responded the current parking issue would be important. Director McHarg responded that if the parking situation were not a problem, someone might still not want the proposed use next to them. Mr. Graf stated he did not think the Urban Renewal Board should identify whether or not the issues would be beneficial to the City and instead let the elected officials make that decision. Director McHarg responded the northeast district had not indicated that they wanted to pursue what Mr. Graf was suggesting and noted the northeast district was different than the N. 7th district. Mr. Nelson responded they could pick a few things, clean up the boundary, address setbacks, etc., and then identify the more difficult battles at a later date. Mr. Garberg stated consensus was much more difficult to generate with the northeast district than with other districts and asked what Mr. Nelson wanted from the Planning Board. Mr. Nelson responded the charge of the Planning Board would be to consider the differences in the older parts of town and provide recommendations for incentivizing development in those areas; he thought the Urban Renewal Board could tackle some of the issues which might throw the wheels off the bus immediately. Mr. Nelson stated it was frustrating as the review processes were not clear. Mr. Krauss responded the review procedures for the Urban Renewal Board was a state requirement. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Director McHarg stated the Board should have received an announcement that there are significant changes to the ordinance due to codification; he mentioned there would be training sessions November 8, 15, 22, and 29, 2011 during the noon hour and would be held in the City Commission Meeting Room. He stated he thought the training sessions would be valuable. Director McHarg stated a policy discussion had been held with the City Commission regarding a series of process changes with regard to the Board of Adjustment; he stated the process discussions with the Northeast and N. 7th District would be tied into the policy discussions regarding Administrative approval of proposals. Director McHarg stated there was an upcoming Commission policy discussion regarding the Huffme Corridor Study which will be discussed at the November 7, 2011 meeting and suggested those interested in participating were welcome to attend. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, Vice President McSpadden adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.m. Trever McSpadden, Vice President Tim McHarg, Planning Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman Page 6 of 6 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of October 18,2011.