Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-11 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Sypinski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 6:07 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: Ed Sypinski, President Tim McHarg, Planning Director Jodi Leone Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Eugene Graf Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Quinn Jeff Krauss Trever McSpadden, Vice President Members Absent: Guests Present: Erik Garberg Dayle H. Kountz Adam Fruh Kaylee Kountz 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 Sypinski closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2011 MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Graf seconded, to approve the minutes of June 7, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION President Sypinski stated he had sent an e-mail requesting input from the Board regarding their working with other advisory boards or commissions. He asked for comments from Board members. Vice President McSpadden stated that at some point, while going through the work session meetings, three big topics had been identified. He stated the last of the three was to incentivize the TIF and Urban Renewal Districts; after that discussion, the President and Vice President had met with the Northeast Urban Renewal Board as well as the North 7th Avenue Urban Renewal Board to gauge their interest in discussions with the Planning Board. He stated there would be Pagel of 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20,2011. some information forwarded to the Planning Board for a future meeting. President Sypinski stated there was a formal invitation for the Urban Renewal Boards to attend the second Planning Board meeting in October to present their priorities. He stated the big concern for both Urban Renewal Boards had to do with parking but for different reasons in each area. He stated the N. 7th Board was also concerned with signage requirements. He stated setbacks had also been discussed though he knew there were fire safety reasons for separation of structures. Mr. Krauss joined the Board. President Sypinski stated the Northeast Urban Renewal Board were concerned that parking would no longer be available and some concerns regarding the mixed uses in the neighborhood. He stated if the Northeast Urban Renewal District could be used as a model and development standards could be implemented. Vice President McSpadden stated that he thought the bigger implication would be incentivizing and bolstering infill development; not creating an administrative nightmare through the creation of specific development standards. President Sypinski added that it was easier to look at the specifics when the area was being developed such as North 7th Avenue is. Vice President McSpadden suggested the Board should attempt to maintain the focus to create a larger infill area and use the existing districts to that end; were there ways to make it desirable for people to develop within the district and if there was success, would there be a recipe for a larger district. President Sypinski suggested using their plan to review proposals while still referring to the UDO to provide the requirements; more of a streamlining effect. Mr. Krauss apologized for being late. He stated he had met with the N. 7th Board and noted they were a little more advanced in their plans due to one of the members being an ex planner. He stated the N. 7th Avenue would not mind becoming a zoning district; it had a plan, a board, and a funding source. He stated a set of regulations could be designed to relax parking requirements, relax setbacks, and ultimately provide general regulations and guidelines as well as offer funds for projects within the district. He suggested a specific plan for the district could also include bonuses for excellence in design. He suggested the Board members had a laundry list of the items they would like to see addressed but would like to have a separate zoning district that was performance based; it seemed to be the Board's biggest concern at the meeting. He asked the Planning Director to comment. Director McHarg stated he thought Mr. Krauss was correct in his recollection of the concerns of the N. 7th Board. He stated it would be important to provide a plan for the corridor. President Sypinski responded there was already a plan in place and it had been implemented which would make it easier to implement an official N. 7th district. Vice President McSpadden noted that the N. 7th and Northeast Districts had a leg up as they already had plans in place as neighborhood plans and were not far from a regulatory document. Director McHarg stated there was a level of planning and the character of the zoning district would be more straightforward; the goal of the discussion would be to determine how different the district would be. Mr. Krauss added the grant Page 2 of 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20,2011. for the study of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Griffin Drive was a good example and noted they had been under the jurisdiction of two conflicting design standards. President Sypinski added two competing codes required a decision on which would take precedent. Mr. Krauss suggested trying incentives on N. 7th Avenue and if it worked there, it would work anywhere; he added he was not opposed to implementing the same all over the City if it was successful. Mr. Graf asked for clarification of whether the N. 7th plan would be developed by the N. 7th Board itself. Director McHarg responded the plan was developed by the N. 7th Board and had been adopted by the City Commission. Mr. Graf stated he saw no problem with the district governing itself. Vice President McSpadden agreed with Mr. Graf and suggested it wasn't just a couple of places in the community and he did not see why the district couldn't be the test subject. He stated he was supportive of the recommendation. President Sypinski stated Ms. Riggs of the N. 7th Board would be forwarding their laundry list to the Planning Board members. He suggested the Northeast Board could follow the same template to solve some of their own problems. Vice President McSpadden suggested his only concern was adding another layer of guidelines and suggested caution should be exercised and the advisory body could be the only review agency prior to the City Commission. Mr. Krauss stated both Boards were staffed with an engineer and a planner to help them through the process but they did not want to change the regulations for the City as a whole; it would be a good test case for self governance and character based zoning districts. He stated N. 7th was not nearly as mixed use as the Northeast District. Mr. Quinn suggested the Planning Board should recuse themselves from the process to prevent making layers of requirements. He asked if anyone had a plan or idea of what the sticking points were in the Districts. Mr. Krauss responded there were some ideas regarding sticking points such as parking concerns he had mentioned earlier; he added urban landscaping requirements, setbacks, signs, and right of way requirements had also been mentioned. Vice President Sypinski added signs had been discussed with regard to sidewalk expansion as well; some existing signs were located in the right of way for the sidewalk. Mr. Quinn stated it was not the Planning Board's rule to choose between a sidewalk and a sign; he added he was having a hard time figuring out where the Planning Board fit into the discussion. Director McHarg responded the way it had been presented would be for the Planning Board to listen to the proposal and decide whether or not to support their suggestions and to forward a decision to the City Commission. If a separate zoning district was decided upon, the Zoning Commission would play a stronger role than the Planning Board. President Sypinski suggested other Board members should develop relationships with other advisory boards or commissions to bring to the Planning Board to help move things along. He stated he had invited both Boards to submit information for the Planning Board meeting on October 18, 2011. Page 3 of 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20,2011. Vice President McSpadden suggested that if the whole thing was pursued, they should consider input from the City Engineering Department would be wise during review some of the laundry list items. President Sypinski stated the Watershed Council would also be presenting to the Planning Board the first meeting in November. The Board took a ten minutes recess. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Growth Policy Amendment #P-11003 (Crescent Cross)—A Growth Policy Amendment Application requested by the property owners, Crescent Cross Limited Partnership, 5550 Blackwood Road, Bozeman, MT 59718, and representative, Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Blvd., Suite 203, Bozeman, MT 59718, requesting a change in Land Use Designation on—20 acres from Residential to Community Commercial Mixed Use for property legally described as a portion of Tract 2, Certificate of Survey 2229 located in the W 1/2 of Section 15, T2S, RSE, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana and generally located southeast of the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane. (Saunders) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for a change in Land Use Designation that would modify the Land Use Map on—20 acres from Residential to Community Commercial Mixed Use. He noted the adjacent properties were a blend of uses and noted those uses. He directed the Board to the current Land Use Map and noted adjacent land use designations. He noted the property to the north was zoned primarily as Business Park and noted the University owned much of the property to the east; the University did not know what would be developed in that location. He noted the adjacent agricultural uses as well as the Loyal Garden Subdivision that was currently building out. He stated there had been two public comments received; one letter in favor and one in opposition. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal as 20 acres would not substantially impact the Growth Policy. He stated the biggest concern was for the corridor as a whole; the best way to proceed was somewhat undefined at this time though they did not think the application should wait until the other issues were sorted out along Huffine Lane. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal as presented but there would be larger issues that would need sorted out with regard to Huffine Lane. Mr. Krauss stated he thought the City Commission would like to have a discussion about the development along Huffine Lane and he suggested property owners should be invited to the discussion. Director McHarg suggested he thought sooner would be better than later and asked for clarification on whether or not a round table setting should be pursued. Mr. Krauss suggested a larger discussion concerning the plans for West Main Street would be added to a future City Commission agenda. Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, addressed the Planning Board. He stated he was the representative of the owner for the current proposal. He stated it was fairly well known that a Page 4 of 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20,2011. potential client was looking at purchasing the property for commercial development and was driving the request. He stated that currently three of the four corners at the intersection were commercial development and there was quite a lot of activity at the intersection. He stated he understood the concerns put forth in the negative public comment, but there would be a buffer of open space between the residents in Loyal Garden Subdivision and the commercial development. He stated the 20 acres had been requested specifically due to the minimum requirements of the County for subdivision of land. He stated the fourth leg of the intersection would be appropriate for commercial zoning on the corner. Ms. Leone asked if the owner would disclose the company seeking the land. Dayle Kountz, 5550 Blackwood Road, responded that Town Pump was looking at the property. President Sypinski opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Mr. Krauss stated that, as he had asked of Staff, the City Commission was reviewing what they wanted to see as far as development along Huffine Lane. He stated they had attempted to avoid the appearance of strip mall development in the corridor but it would be difficult due to the nature of the corridor. He stated the Community Commercial designation was vastly different than those land use designations adjacent. He stated the Commission had long said they did not want to see commercial development in that area. He stated he saw a sufficiency of Community Commercial designated property in that location; there was a lot of this type of development. He stated he did not know that he could see a need to put a Community Commercial designation in that part of Bozeman; he was looking for something compatible with the way the rest of the neighborhood was being developed until a larger discussion has taken place. President Sypinski stated he concurred with Mr. Krauss that commercial development had not been intended for along Huffine Lane. He stated the review criteria for Growth Policy Amendments included changes that should only occur in five year intervals and care should be taken in reviewing the amendments unless an extremely compelling case was brought forth which he did not see in this instance. He stated he was supportive of the 3rd option to have the City Commission investigate further the development types they would like to see along Huffine Lane. Vice President McSpadden stated the proposal was still in the early stages of review. He stated he had gone through the charrette process for the review of the Growth Policy and suggested that smaller commercial nodes to support surrounding residential uses had been intentionally included. He stated the individual application was creating a commercial node at an intersection as the Community Plan had anticipated. He stated some items would be discussed during zoning and annexation application review. Mr. Graf stated he just appreciated someone wanting to build in Bozeman and contribute to the community. President Sypinski clarified that the property was currently in the County. Mr. Krauss added that their assumption was that the interested party wanted to annex into the City. MOTION: Mr. Graf moved, Vice President McSpadden seconded, to forward a Page 5 of 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20,2011. recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Growth Policy Amendment#P-11003 with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report. The motion failed 2-4. Those voting aye being Vice President McSpadden and Mr. Graf. Those voting nay being Mr. Krauss, Ms. Leone, Mr. Quinn, and President Sypinski. MOTION: Mr. Krauss moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City Commission to discuss the type of development planned for the Huffine Lane corridor. Mr. Graf suggested a time frame be included in fairness to the applicant. Mr. Krauss responded he was at the first week of November on City Commission agendas. Mr. Graf countered that Mr. Krauss could schedule the City Commission discussion without the Planning Board being involved and suggested the hearing could take place on the date the application had been scheduled to be heard. Vice President McSpadden stated he agreed with Mr. Graf and added that the motion was sort of open ended. Mr. Krauss responded he could check into getting the discussion on an October agenda. Vice President McSpadden stated the Board was tasked with reviewing the application on its merits alone; he could not begin to think about what could happen to the east or west of the site. He stated his view was that a Community Commercial node was being created and Staff had recognized that the review criteria had been met. President Sypinski responded the Board should not be relying on Staff s recommendation and he found that the application did not meet one of those criteria. Mr. Graf suggested the Board should not inhibit an application to provide for a study that should have been done in anticipation of future development. Ms. Leone stated she owned a lot in Loyal Garden Subdivision and asked if she should recuse herself from the decision. President Sypinski clarified that it would not be necessary if she did not have a specific interest in the project site. The motion carried 3-2. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Krauss, and Mr. Quinn. Those voting nay being Vice President McSpadden and Mr. Graf with Ms. Leone abstaining. Mr. Krauss added that though the project was in limbo, it had not been denied and he would place the item on the November 7, 2011 agenda. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Sypinski adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m. Page 6 of 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20,2011. Ed Sypinski, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman Page 7 of 7 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of September 20,2011.