Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-031913.MinPLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President 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, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Carson Taylor Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Erik Garberg Adam Fruh Paul Neubauer George Thompson Members Absent: Guests Present: Carl Tange Ralph Johnson Randy Carpenter 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 McSpadden closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 2013 MOTION: Mr. Neubauer moved, Vice President Garberg seconded, to approve the minutes of March 5, 2013 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Garberg, President McSpadden, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Neubauer, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Fruh. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Presentation by Ralph Johnson of MSU and Randy Carpenter of the Sonoran Institute on the Envision land use and transportation planning tool. Randy Carpenter, Sonoran Institute, introduced himself and thanked the Planning Board members for volunteering their time. He noted his presentation was focused on looking into the future with regard to ground water quality issues. He noted issues around Billings included costs associated with providing City water to areas that were not otherwise slated to receive those services and regional planning. He noted he had met with City planners from different entities to hire a consultant to create a plan collaboratively to use infrastructure and natural resources more wisely. He noted a firm had been hired to lay out a process to facilitate those improvements. He noted the grant had been accepted and an RFP had been written to allow the choosing of a consultant. He noted they thought it would be helpful to provide the consultant with future growth estimates and a determined study area. He noted MSU had been involved in the development of the tool for a specific area using the scenarios that came out of the process to give to the consultants. He noted Mr. Johnson would provide specific scenarios at a later time in the meeting. Mr. Carpenter stated the information that a developer would use to put together a proposed building would be an integral part of the software with regard to painting a future scenario for the proposed buildings. He noted the various development types were color coded and were literally painted onto different areas onto the GIS mapping system. He noted the prototype was the spreadsheet while the scenario builder was the GIS mapping system. He noted starting at the building level was easier to modify and include all the necessary components if the project were started at the initial stage. He added that the creation of a theoretical subdivision included all the elements initially installed within the spreadsheet. He noted the local level development palette would be used to create different scenarios; he added that there were currently twelve different types and they had narrowed it down from 20 some. Assistant Director Saunders added that other development types could easily be added and run through the process to see how sensitive the model was to various changes. He noted individual items, such as water consumption, could be individually tweaked to determine an outcome. Mr. Johnson added that within development types there were building types which included LEED scenarios and structures with different massing and height. He added he would provide examples of those development types. Mr. Carpenter stated different types of development would be delineated using different color coding and in real time energy usage/water usage/etc. could be investigated. President Garberg asked if the information could be edited as a user. Mr. Johnson responded that it could be edited and they had been working with Chris Saunders using local data that could be tweaked from either side; using building type, water usage that could be modified at any time and compared to a normative condition. Mr. Carpenter noted that the really interesting thing was the comparative scenarios for the entire site but it was not a tool that would facilitate a Capital Improvement Plan identifying specific projects but what it did do was allow comparison’s from one scenario to another. Assistant Director Saunders clarified the cells were a 2.5 acre grid. Mr. Johnson responded Assistant Director Saunders was correct. Assistant Director Saunders responded the area was roughly a block in area. Mr. Fruh asked if roads could be altered. Mr. Carpenter responded roads could be altered and Mr. Johnson would clarify. Mr. Thompson asked if topography could be altered. Mr. Carpenter responded topographical features could be altered. Mr. Johnson presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the software. He directed the Board to the scenario area and handed out hard copies of the presentation. He noted the process had begun looking at the planning districts for Bozeman, Belgrade, and several County districts establishing the “triangle” area. He noted ~185,000 more people would occupy the area in 2050 (40 years at a 2.5% growth rate). Mr. Fruh asked what the percentages of growth in the valley had been. Mr. Johnson responded that there was a 1% growth rate up to 1985 and in the mid 00’s on there had been a 6% growth rate. Mr. Carpenter added that the vast majority of growth had occurred within the planning scenario area as depicted in the rendering. Mr. Johnson added that 60% of the growth rate had occurred within the City of Bozeman. Assistant Director Saunders noted that the number of people residing in a single household was less than what had been in 1930 and that could make a significant difference with the characteristics of build out. Mr. Johnson responded that development responded to demand and the process would need to meet that need with regard to Planning and Zoning requirements. President McSpadden added that Planning needed to respond to the demand of development. Mr. Johnson added that it was not a one to one ratio and it had not been predicted as such in the past. Mr. Johnson noted the size and location of the scenario planning area noting that 44 building typologies had first been developed and identified specifically; every building type that could be identified within the Gallatin County. He noted realtors had been consulted and no less than three of each type had been used as examples. He noted data included water usage, energy consumption, tax revenues, impervious surfaces, construction costs, etc. and they had also done a second set including LEED certified buildings of the same typology. He noted they had then proceeded to identify combinations of those buildings that already existed to be typified as development types which became specific conditions. He noted there was a variety of residential development types and all the data had been provided by the developer if the development existed. He directed the Board to hard copy prints of the colors which corresponded to development types. He stated there were three commercial development types depicted and three different rooftop developments were involved. He stated the development’s were limited to three general rules and limited to those rules unless they built at a loss and found a way to recover that loss. Mr. Johnson directed the Board to Google images of local conditions that had been assessed with data regarding their building types which was rigorous information to enter. He noted the data outcome indicated a productive neighborhood via a combination of data components and how many jobs were associated with the data. He noted streams were not developed and there were areas containing two acres parcels that were assumed as not being redeveloped. He noted the housing growth had not been calculated within the boundaries of growth within the City where they had assumed residential or commercial growth. Vice President Garberg asked for clarification of the status quo. Mr. Johnson directed Vice President Garberg to a chart of growth as it had been verifiably seen in the past. He added the County had indicated their growth policy be taken into consideration with regard to their minimum parcel requirements and it would not necessarily depict the growth they had expected to see. He noted there was clearly continued growth in high density per the proposed model within the planning district. He noted the City of Belgrade’s control was water and was limited to wells and septic tanks; there was a very limited area they would admit to being able to expand. He noted Four Corners used the sewage plant that existed. Mr. Neubauer asked for clarification of the rendering and asked if the orange color represented parcels that were 2.5 acres or greater. Mr. Johnson clarified the color coding. Mr. Carpenter added that the current situation was the most of the area was already zoned; the Bozeman zoning district, Belgrade zoning, the existing Four Corners zoning, and Gallatin Gateway zoning in addition to the Bridger Canyon zoning area. Mr. Fruh asked how the tax revenues had been established. Mr. Johnson responded that tax revenues were based on building types. He directed the Board to the table listing which scenario and which tax revenue would be applicable. He added the most efficient development would be a concentrated effort of growth directly around Bozeman and the remarkable thing was the distinction of the tax revenue for individual properties. Mr. Carpenter added that the imaging did not return the cost to provide services and infrastructure for individual scenarios. Mr. Johnson noted that they had been working to enter the data for different costs of road improvements per linear mile as well as sewer mains and water mains which met the projected treatment plant service area and would not overtax the system even using current water consumption and waste production. Vice President Garberg suggested increasing the density for curiosity’s sake to see the projections. Mr. Johnson directed the Board to the housing units per net acre growth projection which repeats what already exists. Assistant Director Saunders added that the R-4 was eminently possible with regard to density and if things were done badly, the regulations were improved to avoid repetition. Mr. Carpenter stated the difference in the two scenarios was not the density, but more of the development going into the City as opposed to rural development. Mr. Johnson noted the density difference per acre from those within the City to those within the County. Mr. Taylor asked if water consumption had been calculated. Mr. Johnson directed Mr. Taylor to those figures. Mr. Taylor asked if the study had been calculated with regarded to the acre feet usage already calculated by the City. Mr. Johnson responded that the information could be segregated for the City and provided. President McSpadden added the data was dependent on a municipal service and associated costs. Mr. Fruh asked if leach fields were the problem. Mr. Johnson responded that most of the problem was leach fields, but included fish and wildlife. Mr. Mehl asked what the most likely scenario would be and added that they were assuming cooperation between the zoning districts; he asked for the median data. Mr. Johnson responded the airport interchange would be a major driver of development and they had also looked at Valley Center Road and Jack Rabbit Lane where there was the potential for development of a “village”. He added there would also be growth at Four Corners and part way between Four Corners and the City of Bozeman. Mr. Mehl asked how the proposal would overlay with the school district’s scenarios. Mr. Johnson responded they would be meeting with the School District in the near future but the data was still good and could be modified as well. Mr. Carpenter responded that Mr. Johnson would be conducting classes to host user groups to draw out their scenarios that could be reviewed in the future and their implications. Mr. Johnson responded he was willing to take the blame for any flaws in the current proposal and the idea was to create a stage for people to create scenarios. Assistant Director Saunders added that all the value judgments were left to the human being; there were a lot of costs that did not appear on the bill when construction of a home had been completed. The nation had not done a great job of reviewing the costs that were not seen immediately in the first five minutes. Vice President Garberg responded that the forces outside of the market of the community were not in keeping with what the community wanted to see with regard to development. Mr. Johnson responded that a collaboration of government bodies and rights transfers in concert with development rights would need to be acquired and could never be accomplished with the current development standards. He noted he had done two of them in the New York area and they had worked beautifully. He noted their next scenario had been driven by value of development and was of a belief that people came here because it was beautiful with contiguous wildlife corridors that were preserved and met a value that people might aspire to. He directed the Board to the scenario that was produced by working with the transit system; if the housing was within a ¼ mile of the transit route it would achieve a fifty percentile of resident usage of the system. He noted that within the 50 year cycle projected, the vehicle miles traveled would push the smog limitations. Assistant Director Saunders added that Belgrade was pushing the particulate limitations and micron limitations (PM10) and PM 2 ½ was heavily influenced by combustion engines (airport, gravel pit industrial equipment) but there was uncertainty as to the exact source. Mr. Neubauer added that he lived in the northeast neighborhood right next to the tracks and it was dusty in that location; he added if Belgrade had a problem, Bozeman could not be too far behind. Assistant Director Saunders noted it was an issue that got close and the consequence was to air quality and federal direction if you are noncompliant; if wild fires were not included in the data, it could be a very different result in the data. Mr. Taylor suggested they may formulate an air quality district. Mr. Johnson responded the King County had indicated the community had to go back to emissions levels from 1970 and could construct a building, just couldn’t have any parking. Mr. Johnson stated that the arrangement of open space areas in the transit scenario created small walkable areas between transit sections, which were the most efficient scenarios, but the stops would need to be within ½ mile of each other. Mr. Neubauer stated that all the growth was based on the assumption of a clean environment; dirty are would squash development. Assistant Director Saunders responded there were ways for local government to discourage people from coming to the community. Mr. Taylor asked for clarification of where the 185,000 people was being estimated. Mr. Johnson responded that it was the triangle area of overlapping districts that could work together. He added the river was a real barrier and the land to the west was difficult to build on due to perk tests though there would undoubtedly be growth there. Mr. Carpenter clarified that 250,000 people would be the total for the County as a whole and 90% of the growth would be in the Gallatin Valley. Mr. Taylor clarified that there was no source of water to support that number of people unless it was obtained from Canyon Ferry Lake. Assistant Director Saunders added that Canyon Ferry was an option, gray water recapture was an option, and the Ogallala option of pumping was also available. President McSpadden suggested using water as a real life constraint. Mr. Johnson responded that there was not a County available in the Country that had disallowed growth due to lack of water. Mr. Taylor suggested 130,000 people could be handled; the City used different numbers for impact fees than those they used for consumption. Mr. Carpenter responded the number he had used was assuming they kept the same growth rate for the next few years so people could relate better than they would to some model number. Mr. Thompson suggested water restrictions were a great way to limit growth and it was not necessarily a bad thing. Mr. Johnson responded that the City with the most efficient use of water was Las Vegas. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Taylor how snow melt and climate change were being calculated into the determination numbers. Mr. Taylor responded that he did not know the exact amount but the City had rights to 12,000 acre feet with a firm yield of 11,000 acre feet. Mr. Johnson suggested developers could enter data on the City’s program to share the data and make arguments relative to the data entered. President McSpadden stated the information fed into the machine by the developer would help provide the scenarios. Assistant Director Saunders responded that software was being reviewed currently that would allow a single point of contact for the community and the software was available and would be available to members of the community similar to the present web-based interactive GIS. Mr. Johnson stated they would meet Thursday for one more review with the County Planning Department and would then be forwarded for use with regard to sewer infrastructure and whichever other uses that would be advantageous. He stated he would provide a summation of the most valuable strategies and methods and would provide it to those entities affected by making rational planning strategies. Mr. Taylor responded if he was living in Belgrade, he should be worried about his water and where things were all going so that he could do more to correct the problem. Mr. Johnson stated the community needed to be fiscally responsible. Mr. Carpenter suggested if they didn’t plan regionally, the futures that the community wanted would not be feasible. Mr. Thompson stated if the density were increased, the SID amounts would be reduced as they would have a choice. Mr. Carpenter suggested Mr. Thompson read the Stahly Engineering study and review their proposals. Mr. Johnson added that a living system sewer treatment plant within the village areas would be stand alone with less maintenance and less piping. Mr. Carpenter suggested the Board members get involved in Mr. Johnson’s workshops as it was fun to play around with. Mr. Neubauer asked to be kept in the loop with regard to future workshops. Mr. Carpenter asked if Assistant Director Saunders was suggesting the method of going before the City Commission. Assistant Director Saunders responded that it would be helpful to forward a recommendation to the City Commission to participate in the scenarios. Mr. Carpenter responded that mid to late summer the consultant would likely have a draft for review by the various entities. He noted that 2050 was not a magic number and could be replaced, but seemed like a nice round number that perhaps should be a shorter time range. Mr. Johnson suggested no date was needed and if people were added to the area it would provide a possible outcome. Mr. Taylor suggested that even if water was not considered, planning would be a consideration. Mr. Johnson added that the State had decided we were living on a fixed quantity of water with limitations to the areas that could have water. Assistant Director Saunders noted that the State had the say over every drop of water. Vice Chairperson Garberg clarified they had say over every drop of water other than that the tribes own. Mr. Neubauer stated the community was running out of water and if air quality was an issue in Belgrade it would shortly be an issue in Bozeman. Mr. Fruh asked how the proposal would be the most in keeping with a utopia. Mr. Johnson responded he had only begun to work with Cathy Kostakis regarding the information and he did not have the expertise to answer specifically. Assistant Director Saunders responded socioeconomic factors were considered and one was the proximity to a grocery store. Mr. Johnson stated the National Association of Realtors prepared a handout that included that 70% of people would walk to a grocery store if it was within five minutes of where they lived. Mr. Carpenter suggested the second largest generational group was the baby boomers that were reaching retirement age and wanted to be closer to services while the first largest was those born between 1980 and 1990 which were looking for something different than the baby boomers. Mr. Carpenter clarified that the focus was for walk-ability in the community. Mr. Thompson asked if the tool could be used to allow more density if the developer included a grocery store on the development. Mr. Johnson stated they could ascertain how many housing units would be need to support a grocery store assuming there would be enough water and sewer services to serve the neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter noted the funding would be what was in question until developed homes could pay the costs. He noted the scenarios were more or less permanent once the patterns were established. President McSpadden noted that many of the people would be located outside of the planning jurisdictional area as proposed and if something was for sale, someone could buy it and do something different with it. He suggested the City and County Planning Board’s could meet together in the future and asked that he please be kept in the loop. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Vice President Garberg asked for clarification of the new Community Development Director. Assistant Planning Director gave a brief explanation of the new Director. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President McSpadden adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m. Trever McSpadden, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman