HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-15 Planning Board MinutesMINUTES
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
121 NORTH ROUSE AVENUE
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015
7:00 P.M.
ITEM 1. 07:00:51 PM CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Jordan Zignego
Paul Neubauer
Brett Potter
Erik Garber
Julien Morice
George Thompson
Jeff Krauss
ITEM 2. 07:01:00 PM 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.)
No comments.
ITEM 3. 07:01:24 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS moved item to after Project Review
08:49:43 PM Julien Morice requested a suspension of the rules to allow discussion before a motion—Erik Garber allowed suspension
of the rules until 9:00.
08:50:07 PM Julien Morice noted that he had had discussions with other Board Members individually to try and find the best fit for
this group, the two people who would allow for the most discussion, had considered Erik Garber and Brett Potter, noted that Erik
Garber had an absolute grasp on the rules and regulations and a tremendous background, that Brett Potter had a great background in
planning but might run things differently to disallow some other people to discuss things freely, expressed that both were well-
qualified and would like for them to be president and vice-president although he did not have one picked out for either position.
08:51:42 PM Paul Neubauer noted that it had been expressed that the Planning Board was essentially toothless, that whoever goes to
the Transportation Working Group decides how money gets spent, did not recall voting on Trevor as representative to the TWG,
sought clarification on procedures and whether Chair was automatically the representative—Chris Saunders confirmed that the bylaws
stated as much but did not see why the Board could not have someone else sit in. Jeff Krauss clarified that the representative could be
the Chair or anyone elected to be representative, noted that the bylaws of the TCC specified that the mayor is a voting member but that
he had previously been a voting member outside of his mayoralty as the Commission’s representative, felt that this could be the same.
08:54:01 PM Paul Neubauer noted that Erik Garber brought more operating knowledge to this body than anyone else, but would like
to see Brett Potter representing the Board at the Transportation Working Group because he shares Paul Neubauer’s passion for bike
interconnectivity, cited his expertise in transportation engineering, noted that the Working Group isn’t seeking engineers and that Brett
Potter’s role in property development gave him an understanding of how investments made on the front-end could increase value, that
he would have the ability to sell the investments needed for bike connectivity.
08:55:23 PM Jeff Krauss would like whoever becomes President to run a more orderly meeting, felt it was important for President to
run a tighter ship for when they are in front of the public, needed Vice-President to commit to that, noted that this evening they had
technically reopened the public hearing when they started asking questions of the applicant again which could have left them open to
asking the public for further comments, noted that Chair had caught this by saying, “We’ll consider that the applicant’s rebuttal”, felt
that more formality would help them to be more efficient.
08:58:20 PM Brett Potter was honored to represent the Board, noted that he had been vocal and recognized that if elected President he
would take a very formal approach and hoped he would have the tools to learn the cadence of running a meeting that everyone would
like to be a part of, would be honored to be on the Transportation Board, noted that this was his priority and that the reason he had run
for City Commission was sprawl, the connectivity of Bozeman and looking for ways to get around the community, expressed passion
for helping influence ideas to reduce commuter traffic in the community.
08:59:46 PM Jeff Krauss wanted to know who was willing to be President and Vice-President—Erik Garber indicated he would like
to be President and be willing to sit on the TCC, noted he wanted both, recognized that bringing up the applicant was non sequitur
with standard process but that he had allowed this so that the Board would have an opportunity to get its questions answered, felt he
provided continuity between zoning and planning and acknowledged that his transportation expertise is more technical than Brett
Potter’s, indicated that as President he would be careful to consider how desired projects would be financed, indicated he would serve
in any capacity, confirmed that he was the Zoning Chair.
09:02:02 PM Brett Potter asked anyone else interested in the Presidency to put their name in the hat, recognized that he would have a
lot of work to do to get the cadence and the level that Erik Garber is at in terms of running meetings, indicated he would endeavor to
learn as much as possible from Trevor.
09:02:39 PM Jeff Krauss sought clarification whether the Board can appoint two Representatives to the Committee—Chris Saunders
indicated that the membership assigns representation and has only one seat for the Planning Board.
09:03:27 PM Paul Neubauer noted that Erik Garber brings more knowledge than anybody and that his role was very important,
wished that he would separate the appointment to the Transportation Committee from the Presidency, wondered if he would represent
his own concerns or those of the Board, indicated that to represent the concerns of Paul Neubauer and Brett Potter Erik Garber would
need to wave the bike flag, that he was sick of looking at expensive bike lanes that dead-end and go nowhere, felt that by sending
Brett Potter his idealism and passion along with his position as a developer would help him to be heard at the Committee, expressed
that if Erik Garber indicated he would wave a bike flag the issue could be let go but that the Board should remember that it only
functions when dissent is considered and that when the public is present they should feel that the meeting is being led by someone
who listens and has an open mind, would like to encourage people to speak and feels that dissenting opinions are necessary, expressed
that Erik Garber’s strong points do not include welcoming dissent, felt this was the most important vote during his two and a half
years on the Board with so much being considered.
09:06:41 PM George Thompson noted that some people had asked him if he would be interested in the Presidency, that he had
indicated he would if people wanted, that he realized his woeful inadequacy in running meetings but felt he could learn about it,
believed that he would be independent of developers, noted that one of the challenges he had was that in the past they have had too
much total agreement and weren’t sending Commissioners any information about dissenting votes.
09:08:02 PM Jeff Krauss felt a total discussion and summary discussion to ensure both sides are represented.
09:08:41 PM George Thompson felt that a summary of four or five key points on why people voted for their issue, cited example
from today of snow removal and parking, that these are the types of issues that Commissioners and Staff can address, felt the Board
needed to provide dissension in order to give the Commission the opportunity to do so.
09:09:25 PM Jeff Krauss asked if George Thompson would summarize the issues such that the Chair can put forth information “for
the record…” about what was discussed—George Thompson confirmed, thought it would be important to do so and he would
appreciate feedback to prevent misinterpretation of that information. Jeff Krauss felt it was interesting that this is what Staff does
when they summarize, noted they used to have Robin Sullivan who was artistic about that but that they haven’t had anyone like that
since.
09:11:16 PM Paul Neubauer sought clarification on how to suspend the rules to promote a discussion format—Jeff Krauss indicated
this could be achieved by a point of order—Paul Neubauer suggested that he could move to suspend the rules briefly, obtain a second
and a majority vote and overcome the objections of the Chair—Jeff Krauss confirmed, noted Chair could just allow the motion if no
objections are heard.
09:11:55 PM Erik Garber felt that some of Paul Neubauer’s criticism had to do with fitting a logical order and consistency as people
come in and go out they know what to expect, indicated he would be very nervous about summarizing other peoples’ thoughts, cited
example, advised that he has tried to save his own comments to the end and allow the other Board members to speak before
summarizing.
09:12:56 PM Julien Morice expressed appreciation for Trevor’s style and not doing that, that he had spent three months on Trevor’s
Board and didn’t know his positions, felt that was part of being the Chair.
09:13:25 PM Paul Neubauer noted that sometimes the answer seems plain and the public has the question but the Board would be out
of order in providing that answer.
09:13:43 PM Jeff Krauss noted that they were dealing with a public hearing, a legal, formal process, that once we reopen hearing and
someone doesn’t get to speak who wants to speak again you have to have a reason for not letting him speak, noted that this could be
accommodated with small numbers but that with 70 people it would be more difficult, noted that the Commission meeting is one-way
and very formal.
09:14:57 PM Chris Saunders observed that in respect to the question of clearly identifying concerns and rationale that the
Commission has done very well in having a turn to speak and in specifically link the criteria of the Staff report to the facts that had
been presented and listing deficiencies X, Y, and Z, encapsulating their reasoning in their statements so that no one has to try to read
their minds, felt this took some courage on the part of the Board Members to describe why they supported or did not support
something.
09:16:23 PM Erik Garber felt that this was part of the Board Members’ role, to encapsulate one’s thoughts and where you’re at and
that if you aren’t getting the time to do so it’s the Chair’s job to make sure the time is available, cited example of a reading of minutes
that political animals can reference, “…on paragraph three it says that Doug Adams said that Harper Puckett was a bad person,” and
you have an opportunity to clarify what you had meant.
09:17:02 PM George Thompson felt that the point raised by Chris Saunders about the discipline of the Planning Board, that they talk
but don’t get back to the point of considering the Staff Report, compared to the Commission meetings where they go through and “this
is why I’m troubled with this or this…” and “I’m in agreement with this, this, or this…”
09:17:50 PM Julien Morice felt that the lack of discipline was sometimes good and allows some people to speak their minds after
time had run out or ask a question of somebody and maybe it’s not perfectly within the boundaries of Robert’s Rule or how we’re
supposed to run the meeting but it allows for them to get to the bottom of things, for instance when he had questions and questions
Board moving forward in the right way, noted he does not always agree with Erik Garber and shares some concerns with how a lot of
the Board tend to block out people that they may not agree with, felt that no one will run the meeting better than Erik Garber and that
both Brett Potter and George Thompson had indicated they would need to rely on the support and help of others, noted that a Vice
position would provide that opportunity.
09:19:41 PM Julien Morice nominated Erik Garber for President and Brett Potter for Vice President. Seconded by Paul Neubauer.
09:19:54 PM Erik Garber sought clarification that the motion addresses the leadership of the Board and not the representation to the
TCC—Julien Morice confirmed.
09:20:26 PM Jeff Krauss expressed hopes that he could make a motion to appoint Brett Potter as the representative to the TCC before
getting into the President and Vice President, felt this was an opportunity to get three people doing stuff and that this could prompt
him to vote no.
09:20:56 PM Brett Potter asked if Erik Garber wanted the job—Erik Garber clarified that he had said he would be glad to serve in any
position so privileged, that this means that continuity between Planning and Zoning and how those hearings are held is important to
the public’s perception of the process, that this is one of the reasons he would like to be President and that if the role of TCC
representative and President were separate he would be glad to serve in either capacity.
09:21:38 PM Paul Neubauer proposed to amend the motion to only consider whether Erik Garber should be appointed to the
Presidency, seconded by Jeff Krauss.
09:22:30 PM Jeff Krauss indicated he would oppose the motion and withdrew his second.
09:23:01 PM
Board Member - Julien Morice: Motion
Board Member – Jordan Zignego: 2nd
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Disapprove
Council Member - Erik Garberg: Approve
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: Disapprove
Board Member - Julien Morice: Approve
Board Member - George Thompson: Disapprove
Board Member - Brett Potter: Disapprove
Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Disapprove
09:23:23 PM Jeff Krauss moved to appoint Brett Potter as the Planning Board’s representative to the Transportation Coordinating
Committee. Seconded by Jordan Zignego.
09:23:42 PM Jeff Krauss indicated he did not know whether this was a good idea but he did know that Brett Potter has a desire and
rides around on a little electric bike, knows that he campaigned on that and that he’s using the transportation system as a bicyclist and
will be able to speak to that in a knowledgeable way.
09:24:38 PM Julien Morice felt that he was not much of a fence sitter but that he didn’t have much of an opinion on the motion,
wondered whether he could recuse or abstain—Erik Garber indicated that he should vote unless there was a conflict of interest.
09:25:16 PM Chris Saunders sought clarification on who the second was for the existing motion—there was some confusion about
whether it was Paul Neubauer or Jordan Zignego.
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Motion
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: 2nd
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Approve
Council Member - Erik Garberg: Disapprove
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: Approve
Board Member - Julien Morice: Approve
Board Member - George Thompson: Approve
Board Member - Gerald Pape Jr.: Absent
Board Chair - Trever McSpadden: Absent
Board Member - Laura Dornberger: Absent
Board Member - Brett Potter: Approve
Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Approve
09:25:39 PM Brett Potter thanked everyone and indicated he would endeavor to represent everyone on the Board.
09:26:00 PM Jeff Krauss nominated Erik Garber for President of the Planning Board. Seconded by Paul Neubauer.
09:26:11 PM Jeff Krauss noted that Erik Garber had heard some concerns from his colleagues, indicated he understood Erik Garber’s
style and encouraged him to think about his style, trusted Erik Garber to run a meeting and noted that he owes the public more than he
owes his colleagues, thought that the President had a role in putting items on the agenda that he or she hears coming up in these
meetings, recalled a saying that the truly gifted are able to inhabit an opponent’s point of view without agreeing with it, that this is part
of saying to Staff for example that the motion fails 5 to 2 on these critical factors.
09:27:52 PM Paul Neubauer noted that he had spent a lot of time thinking about this, that the Bozeman Planning Board’s bylaws state
“the objective of the Planning Board is to assist and advise the Commission in improving the health, safety, convenience, and general
welfare of the Bozeman residents.” Felt that this showed the obligation of the Board was to the public, noted that the applicants who
come before the Board are a subset of the public and need to be treated respectfully but that they are only a subset. Rhetorically
asked, “Is it better to run an unfair meeting efficiently or is it better to run a fair meeting inefficiently”, indicated he would support
Erik Garber as President.
09:29:27 PM Julien Morice felt that the Board had been comparing Erik Garber to someone like Trevor, thought that they were
different personalities, that both are awesome at running a meeting and would do it more efficiently, that Erik Garber sometimes
comes across as more blunt-force where Trevor was smoother, felt that Erik Garber was the best choice.
09:30:43 PM Brett Potter objected to the movement of the motion to make some comments, voiced support for Erik Garber, noted he
did not know the procedural aspects so well as Erik Garber, shared concerns of other Board members that Erik Garber could be more
patient.
09:31:38 PM Julien Morice noted that the good thing was that this discussion had been had and everything is on the table.
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Motion
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: 2nd
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Approve
Council Member - Erik Garberg: Approve
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: Approve
Board Member - Julien Morice: Approve
Board Member - George Thompson: Approve
Board Member - Gerald Pape Jr.: Absent
Board Chair - Trever McSpadden: Absent
Board Member - Laura Dornberger: Absent
Board Member - Brett Potter: Approve
Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Approve
09:32:35 PM Jordan Zignego nominated George Thompson as Vice President. Seconded by Paul Neubauer.
09:32:52 PM Jordan Zignego felt that George Thompson brought a vast toolset from different fields and would do very well.
09:33:14 PM Jeff Krauss sought clarification whether George Thompson was an architect—George Thompson noted that he was
licensed but not in Montana.
09:33:40 PM Julien Morice felt that George Thompson was an absolute asset on the Board, agreed with many of his concerns,
indicated he would not support the motion because Brett Potter would be a better fit and that moving forward he could see him
becoming Chair and that he was better qualified.
09:34:18 PM Jeff Krauss believed that he may have nominated Paul Neubauer and that in discussions he had tried to talk him into it,
felt that there was a certain amount of humility that goes with the position, knew that George Thompson had that and showed
professionalism and truthfulness in indicating he was not an architect in Montana. Paul Neubauer indicated that he would have
accepted Jeff Krauss’ nomination.
Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Motion
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: 2nd
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Approve
Council Member - Erik Garberg: Approve
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: Disapprove
Board Member - Julien Morice: Disapprove
Board Member - George Thompson: Approve
Board Member - Gerald Pape Jr.: Absent
Board Chair - Trever McSpadden: Absent
Board Member - Laura Dornberger: Absent
Board Member - Brett Potter: Disapprove
Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Approve
ITEM 4. 07:02:28 PM PROJECT REVIEW
1. Cattail Properties Prel. Plat Application P14054 (Brekke)
Cattail Street, West of Blackbird Drive
Preliminary Plat Application for the proposed subdivision of 5.208 acres into 48 townhouse-lots, 4 single-
household lots, and 2 open space lots.
07:02:35 PM Allison Brekke, Associate Planner with Community Development Department, presented proposal, described legal
considerations and technical specifications.
07:09:46 PM Mayor Jeff Krauss, suggested it may be premature to approve subdivision before approval of relaxations—Allison
Brekke indicated that this was intentional.
07:10:23 PM Julien Morice clarified that no lot under consideration breached the R3 designation—Allison Brekke confirmed
07:10:40 PM George Thompson requested walk-through of relaxation items—Allison Brekke returned to presentation, indicated
some townhome lots would be 2800 square feet instead of 3000, some single-family lots to 3800 from 5000.
07:11:30 PM Julien Morice requested thought process behind relaxations proposal—Allison Brekke clarified that other enhancements
offset these relaxations, that proposal included adequate Planning Points to justify the decision.
07:13:26 PM George Thompson requested review of particular slide—Allison discussed street design standards in question, noted
that Street A is at the local standard but that alleys have less backing distance, Street B is narrower than standard. George Thompson
requested additional information on available parking—Allison Brekke indicated that parking was adequate for families but that guest
parking was intended for Street B.
07:15:26 PM Paul Neubauer clarified that some on-street parking would address concern—Allison Brekke concerned
07:15:44 PM George Thompson requested discussion of backing distance—Allison clarified that backing distance would be reduced
from 26 foot standard to 24.
07:16:11 PM Brett Potter requested clarification whether lots were being sold or units were being developed—Allison Brekke
described design guidelines for development, that applicant may work within these guidelines.
07:16:57 PM Jeff Krauss wanted to know how these guidelines differed from a Homeowner’s Association—Allison Brekke that these
could overlap, that guidelines were enforceable by city but that Association would be a covenant. Jeff Krauss wanted to know how
this was in the interest of the city—Allison Brekke indicated that more design benefits could be achieved through PUD.
07:18:34 PM Julien Morice requested return to relaxations discussion, requested clarification of whether on-street parking would be
permitted on Street B—Allison Brekke denied this. Julien Morice asked what the 24 foot backing distance measured—Allison Brekke
clarified they were measuring the width of the alley because parking is provided in driveway. Julien Morice requested information on
setback from garage to alley—Allison Brekke indicated that this would be 15 although 20 was typical. Julien Morice suggested larger
trucks wouldn’t fit—Allison Brekke suggested they would park in the garage, that in order to count a parking space it must measure
20 feet and that because no request was made to relax this standard the applicant must have provided this space in the garage.
07:22:30 PM Jeff Krauss asked to review picture from presentation, wanted to know what part of the house was the front—Allison
Brekke provided appropriate slides, suggested some lots would present double-frontage. Jeff Krauss requested clarification of color-
coding—Allison Brekke complied, describing how these impacted requested relaxations. Mayor Krauss confirmed that units facing
Cattail were alley-loaded.
07:26:08 PM Bayliss Ward, architect, presented for applicant. Reiterated that all parking spaces being counted to meet standard were
20 feet. Stressed that applicant had well-exceeded points requirement for PUD.
07:29:39 PM Brett Potter asked about intended sale price—Bayliss Ward described that this had not been a major consideration, that
construction costs were about 125-130 dollars to a foot. Brett Potter clarified that four-bedroom units would be the maximum and that
for these parking would be achieved with two spaces in the garage and two in the driveway—Bayliss Ward agreed and noted that
available parking was in excess of requirements. Brett Potter sought clarification on how density and streets would work together—
Bayliss Ward indicated that design had been intended to hit the maximum and that although four-bedrooms were suggested in the
design that this would not ultimately be the case.
07:32:28 PM Erik Garberg opened public hearing.
07:32:42 PM Callie Miller, 3026 Sundew Lane, expressed excitement but wanted to know that this project would maintain and
improve the local parks, worried that some units would not contribute to park system, concerned about snow removal and effect on
parking in a dense neighborhood, encouraged applicant to participate in community and cooperate with Homeowner’s Association.
07:35:12 PM Neil Ramhorst, 3348A Warbler Way, agreed with Callie Miller, reiterated snow removal concerns, suggested that some
parking spaces would be consumed by snow removal effort and that vehicles intended for these spaces would end up stressing other
units, suggested units would not contribute to park system but would use it extensively, described situation where larger trucks would
not fit in garages or driveways, suggested that garages would be used for storage rather than parking.
07:38:41 PM Michael Vivien, 2487 Milkhouse Avenue, expressed concerns about snow removal, suggested snow would exceed
proposed capacities, worried that large diesel trucks with extensions would well exceed proposed driveways, worried that parking
enforcement would be inadequate, felt that too much was being fit into a small space, asked that standards be upheld against
relaxations.
07:41:03 PM Ron Offitt, 10-acre property just to the south, concerned about traffic, felt that if his property were developed that traffic
would be concentrated onto Cattail, that he was being boxed in.
07:43:04 PM Aaron Offitt, 6346 Davis, identified himself as Ron Offitt’s son, asked about how future development would impact
existing road, whether water and sewer had been adequately considered, concerned that parking was very tight, wanted to know more
about how plan would affect property to the south. Erik Garberg described utility plan, that city’s long-term plan would also guide
developer. Aaron Offitt expressed that Davis had been dramatically changed in terms of traffic and whether it could accommodate
more.
07:45:45 PM Erik Garberg closed public hearing.
07:45:50 PM Erik Garberg sought clarification regarding how subdivision elements would impact concerns expressed—Allison
Brekke read Condition Number 27: “snow removed from the private streets and alleys shall be stored within the private street alley or
alley right-of-way. Snow from the private streets and alleys shall not be placed or stored in the adjacent public streets or park areas”,
clarified that this property was within the Cattail Creek subdivision and subject to same Homeowner’s Association regardless of PUD
process so that they will contribute to local parks.
07:48:05 PM Brett Potter clarified that previous proposal included 90 units—Allison Brekke confirmed and indicated this showed
that current proposal was not exceedingly dense. Brett Potter sought clarification of R3’s flexibility in terms of allowable density—
Allison Brekke indicated that minimum density was 5 units per acre. Brett Potter wanted to know how this could mathematically
produce 90 units—Allison Brekke indicated she did not have previous proposal to refer to. Allison Brekke indicated that effects on
traffic were being considered by site development to be reviewed by Engineering.
07:49:32 PM Erik Garberg asked that discussion be limited to the subdivision.
07:49:50 PM Paul Neubauer sought clarification about whether fewer relaxations could achieve the same goals of the applicant—
Bayliss Ward indicated that condos were initially considered and they had looked at 60 units, that they were trying to avoid a stagnant
development. Paul Neubauer sought visualization of proposed yard—Bayliss Ward clarified that yards would be modest but provide
green space, referenced site plan, indicated minimum footage of backyards was well exceeded, that meeting with Chris Saunders was
to request 5 foot relaxation to get parking and green space.
07:53:09 PM Brett Potter sought clarification on whether entitlement for 90 units applied when property was purchased and
consolidated.
07:53:20 PM Chris Wassia, Genesis Engineering, 204 N 11th, described two existing parcels, that with sixteen units to an acre you can
get close to 90, that they had looked at previous design reports from TD Naysh to consider water, sewer, and traffic demands had
already been reviewed, that they had wanted to keep everything within the limits that had been reviewed at that time, described that
townhouse concept had been merged with condominium concept to allow people to get mortgages but retain the townhouse feel.
Chris Wassia clarified that layout was not produced showing 90 units but that studies of original subdivision showed it could be done.
07:55:02 PM Brett Potter asked Allison Brekke if R4 would be sixteen units per acre—Allison Brekke confirmed. Erik Garber
expressed doubt that any site plan considered had ever fit 90 units to proposed lot.
07:55:44 PM Brett Potter made comments without a motion, expressed appreciation for effort made by applicant and Staff to reach
this stage and create value, expressed appreciation for public comments on snow removal and parking.
07:56:49 PM Jeff Krauss requested a point of order clarifying whether comments could be made before a motion—Erik Garber
clarified that the comments were allowed to move the conversation forward towards a motion.
07:57:13 PM Julien Morice motioned, “having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the
information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the Staff report for application P14054 and move to approve the Cattail
Properties Major Subdivision Preliminary Platt Application with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.” Seconded
by George Thompson.
07:57:42 PM Julien Morice agreed with Brett about efforts made by applicant and Staff, expressed concerns that townhome lots could
be sold and designs could be changed, expressed concern about snow removal, concerned that relaxations combined with inherent
parking issues would present a real challenge, liked the concept for site density relaxations or setbacks.
08:01:08 PM George Thompson expressed that affordable housing might be achieved without designated snow storage areas, that
garage depths were a concern for longer trucks, liked the idea of being able to finance townhomes but noted that site constraints
impact the desirability of an “affordable” neighborhood.
08:02:37 PM Paul Neubauer shared the concerns of Julien Morice and George Thompson, expressed appreciation for the plan but
noted that alley width in comparably narrow neighborhoods have caused them to struggle to maintain value.
08:03:56 PM Brett Potter noted that the town was struggling with affordable housing, that they had considered tightening lot-widths
and street sections to get there, was happy that this project shows how these methods work in practice, did not agree with four
bedrooms per unit a maximum, would prefer more flexibility to address parking and snow storage.
08:05:50 PM Jeff Krauss noted that the Staff Report was helpful in sharing the criteria that the project was being reviewed on, noted
that it wasn’t about what Brett Potter liked or didn’t like but about how it fits in with the standards and the required review, noted that
this project was truly what they had requested and that development wouldn’t be within walking distance of many places and would
consequently have more driving trips, that development was not next to a major employer. Jeff Krauss did not see anything in the
subdivision requirements that would cause him to say no to this proposal, noted it uses the property efficiently, felt that this project on
the northwest side of town would experience a disconnect with the City and major employers so that cars will be an issue, that City
will have to start putting money on this side of town into the roads, felt this was a reason to discuss how roads are financed on west
side of town.
08:09:38 PM Erik Garber expressed that from an engineering point of view there were a number of inherent challenges that the design
addresses well but that the shape challenges lead to the PUD relaxations that are not being evaluated as the subdivision tonight, noted
that developer had been before Fire Chief, Roads Superintendent, Water Superintendent, Design Engineer five times, felt Board
should have some faith in the process behind it, expressed that questions raised were important but that the process was intended to
address some of these, thought that market forces could address some of these concerns, that if four-bedrooms can’t sell for lack of
parking the developer may build some two-bedrooms, indicated he would support the motion.
08:10:52 PM Jeff Krauss felt that the Board would be improving everything that Staff had recommended if it met guidelines and
relaxations were justified, wondered whether the Board would ever say no to a development that met the letter of the law—Erik
Garber noted that according to subdivision law one probably shouldn’t, that this was different from Zoning.
08:11:37 PM Paul Neubauer felt that market forces wouldn’t act quickly enough to address parking issue, that property value may
decline as a result—Erik Garber noted that this represented other market forces.
08:11:59 PM Brett Potter explained that he was on this Board because he wanted the community to be better connected, would like a
multimodal community with pockets of density that function well within their neighborhood zones and can connect to the rest of town,
felt this project creates a real parking issue but relates to the density issues they were struggling with to achieve affordable housing,
hoped the design team would listen to Board’s feedback and look at a way to incorporate snow storage areas or create more variation
through the design guidelines on how units relate to each other, liked the idea of setting a precedent of tighter street sections and
tighter lots in the hopes of tackling affordable housing with future projects, felt that multimodal connectivity had been overlooked and
that they need to spend money from fees to connect these units back to town.
08:13:31 PM Jeff Krauss noted that when people talk about affordable housing they should be asking questions about which median
household income they were targeting, was looking for a dollar figure, indicated that if a developer were to wave the “affordable” flag
he would pin them down, noted that affordable housing and contributions to the public park will earn a lot of PUD points, that from
his point of view the PUD must provide more than it gets to make that deal, felt that if it was contained only within the PUD it may
not be enough to sway him.
08:14:40 PM Julien Morice noted this was tough to do with townhome lots, that they were not getting into architecture, felt they were
dealing with a crystal ball question—Jeff Krauss clarified that he had said “off-site”, that it would be wildly imaginative to consider
paying the bus system to park alongside three times a day, that the public had asked whether the development would be contributing to
the park, felt that PUD was a tit-for-tat between the City and the developer, didn’t see anything that would push him to deny motion.
Board Member - Julien Morice: Motion
Board Member - George Thompson: 2nd
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Approve
Council Member - Erik Garberg: Approve
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: Disapprove
Board Member - Julien Morice: Disapprove
Board Member - George Thompson: Approve
Board Member - Brett Potter: Approve
Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Approve
08:16:50 PM Erik Garber clarified that the project would be before the Commission on April 6th at which time the PUD would be a
condition and that public hearing will be held first—Allison Brekke clarified that this meeting would only be considering this
project—Jeff Krauss indicated he may not be able to attend.
08:17:15 PM Erik Garber noted that more subjective criteria would be considered at the Commission, urged attendees to ask
questions of City Staff or Planning Staff, felt questions were good and not negative but that answers will be available.
2. 08:17:44 PM Resolution in support of a Planning Coordinating Committee (Saunders)
Consider a possible resolution recommending to the City Commission the creation of a Planning Coordinating
Committee modeled on the existing Transportation Coordinating Committee. This would provide a structure for
planning board and staff consultation regarding shared issues relating to land development in the Gallatin
Valley area.
08:19:45 PM Chris Saunders presented the resolution, noted this item was a follow-on to a joint application for a grant between the
City, the City of Belgrade, and the County to look at ways to coordinate and promote a conversation between the various Boards.
Noted Appendix M of the existing growth policy has a listing of inter-local agreements. Described report issued by consultant at end
of last year, recommendation to consider the creation of a Planning Coordinating Committee as a consultation body rather than a
decision-making body modeled on the existing Transportation Coordinating Committee which preserves the independent authority of
each of the participants but provides a structured forum for discussion and sharing of information on areas of common interest. Noted
that a favorable action by the Board would forward a recommendation to the City Commission, that if they chose to pursue this
approach they would need to work with the County and the City of Belgrade to establish the text of the agreement and the mechanics
of how that activity would be undertaken. Noted that the County Planning Board has considered this issue and a copy of their
resolution was provided in the informational packet, that the City of Belgrade Planning Board would consider the issue in a couple of
weeks. Noted that the growth policy includes a discussion on how they might interact with other governmental entities and establishes
several goals and objectives towards this type of activity. Noted that this is a policy discussion, not a quasi-judicial, that the action
requested is to act favorably or disfavorably on this idea, that a draft resolution had been provided and could be edited or taken as
written, noted that a representative of the County Planning Board was present for questions.
08:23:28 PM Erik Garber wanted to formally recognize the County representative and give him a chance to speak.
08:23:40 PM Randy Visoor, County Planning Board, 163 Quietwater, Manhattan, offered the County’s support for the resolution and
noted it had generated a unanimous positive recommendation to the Commission, felt that when other Planning Boards had the
opportunity to weigh in they would look at formalizing that process. Noted that County Planning Board had seen a lot of zone map
amendments coming in at the donut and not just at the triangle, felt a forum to formally discuss some of that and look at concerns
would be advantageous on all levels.
08:25:36 PM Erik Garber asked whether the $2000 was the same of every Board and what it was envisioned to be spent on—Chris
Saunders noted that the example of the $2000 in the County Board was a representation in the difference between how the County
manages its budget relative to the City, that the County officially authorizes its Planning Board to expend funds in their given charge
where the City had not chosen to fund its Planning Board, that this could be considered as a budget amendment and that the City does
collect money for the purposes of long-range planning with application fees, recalled conversations with County Planning Staff where
it had been thought that there would be some benefit in having some facilitation to help negotiate things and sort things out, that at this
point there was no dollar amount specified in the City’s resolution but that there must be some financial component to it.
08:27:22 PM Jeff Krauss asked how this was different from the City-County Planning Board of yore—Chris Saunders noted that the
City-County Planning Board was a decision-making body but that the concept at this point was to create a consultative body. Jeff
Krauss asked whether Chris Saunders attended at lot of TCC meetings—Chris Saunders indicated that he had not but that the Director
of his department had a seat at the Committee. Jeff Krauss advised that the TCC is a formal decision-making Board, asked what sort
of decisions the proposed Board would make—Randy Visoor did not know what sorts of decisions would come from the Board, that
they had considered discussions on policy updates on infrastructure, transportation, annexation, and so on. Jeff Krauss asked whether
there was money available from the State or federal government for this project—Chris Saunders was not aware of any immediately
available funding but that once the 50,000-people target had been hit that the federal government would direct the Board to become a
Metropolitan Planning organization for the purpose of transportation, noted that the 50,000 figure was based on census findings for the
urbanized area and that the respective areas for Belgrade and Bozeman were within a quarter of a mile, that the next census was likely
to consider these a single urbanized area, noted that some funding was attached to federal directive; advised that the proposed
Committee is not a Metropolitan Planning organization, that he looks at things like air- and water-quality regulations that were coming
down the pike and which immediately effect the City and rapidly intersect with the County’s areas of jurisdiction, that these kinds of
issues and direct land-use planning and annexation policy provide points of discussion.
08:31:32 PM Jeff Krauss clarified that the Committee will pass no regulations and have no regulatory authority—Chris Saunders
advised that the Board would have to have an interlocal agreement to vest it with authority before it had any authority, that this was an
opportunity for consultation and discussion.
08:32:09 PM Brett Potter sought clarification whether all three members of the County Commission had voted in favor—Randy
Visoor noted that it had not yet been before the Commission, that the Planning Board had forwarded a unanimous recommendation in
favor of the Committee.
08:32:29 PM Brett Potter motioned “to consider a possible resolution recommending to the City Commission the creation of a
Planning Coordinating Committee modeled on the existing Transportation Coordinating Committee. This would provide a structure
for planning board and staff consultation regarding shared issues relating to land development in the Gallatin Valley area.” Seconded
by Jeff Krauss.
08:33:11 PM Brett Potter thought this was great and expressed appreciation for the County Board putting this forward and hope that
the three Commissions will have a chance to vote on it, noted that in the past there had been a lot of friction between the jurisdictions
and that they needed to work on building a dialogue on many issues including long-range traffic issues.
08:33:52 PM Julien Morice noted that he had served on the County Board and that at several points in their discussions they would
wonder what the City policy was in a particular area, felt it would be nice to have dialogue between the two Boards as they approach
the outskirts and plan triangle growth areas, noted Four Corners’ independent zoning authority and wondered whether and how it
would be incorporated, supported the motion.
08:35:13 PM George Thompson felt the proposal may work out, had gone through materials and found Gallatin Triangle Planning
Study from last winter with scenario maps describing how the cities could work together on infrastructure issues, recalled Chris
Saunders’ description of federal directive and felt that a quarter-mile out was six months or a year away, felt this body could anticipate
federal requirements and prevent a panicked response, would promote cost-effectiveness.
08:36:40 PM Jeff Krauss reminded the Board that they had never paid for themselves and that they are a reflection of the boomers,
that none of them were 18 trillion dollars in debt when they came of age, hoped they would set generational changes aside and
consider growth and whether it pays for itself, noted that in the City growth was paying for itself more than the old part of town, noted
that the City and County knew they would have to pay for things that they want and that plans for growth would cost money,
expressed that an advantage of the proposed Committee would be to promote agreement on places where growth would be
advantageous or not advantageous; cited example where it was very advantageous to the City to grow to the southwest, that expanding
sewer capacity there would cost $1 million whereas that expansion beyond the recently considered development to the west would
cost $20 million to expand sewer capacity and require significant infrastructural improvements, felt that the return on investment in
growth was not as high out west—Erik Garber sought clarification on terms of ROI—Jeff Krauss confirmed that he was considering
the ROI to the collective body and its costs relative to what it nets. Jeff Krauss felt that considering this in a planning sense was great
but that he was less willing to believe that they would all get along, that people would want to grow where it might be less
advantageous to the City, felt that if the Committee was desired it was great but that anti-growth assumptions would need to be
discarded, that they would need to move forward with more calculated ideas on what it costs as a City to grow in a way that they want
to grow and where those investments should be made, noted that City and County roads are both expensive, cited example of school
district property at corner of Cottonwood and Stuckey.
08:42:56 PM Brett Potter noted that he was not old enough to be aware of the previous conversations that Jeff Krauss was concerned
with and that he was therefore unbiased.
08:43:09 PM Paul Neubauer felt it sounded like a great opportunity, wondered whether the County Board would have voted
unanimously if they had known that Jerry would be the likely City representative, felt that the Bozeman Planning Board was a
relatively toothless body, felt that progress could be made by this proposal.
08:44:09 PM Erik Garber felt that difficult decisions were to be made, cited his experience showing that the wheels come off the
wagon on these kinds of bodies when the rubber meets the road, felt the idea was prudent but that they had to be aware that people
would have different ideas and disagreement and that even a clear-cut engineering solution may not have political viability, expressed
that he would not sit on a Board where everyone just sang Kumbaya.
08:45:17 PM
Board Member - Brett Potter: Motion
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: 2nd
Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Approve
Council Member - Erik Garberg: Approve
Board Member - Paul Neubauer: Approve
Board Member - Julien Morice: Approve
Board Member - George Thompson: Approve
Board Member - Brett Potter: Approve
Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Approve
08:46:19 PM Julien Morice noted that at a recent meeting they had discussed missed opportunities with municipalities being set up
and people using Bozeman but not being taxed by Bozeman, felt that being able to coordinate with the County offered a real benefit
even if it were a lame duck body, that Bozeman has been bearing the expense to provide benefits and public services to people and
that this would present an opportunity to get in front of those municipalities.
08:47:39 PM George Thompson felt it was essential to get in front of it in light of the pending federal directives, that someone in
Washington might otherwise be driving growth rather than the community.
08:47:59 PM Jeff Krauss expressed that the worm will have turned when some liquor licenses in Bozeman transfer out to Belgrade,
noted that Belgrade had gotten close enough to Bozeman to where liquor licenses started coming in from Belgrade and many
restaurants developed, explained that when this process is reversed the worm will have turned.
08:48:21 PM Julien Morice noted that this process had been started with the restaurant at Roadhouse in front of Elk Grove.
ITEM 5. 09:36:58 PM NEW BUSINESS
09:37:20 PM Jeff Krauss shared that he had attended the original scoping meeting with the Montana Department of Transportation for
the reconstruction of Kagy Boulevard, felt it was likely to be much more expensive than DOT is willing to spend, that the Planning
Board should have some say in that. Julien Morice sought clarification on what section of Kagy would be affected—Jeff Krauss
indicated it would be from 19th to Wilson.
09:38:16 PM George Thompson expressed interest in how progress was going on the 90 days that contractors have to work with Staff
to come up with ideas on affordable housing—Brett Potter indicated that there had been three motions, the first of which was 30 days
for Wendy to get back to them with what incentives were on the table, the second of which was for the private sector to have 180 days
to come up with solutions, and the third was to revisit it in 180 days to see if they were going to pass inclusionary zoning, that if the
private sector doesn’t step up and deliver affordable housing they will revisit it.
09:39:06 PM George Thompson was concerned that both parties should work together and worried that four months would go by to
learn that, “We can’t do it because of this side” or “We can’t do it because of that side”, felt that solutions were out there but didn’t
know what the role of the Board would be other than advisory—Chris Saunders indicated that depending on the nature of the
recommendations the Board may have a formal role in making recommendations to the Commission, described challenge where
Allison is present because Valerie who had been Project Planner and on-point for affordable housing left, felt much of the work had
been shifted to the consultants and so wouldn’t materially change the scheduling and the Commission recently amended the contract
for the consultants to have them continue to work.
09:40:30 PM Brett Potter expressed interest in Wendy’s effort to list incentives—Chris Saunders did not know where that was at,
hadn’t asked her about it.
09:41:00 PM George Thompson wanted to feel comfortable that both sides were working together so that the Board wasn’t pushed
into a corner and told they had to do I, Z, didn’t think that was the best solution—Paul Neubauer indicated that the incentives that
Brett Potter was talking about were the starting point.
09:41:21 PM Brett Potter noted that he had been in dialogue with several groups who were attempting to crack the affordable housing
nut and bring 1100 square foot detached housing single car garage with a car port for 198,500 within city limits, that the question had
been the list of incentives.
09:41:51 PM Jeff Krauss noted that what they had looked at this evening without the architectural flourishes might be part of the deal,
expressed worry that the Vice President is an architect in another state in light of the makeup of the Board, indicated he had started
getting some calls about a delayed subdivision review—Erik Garber clarified hat this had been delayed at the applicant’s request—Jeff
Krauss indicated that these calls were about setting up a meeting with the Mayor, Commissioners, and neighbors, shared as a heads-up
that they were totally quasi-judicial and once a person submits an application to the Planning Office it is done—there are no private
meetings between any member of the Board and the applicant or members of the public.
09:43:09 PM Erik Garber indicated that he had seen that and intentionally avoided the conversation, wondered whether after the
Board had acted and the quasi-judicial proceedings were over—Jeff Krauss indicated that they stayed open until the next hearing, that
in between the last hearing and the next a Board Member can not have contact with the public or the applicant unless you disclose an
ex parte communication.
09:44:08 PM Chris Saunders noted that this gets directly to the question of fairness, that there is a strong focus in the State of
Montana from the Constitution on down on transparency in public process, that a substantial part of that is that everyone hears the
same information at the same time, that as soon as the application formally walks in the door that shuts off the informal conversations,
that they can contact the Staff at any time for facilitation of that exchange but that Board Members must consider a project live if they
will see it again, that out of an abundance of caution he wouldn’t be having too many conversations until the Commission has dropped
their gavel because what happens is somebody comes and gives public testimony and then they come in and say, “Well, I was talking
to the Planning Board and the Planning Board said…”, that by virtue of the role of the Board Member he becomes the corporate entity
of the Planning Board whenever someone is talking to him individually, asked that questions be directed to Staff for access to the
public record.
09:45:52 PM Jeff Krauss described that even when he goes out to visit a site on his own he will mention in the discussion that he
went out to the site and walked it because that’s a piece of information that the Board or the public did not know.
09:47:10 PM Erik Garber introduced a point of order showing that he advised him to contact Staff.
09:47:20 PM Paul Neubauer sought clarification about when Jeff Krauss disclosed his site visits—Jeff Krauss indicated that he did so
during the discussion and felt it was a great idea.
09:47:57 PM George Thompson appreciated Jeff Krauss’ comments about who the client of the Board is and that by saying they
visited the site it shows the public that the Board is sensitive to their needs, noted that a lot of people were coming out and building
things and they are doing good stuff but that the Board needs to be sensitive.
09:48:55 PM Erik Garber suggested to George Thompson that it may be worth inviting Swimbia to ask what was on their plate but
wondered if that would go too far.
09:49:41 PM Chris Saunders updated the Board that Staff had claimed dibs on the GS department because they had hired new staff,
that they would be working on mapping updates that they had fallen behind on and they hoped to introduce new mapping products and
complete rebuilds of the web services. Shared that the RFPs for the long-range transportation plan were in hand and they were going
through the scoring process which is due by the end of the month, that at the end of that time they will hire a contractor within the next
30 days-ish, that someone should be selected by the end of April or early May. Noted that the City had obtained a grant to look at the
policy questions on the conservation overlay district, have had a program in place for a considerable amount of time but it is now time
to take a look at it and ask if this is still the way we want to be working on it, that contractor had been selected and they were
finalizing scope of services.
09:51:44 PM Jeff Krauss asked if that would come before this Board—Chris Saunders felt that Chapter 5 of the growth policy was
specific about historic preservation so there should be some connection. Jeff Krauss described North 7th Board receiving approval to
spend up to $75,000 to ditch the 3 layers of regulation governing North 7th and to write a North 7th zoning district essentially.
09:52:24 PM Erik Garber sought clarification whether this was a sub area plan—Chris Saunders indicated that they have a sub area
plan, an urban renewal plan, and zoning—Jeff Krauss added that they have entryway corridor guidelines—Chris Saunders continued
that they wanted to collapse some of those into a consolidated package—Jeff Krauss added that it could have coherent guideline
design, noted that Brett had done a number of plans in there, noted that he had asked last night if the Commission would authorize
Staff to work on an immediate resolution to remove the neighborhood conservation overlay on that part of B3 that surrounds the
historic preservation, that the Commission declined to do that but the Community Development Director had an alternative to tweak
the neighborhood conservation overlay district and remove some of the criteria when it applies to the B3 district, that they were trying
to remove the triple layer as it applies to the new downtown as opposed to the preserved-in-amber downtown and encourage density
and height and contemporary development.
09:54:05 PM Erik Garber noted that it sounded as though the Community Development Director just proposed a way to improve the
process—Jeff Krauss clarified that they had tried to make the conservation overlay area less conflicting, noted that the downtown plan
has the B3 and the 180-degrees conservation overlay, that the overlay was intended to preserve everything but that the business plan
was intended to encourage density, that they intend to remove that conflict—Brett Potter sought clarification regarding the boundary
of the zoning district—Jeff Krauss thought that on North 7th it would follow the Tiff.
09:55:24 PM Chris Saunders felt that a lot of the inherent zoning boundaries seen today were largely set in the 70s and that
expectations were different, that this is an opportunity to step back and say that life is not the same as it was in 1970, opportunities to
look at some of these historic boundaries and see if they were serving their purpose and what adjustments might be needed, noted that
the expectation of most towns in the 1970s was putting up big skyscrapers rather than fifty years later where people spend half a
million dollars on a junker and then another half a million into remodeling the junker.
09:56:55 PM Jeff Krauss indicated they weren’t going to remove anything in all the overlays in the beautiful green neighborhoods,
they were only considering B3 which is very different from the residential neighborhood surrounding it, felt it might be great to save
building, that real cities have real change.
09:57:51 PM Chris Saunders summarized that several major things were in the works but in their early stages.
09:57:56 PM Jeff Krauss felt that the Tiff may have a great template for doing what they want to do citywide and they have the
money—Chris Saunders indicated they could be used as a pilot project to see what works.
09:58:11 PM Erik Garber sought clarification whether a consultant would be hired to help collapse the regulations, what the $75,000
was for—Jeff Krauss indicated that it would be used to hire someone to write the new regulations.
ITEM 6. 09:58:29 PM ADJOURNMENT
the one old Victorian down there but they should remember that the Waldorf Astoria had been torn down to build the Empire State
will just pop in your head or you think of something after the fact, thought that Erik Garber was the person most likely to keep the