Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board - 02-02-2016 Minutes City Planning Board Tuesday, February 2, 2016 7:00pm, City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave. A. Call meeting to order Brianne Dugan – Present Chris Mehl – Present George Thompson – Present Henry Happel – Present Jerry Pape – Present Jordan Zignego – Present Lauren Waterton – Present Paul Neubauer – Present Paul Spitler – Present B. Changes to the Agenda C. 07:03:22 PM Approval of Minutes –11/17/2015; 12/1/2015 – board approves C. 07:03:58 PM Public Comment – no public comment D. 07:04:59 PM Action Items A. 07:05:01 PM 15580 – Sundance Springs Phase 1B Growth Policy Amendment – (Rogers/Kohtz) 640 and 675 Little Horse Drive An application for a Growth Policy Amendment to alter existing land use designation on 6.2294 acres from Commercial to Residential on the official Bozeman Future Land Use Map. 07:05:16 PM Tom Rogers asks the board to hold as he goes to get the presentation for this project. Board agrees to wait for Mr. Rogers. 07:07:00 PM Board breaks for Mr. Roger’s return. 07:14:11 PM Meeting called back to order. 07:14:28 PM Mr. Rogers begins presentation on Sundance Springs. 07:32:52 PM Mr. Rogers completes his presentation but asks if the board would like historical context of the area. George Thompson requests Mr. Rogers to continue with the historical context presentation. 07:38:35 PM Mr. Rogers completes second portion of his presentation on the history of the area. 07:38:42 PM Mr. Happel questions what processes would be required to move forward with dividing this lot into 4 home sites. Mr. Rogers responds it would require a subdivision and a PUD amendment. 07:41:09 PM Mr. Spitler questions why the board doesn’t have the ability to condition the approval on maintaining the open space. Tom Rogers attempts to explain, but does not feel he is qualified to answer on the level that the board is looking for. Commissioner Mehl offers an explanation. 07:43:32 PM Ms. Waterton questions what is meant by a statement on one of the maps that says “B1 zoning with underlying RS”. Mr. Rogers responds that the map is prepared by the GIS department and it is incorrect. The lot is zoned RS, but the PUD requires it to be a commercial property. 07:45:03 PM Mr. Neubauer questions how this would develop if nothing were to change – if it were to be a commercial mixed use node. Mr. Rogers explained that the PUD is very descriptive about how the area can be developed – that going through their design review program would be more stringent than going through just the City’s program. He states that it would be 6 acres, and parking would be required. He stated that there would be 5 commercial buildings between 1-2 stories. He estimates that it would be slightly less intense than what is at South Towne Square. Mr. Neubauer asks for estimates on developed vs undeveloped space if the amendment does not go through. Mr. Rogers states that it would likely be more impervious surface as it is. 07:48:46 PM Jerry Pape states that the space was supposed to be a local commercial hub – with local conveniences to create a walkable community. As it has been developed, it is no longer a walkable community. He provides history on the goals of the area when it was originally designed. 07:51:45 PM Commissioner Mehl confirmed that the nearest commercial area for this property is the South Towne Square. If this commercial area goes away, then it will be quite some time before there will be more commercial in this area. He questions why staff thinks that it would be ok to give up the commercial node – recognizing that staff put in the staff report that the area is not dense enough to support the commercial node. Mr. Rogers responds that staff did not feel that the area is not very dense and there are certain things that make a business thrive and they don’t see that in this area. 07:54:24 PM Commission Mehl responds that the schools are right in the same area and there is the possibility for development of R2 and R3 in the area. He questions if we are putting off development of commercial for another day. Mr. Rogers responds that there are a number of alternatives for where the commercial hub will go. He states that the City was given an application and based on their analysis, he has made a recommendation and it is up to the board to argue against it. 07:56:07 PM Jerry Pape states that public comment seems to support moving to residential if the development taking place matches the density of the existing homes. Mr. Pape points out that we do not have the ability to condition what type of development takes place in this area based on this application. Mr. Rogers agrees and states that we can simply send forward the recommendations received to date. 07:56:56 PM No additional questions for staff. 07:57:14 PM Presentation by applicant begins by Will Thompson. Explains why they are looking to develop the way they are and states that previously they had met with other residents of Sundance Springs to look for feedback from them. They are looking to maintain the 60/40 ratio of development to open land. He states he would like to work with the HOA to make sure the development they will present will be acceptable to them. He feels that the most viable use of this land will be RS. The owner has tried to market the property as B1 and developers have not been interested. 08:01:22 PM Paul Neubauer states that having served on the board for a while, he has seen many of these commercial nodes dissolved. He questions if when having conversations with the community in that area, if there is commercial use that they would like to see. Mr. Thompson – applicant – responds that they did research on roof counts and traffic counts, and it just doesn’t seem like a viable area, commercial is more attracted to the North 19th area. 08:03:49 PM Jordan Zignego questions the statement that land use experts they have consulted to conclude that the commercial hub would not work in this space. Applicant responds in more detail about why they don’t see commercial working in this space. 08:06:44 PM George Thompson reminds the board to question the applicant and hold comment to the end. 08:07:01 PM Mr. Happel asks if the applicant got any feedback about what it would take to make these properties viable commercial properties. Applicant responds that they looked back to other properties to see how long it took other areas to reach the level where they could develop a commercial center. In addition, he noted that developers are hesitant to develop on B1 given the restrictions. 08:08:39 PM Mr. Spitler questions if the applicant was committed to maintaining the 60/40 ratios that are in the current development. Applicant responds that they were interested in developing according to the maintaining the character, so if the 60/40 was a requirement for the whole community, they would abide to that. 08:09:19 PM Jerry Pape questions how they may utilize unusual pieces of property with regards to the waterway going through there. The applicant responds they have already set that aside as open space and facilitates the trail system. 08:10:39 PM George Thompson questions if the proposed change was made, how many homes – according to the existing PUD – could be developed on the site. Applicant responds that they originally were looking at about 6 homes per lot, but are currently looking at more like 8. They may reduce the number of homes on the lot that has the open space to allow for more open space. 08:12:13 PM George Thompson questions how large the lots would be. Applicant responds that it would be about 1/3 acre per lot. 08:12:47 PM Jerry Pape questions if they are looking to replicate the density across the street from his property – as it is considerably denser. Applicant agrees that his project would be less dense. 08:13:54 PM Questions for applicant ends. Opens for public comment. 08:14:18 PM Public Comment – John Mills – 418 Peace Pipe Drive – He expresses no concerns with this becoming residential. He is just concerned with maintaining the 60/40 open space ratio, because they will have equal share of the open space. He is just taking the word of the developer that they will work with the community. 08:16:55 PM Kelly Gaisford – 340 Peace Pipe Drive. – She welcomes the residential proposal. She is not against commercial either, given the original proposal. However, she doesn’t take the word of the applicant – she appreciates what he is proposing as long as he sticks to his word and sticks to the PUD. 08:22:05 PM Tim Swanson – 375 Peace Pipe Drive – Points out that to break the 60/40 ratio, 2/3 of the community members would need to agree with it – and the community would not agree to that. He is nervous that the developer will come to them and request higher density. He suggests the developer work with planning staff to make sure he is in compliance. He states that the development holds up their end of the bargain with maintaining their space – even though the general public takes advantage of their open space. 08:26:42 PM Close of public comment and discussion of the board. 08:27:25 PM Commissioner Mehl reminds the board to focus on the initial request to rezone the land – and that the public comment received will help guide the commission on their decision. George Thompson restates his suggestion. 08:28:20 PM Paul Neubauer states that when he first saw this, he thought it was not a great place for a commercial node. He made suggestions on other places that may be better suited. He stated that thinking about it more though, he begins to wonder how far individuals will need to go to get necessities and when a new commercial node may appear – if at all. He recognizes that rezoning this now, will likely change it to residential forever. As a result he will likely vote to keep it commercial. If a new local node emerges, then he would support changing it to residential at that time. 08:30:25 PM Jerry Pape states that this is a county/city interface, and so it could be easy to make a piece of property that’s being annexed into the City a commercial node in a better location. He states that he doesn’t think this particular property meets the requirements that most companies would have to build commercially there, whether they hold on to it for 10 years and increase density, or not. He shares Mr. Neubauer’s concerns, but thinks with the amount of annexable land around it, that it will find another commercial node. 08:33:10 PM Chris Mehl states that he is willing to take the risk with transferring this to residential given the information presented in the meeting. He states that a commercial node will be coming and that growth will be coming to that area eventually. 08:35:41 PM Mr. Happel states that it’s the goal of the community to create connectivity and by getting rid of this commercial zone, you will loose the opportunity for that connectivity. But he states that Mr. Pape’s arguments were convincing and there is room to correct it if it is a mistake. 08:37:16 PM Ms. Waterton states that she really believes in the goals of the City to create these commercial nodes. However, she looks at the density of that area and doesn’t see it increasing any time soon. She doesn’t see that this is the right place at the right time. 08:38:45 PM Paul Neubauer states he is prepared to make a motion. 08:38:57 PM George Thompson states that these commercial nodes are important. He wants to point out the impact of getting rid of them. He states that any of the residents there could open an office there. He sees that there is higher density right near the sight, and he sees the proposal here and it is for much lower density. He states that he regularly sees developers come to the board with a project they want to do on a project, but that is not zoned accordingly. He states that he is not that sympathetic, because it has been zoned that way for years. He sees the property in the area and thinks that as the area begins to develop more and the infrastructure is put into place that more land owners in the area will begin to develop and it will become a viable spot. As a result, he will be voting against it. 08:43:32 PM Motion by Paul Neubauer: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment and all information presented. I hereby adopt the finds presented in the staff report and recommend approval of the growth policy amendment application number 15-580 with contingencies. Second by Jerry Pape 08:44:01 PM Paul Neubauer speaks to his motion. He states that he tries to come prepared and flexible hearing all of the comments. He has seen a number of locations where turning the commercial node into residential was a bad idea, and rarely does it go in the other direction, but hearing the input from Mr. Pape and Commissioner Mehl, he feels that there might be a better spot for it – he thinks the density is there. So, he will support he amendment. 08:45:58 PM Jerry Pape states that he has a lot of hours into this area. He appreciates that the homeowners have come together and spoken about what they want and advise them not to be too jumpy about what has been presented, because the developer is still trying to figure that out himself. He hopes that the commission will create whatever types of conditions they have the power to make, in addition to the PUD to create something that everyone will be happy with. He stated that they need to start thinking about what is going on in the area around them, because it will be developing and then need to be aware so they can be engaged in those conversations. 08:48:04 PM Mr. Happel states that the motion indicates the board is approving the project with contingencies. He questions whether the contingencies should be added to the motion. 08:48:34 PM Commissioner Mehl states that it is an option, but that by referencing the staff report, it is covering the contingencies. 08:48:46 PM In favor: Brianne Dugan, Jerry Pape, Paul Neubauer, Jordan Zignego, Paul Spitler, Lauren Waterton, Henry Happel, Chris Mehl Against: George Thompson Motion Passes 8-1 08:49:16 PM Board breaks for presentation by Chris Saunders. 08:56:16 PM Meeting brought back to order. B. 08:56:27 PM Consider revised and updated bylaws to confirm to recommended best practices and procedures (Saunders) 08:56:44 PM Chris Saunders begins presentation on the new bylaws and board information for new board members. 09:08:53 PM Paul Neubauer questions what prompted the rewrite. Mr. Saunders responds that it was a comprehensive thing City-wide. Mr. Neubauer clarifies that the appointments to the board will remain on the same schedule. Mr. Saunders confirms that yes, the appointments to the board have remained the same. Paul Neubauer states that on page 4 and 5 there are duplicate paragraphs. Board decides it’s a friendly amendment to adjust that. 09:10:12 PM George Thompson questions if there is a means of submitting their schedules for when they will be out of town to ensure a quorum is present for important items. Mr. Saunders states that they can definitely make an effort to contact the board in the event of a big project and likewise, the board should contact us if they know they will not be around for a meeting. 09:11:54 PM Ms. Dugan questions the changes made to the conflict of interest section. Previously it listed examples. Mr. Saunders states that it was simply a list of examples and does not apply to all situations. In addition, there is a formal ethics training program that covers that information more comprehensively. 09:12:34 PM George Thompson informs the new board members that the ethics training is an online program and questions when that would need to be completed. Mr. Saunders states that typically that happens in April or May. 09:13:37 PM Mr. Happel questions if this was prepared by the City Attorney. Mr. Saunders stated that it was largely prepared by the City Attorney, but is edited slightly from board to board. Mr. Happel then questions if they will be voting to approve the bylaws. Mr. Saunders responds that they will vote to recommend them and the City Commission will approve them. 09:14:20 PM Mr. Happel questions the obligation to vote unless there is a conflict of interest. He states that some things are clearer than others and questions how to handle situations where the City Attorney states there is no conflict of interest, but the voting party might think there is. Mr. Saunders states that the voting member could always just not attend the meeting. Commissioner Mehl states typically conflict is very narrow and he recognizes that it may sometimes be awkward socially, but that is the nature of the position. Board continues discussion regarding conflict of interest. 09:18:19 PM Jerry Pape states that he disagrees with the part of the bylaws where it states that if new appointments have not been made that the existing members must continue to serve. He states that members agree to a two year term, the City should not compel them to serve additionally. He also points out that commissioners may remove commissioner appointed members “for a reason”, while mayors can remove mayor appointed members without reason. He feels that should be made parallel. Commissioner Mehl indicates that the way he reads the bylaws, they will only be asked to continue to serve if they are willing, but he would have the other commissioners confirm that at a future meeting. 09:20:43 PM Mr. Happel expresses concerns with section 9B of the bylaws. He doesn’t feel the section really gets to the point. He indicates, that he’s aware it is saying the board cannot e-mail regarding an issue – as that is still a public meeting. He suggests other wording that may be more to the point to achieve the goal. 09:22:28 PM Mr. Saunders states he understand the concern and that perhaps they could include a “purpose statement” that indicates what they are trying to achieve through the regulations. 09:23:03 PM Jerry Pape states that he feels it would be beneficial to have specific examples. 09:24:34 PM Mr. Neubauer moves to delete section E on page 5 of the bylaws. (friendly amendment) Board unanimously agrees. 09:25:55 PM Mr. Neubauer moves to adopt the new bylaws presented by Chris Saunders with comments made by the board. Jerry Pape Seconds Board unanimously agrees. 09:26:28 PM Appointment of a Chair and Vice Chair – Mr. Thompson notes that a new chair and vice chair would be appointed at the next meeting, so he encourages the board to consider giving that some thought for the next meeting. E. 09:27:01 PM FYI/Discussion 09:27:09 PM George Thompson mentioned that last year the board had taken on some initiatives and looking back, he doesn’t feel they went anywhere. He feels the board needs to take a look into these things. He states he spoke with Commissioner Mehl and there will be a strategic plan that will start in the Spring. In addition, the UDC is in the process of being rewritten and they encourage input on that. Commission Mehl states that a UDC event will take place in the Commission room on February 9th, and encouraged board members to come out. Board asks for clarification on what the UDC is – Commissioner Mehl clarifies and gives background to the project. 09:30:33 PM Mr. Thompson mentions that another big project is an updated community plan. Mr. Saunders indicates that the project is currently seeking funding and is expected to be funded during FY17. 09:31:04 PM Mr. Happel questions why we will be seeking funding and whether a consultant will be hired for this. Mr. Saunders states that will not be finalized or not yet, but regardless, it will be a significant task and will require funding. Board continues discussion regarding funding and the project. 09:32:19 PM Chris Saunders mentions that the Transportation Plan is also going to be updated and provides additional information regarding the project. He indicates that the water plan is in the process of updating as well. 09:33:30 PM Mr. Neubauer questions who is working on the water project and the timeline on that. Mr. Saunders stated it is underway and Mr. Heaston in the Engineering department is working on that. Mr. Neubauer questions if there will be an advisory board for that project. Mr. Saunders states that the report will be presented directly the City commission, but that there will be drafts available for public comment. 09:34:39 PM Commission Mehl mentions that there will be an introductory session for new members. Mr. Saunders indicates that we will be in touch by e-mail. F. 09:35:15 PM Adjournment For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-3207 (TDD 582-2301).