HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHB Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application
Report compiled on June 8, 2009
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CHB Properties Minor Subdivision
Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat, #P-09001
MEETING DATE: Monday, June 15, 2009
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission conditionally approves the CHB
Properties Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat application for a two-lot minor subdivision as
recommended in Planning Board Resolution #P-09001.
BACKGROUND: CHB Properties, LLC, represented by Gaston Engineering and Surveying,
has submitted a Subdivision Preliminary Plat application for a Second or Subsequent Minor
Subdivision from a Tract of Record to divide 3.157 acres into two manufacturing & industrial
lots. The subject property is generally located at 1750 Evergreen Drive and described as Tract
B-1-A of Certificate of Survey No. 156D located in Northwest One-Quarter of Section 6,
Township 2S, Range 6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.
No variances to the Unified Development Ordinance are being requested with this application
and no public testimony or opposition to the minor subdivision has been received by the
Planning Office. The City of Bozeman Planning Board held their public hearing on June 2,
2009, and after receiving no public testimony on the matter, voted 7-0 to recommend approval
with the conditions outlined in Planning Board Resolution #P-09001.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The Planning Office is not aware of any unresolved issues for the
proposed minor subdivision at this time.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased
property tax revenues, along with increased costs to deliver municipal services to the property,
when the property is developed.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Dave Skelton at dskelton@bozeman.net or Andy Epple at
aepple@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to the public hearing.
APPROVED BY: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Attachments: Applicants Application, Staff Report, Planning Board Minutes and Resolution
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CHB PROPERTIES LLC MINOR SUBDIVISION FILE NO. #P-09001
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 1
Item: Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-09001 --- an application for preliminary plat review of a Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record to divide approximately 3.157 acres into two industrial lots zoned “M-2” (Manufacturing and Industrial District)
Owner/Applicant: CHB Properties, LLC
269 Jackrabbit Lane Bozeman, MT 59718-9487
Representative: Gaston Engineering and Surveying, PC
P.O. Box 861 Bozeman, MT 59771 Date/Time: Before the Bozeman Planning Board on Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in
the City Commission Meeting Room, New City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman, Montana.
Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, June 15, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Commission Meeting Room, New City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The property in question is located south of the intersection of East Griffin Drive and Evergreen Drive
and is legally described as Tract B-1-A of Certificate of Survey No. 156D, located in Northwest One-
Quarter of Section 6, Township 2S, Range 6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The
property is presently zoned M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial District) and is commonly referred to as
1750 Evergreen Drive. Please refer to the vicinity map provided on the following page.
194
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 2
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Pursuant to Section 18.06.040 of the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning
Board shall review the preliminary plat application to determine if the proposed plat is in compliance or
noncompliance with the adopted Growth Policy. The Planning Board shall act to recommend approval,
conditional approval or denial of the preliminary plat application. The Board shall then provide advice
and comments to the Bozeman City Commission for its consideration at its Monday, June 15, 2009
public hearing. Planning Board Resolution #P-09001 and minutes of the Planning Board’s June 2, 2009
meeting will be forwarded to the City Commission and made a part of the Commission’s record.
The City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development Office, Development
Review Committee and other applicable review agencies have reviewed the Preliminary Plat
application, and as a result recommend conditional approval of the preliminary plat application with the
following conditions outlined below:
City Engineer’s Office:
1. New water and sewer services for Lot 2 shall be installed, or financially guaranteed, prior to Final
Plat approval. Building permits will not be issued prior to installation of the services.
2. The sewer service for Lot 2 shall be run from the existing 21” diameter main.
3. The existing lift station, forcemain, and gravity sewer connection on the site shall be brought into
conformance with applicable requirements of the adopted Uniform Plumbing Code and City Design
Standards. This work shall be completed, or financially guaranteed, prior to Final Plat approval.
195
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 3
Planning Office:
4. Applicant shall provide with the final plat application a written summary addressing on the
conditions of approval have been met, both specific and code provisions outlined in the staff report,
as well as related code provisions provided by the City Engineer’s Office and Planning Office. The
final plat shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Bozeman Municipal
Code. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not
specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other
relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
5. Water rights, or cash-in-lieu thereof, as calculated by the City Engineer’s Office, is due with the
final plat of the minor subdivision.
6. Any waivers for area Special Improvement Districts or infrastructure paybacks identified by the
City Engineer’s Office shall be addressed with the final plat application.
7. Section 18.42.060.B “Private Utility Easements” – If a utility easement is greater than the building
setback required by the U.D.O. (sanitary sewer easement) a note to that effect shall be placed on the
final plat and/or final site plan. If a shared access road is proposed between Lot 1 and Lot 2, the
required yard setback shall be taken form the edge of said easement for Lot 2. Utility easements
must be clearly shown on the preliminary plan and the preliminary plat application will need to
provide written comment from all utility companies that the development can be adequately served
with said easements proposed.
8. The “As Built” exhibit provided with the preliminary plat application shall remain on file for
further reference. However, the final plat shall exclude all reference to existing structures,
impervious surfaces, and physical features.
9. Development of Lot 2 will require compliance with the regulatory standards of the Unified
Development Ordinance is it relates to lot coverage, setbacks, parking, etc. As the lot-to-length
ratio is almost 1:3 the ability to maximize building-out of the proposed second lot is limited.
10. Consideration should be given to a perpetual shared access easement between Lot 1 and Lot 2 to
improvement the egress/ingress points along Evergreen Drive as well as the interior circulation for
both lots.
PROPOSAL
The property owner, CHB Properties, LLC, represented by Gaston Engineering and Surveying, has
submitted a preliminary plat application for a Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of
Record to subdivide 3.157 acres and create two manufacturing/industrial lots for further development.
The site is situated adjacent to the east boundary of Evergreen Business Park Subdivision and west of
the Burlington Northern/Rail Link railroad right-of-way. Interstate 90 is approximately 300 feet to the
south and East Griffin Drive is approximately one-quarter mile north of the parcel in question. The
subject property is partially developed; containing the existing structure formerly occupied by Cardinal
Distributing, and is currently zoned “M-2” (Manufacturing and Industrial District). No physical features
196
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 4
(i.e., water courses, wetlands, outcroppings) or mature vegetation has been identified on the site being
considered.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Burlington Northern/Rail Link railroad right-of-way zoned M-2 (Manufacturing and
Industrial District).
South: Lot 10, Evergreen Business Park Subdivision zoned M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial
District) and Interstate 90 right-of-way.
East: Burlington Northern/Montana Rail Link railroad right-of-way zoned M-2 (Manufacturing
and Industrial District) and further east manufacturing and industrial lands zoned M-1 (Light
Manufacturing District).
West: Evergreen Business Park Subdivision zoned M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial District).
BACKGROUND
The site in question is currently located in the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman and is occupied
by an existing industrial building (formerly known as the Cardinal Distributing facility). The 39,470
square foot structure is partially leased to Wayfare, an organic food manufacturing and distribution
operation, with plans for future expansions at the present site. The applicant/landowner currently has an
“indefinite term lease” for a portion of the adjacent Burlington Northern/Montana Rail Link right-of-
way of which the majority of the existing building presently occupies.
This application for a Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record is to create a
second lot for marketing as a parcel of land for sale or leased property of similar uses permitted under the
M-2 zoning designation.
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates the property to develop as
“Industrial”. The “Industrial” land use classification provides areas for heavy uses which support an
urban environment such as manufacturing, warehousing, and transportation hubs. Development within
these areas is intensive and is connected to significant transportation corridors. In order to protect the
economic base and necessary services represented by industrial uses, uses which would be detrimentally
impacted by industrial activities are discouraged. Although use in these areas is intensive, these areas
are part of a larger community and should meet basic standards for landscaping and other site design
issues and be integrated with the larger community. In some circumstances, uses other than those
typically considered industrial have been historically present in areas which were given an industrial
designation in this growth policy. Careful consideration must be given to public policies to allow these
mixed uses to coexist in harmony.
197
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 5
PRELIMINARY PLAT SUPPLEMENTS
A pre-application plan review was evaluated in October of 2008. The Development Review Committee
and other applicable review bodies considered the pre-application and discussed the need to improve the
existing lift station, force main and infrastructure that currently service the site, as well as consideration
of shared access easements, setbacks, lot coverage, lot-to-width ratio, and site building limitations. The
applicant requested with the pre-application review waivers from the materials required by Section
18.78.060 “Additional Subdivision Preliminary Plat Supplements” of the UDO. After consideration of
the applicant’s request, limited physical features in the area, and current land use patterns the
Development Review Committee (DRC) granted the requested waivers finding that the information
provided with the Evergreen Business Park Subdivision immediately to the west was adequate.
STAFF FINDINGS/REVIEW CRITERIA
The basis for the City Commission’s decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision
shall be whether the preliminary plat, Planning Board advise and recommendation, and additional
information demonstrates that development of the subdivision complies with the Unified Development
Ordinance, the City’s growth policy, the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and other adopted state
and local ordinances. The Montana Subdivision and Platting Act established six primary review criteria,
which the governing body must also consider when evaluating subdivisions. Planning staff, the DRC,
and other reviewing agencies have made comments in relation to those and other criteria as described
below, and have recommended conditions as outlined in this staff report.
A. Primary Review Criteria
1. Effects on Agriculture
The site in question is situated in area that has historically developed with industrial and
manufacturing uses, as well as other comparable uses as the petroleum terminal bulk plant to the
northwest and rental warehouse facilities east of the Burlington Northern railway right-of-way.
The property does not currently support agricultural uses and therefore is not a viable site for
farming purposes.
2. Effects on Agricultural Water User Facilities
No effects on agricultural water user facilities were identified.
3. Effects on Local Services
Water/Sewer. City water and sewer services currently exist in Evergreen Drive and are capable
of servicing the two-lot minor subdivision. Placement and location of water and sewer service
connections for Lot 2 will be further addressed by the City Engineer’s Office during site plan
review development of the lot. The City Engineer’s Office notes that the existing lift station,
force main, and gravity sewer connection on the site will need to be brought into conformance
with applicable requirements of the adopted Uniform Plumbing Code and City Design Standards.
Police/Fire: The property is well within the City’s Police and Fire emergency response area.
Streets. Evergreen Drive and Griffin Drive currently service this industrial area and will provide
access to the two-lot minor subdivision. No improvements to the local street, Evergreen Drive,
198
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 6
or the minor arterial road, Griffin Drive, are anticipated with this application. However, to limit
the number of egress/ingress points onto Evergreen Drive the Planning Staff is recommending
that the applicant consider establishing a shared access easement between the two lots.
Pathways: The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan does not identify shared pedestrian/bicycle
pathways in proximity to the proposed minor subdivision. However, a proposed boulevard trail
is identified for consideration with future improvements to Griffin Drive. Because the area is
designated appropriate for industrial development, sidewalks have not been required with local
street improvements. This includes the Evergreen Business Park Subdivision to the west.
Stormwater. A Stormwater Master Plan for street runoff was not required with the two-lot
preliminary plat application. However, stormwater runoff facilities will be evaluated to meet
City design standards with site plan review for development of Lot 2 and will require the
approval of the City Engineering office.
Parks. No public parkland requirements are necessary with the industrial subdivision.
Utilities. As this is a subsequent subdivision of an existing subdivision lot electricity, gas, cable
and phone utilities currently exist on the subject property.
4. Effects on the Natural Environment
A noxious weed control plan prepared by the applicant was reviewed and approved by the
Gallatin County Weed Control Office on October 6, 2008. Prior to final plat approval the
County Weed District will verify that said weed control has been implemented as prescribed in
the management and revegetation plan.
5. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
No known endangered species or critical game ranges have been identified on the proposed
subdivision. Historical use of the property as industrial lands and no evidence of mature vegetation
or physical features (water courses, wetlands, etc.) essentially reduce the potential for
development of any wildlife habitat. Therefore, no significant effects on major wildlife game and
their habitat should occur as a result of the proposed minor subdivision.
6. Effects on Public Health and Safety
The intent of the regulatory standards as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance of the
Bozeman Municipal Code is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The
subdivision has been reviewed and determined to be in general compliance with the title. No
watercourse, associated wetlands, or floodplain boundaries have been indentified on the site in
question. Any conditions deemed necessary to ensure compliance have been listed by the
Development Review Committee and are noted accordingly as conditions of approval in this
staff report.
a. 18.42.060.B.1.a “Private Utilities” – The final plat and/or association documents shall
contain a note stating that if a utility easement is greater than the building setback required
by the U.D.O. said easement shall apply. .
199
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 7
b. 18.42.120 “Mail Delivery” – An off-street area for mail delivery shall be provided if mail
delivery will not be to each individual lot within the development.
B. Compliance with the survey requirements provided for in Part 4 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act.
The property in question has been surveyed and platted in conformance with the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act and filed as a preliminary plat in accordance with the state statute
and the Bozeman Municipal Code. C. Compliance with the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
The following requirements are standards of the Unified Development Ordinance and shall be
addressed with the final plat submittal:
1. In accordance with UDO Section 18.42.060, all easements, existing and proposed, shall be
accurately depicted on the final plat.
2. The final plat shall conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance and the Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats and shall be accompanied
by all required documents, including certification from the City Engineer that as-built
drawings for public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and
correct certificates. The final plat application shall include four (4) signed reproducible
copies on a 3 mil or heavier stable base polyester film (or equivalent); two (2) digital copies
on a double-sided, high density 3-1/2" floppy disk; and five (5) paper prints.
3. Pursuant to Section 18.06.040.D.6, conditional approval of the preliminary plat shall be in
force for not more than one calendar year. Prior to that expiration date, the developer may
submit a letter of request for the extension of the period to the Planning Director for the City
Commission’s consideration. The City Commission may, at the written request of the
developer, extend its approval for no more than one calendar year, except that the City
Commission may extend its approval for a period of more than one year if that approval
period is included as a specific condition of a written subdivision improvements agreement
between the City Commission and the developer, provided for in §18.74.060, BMC.
4. Pursuant to Section 18.74.030.B, if it is the developer’s intent to file the plat prior to
installation, certification, and acceptance of all required improvements by the City of
Bozeman, an Improvements Agreement shall be entered into with the City of Bozeman
guaranteeing the completion of all improvements in accordance with the Preliminary Plat
submittal information and conditions of approval. If the final plat is filed prior to the
installation of all improvements, the developer shall supply the City of Bozeman with an
acceptable method of security equal to 150 percent of the cost of the remaining
improvements.
5. Pursuant to Section 18.06.060, the applicant shall submit with the application for final plat
review and approval, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary
plat approval has been satisfactorily addressed, and specifically (tab, page, paragraph, etc.)
where this information can be found.
6. Pursuant to Chapter 18.30 “Bozeman Entryway Corridor Overlay District” Lot 2 of the minor
200
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 8
subdivision is located in the I-90 entryway overlay corridor and therefore the provisions for a
Certificate of Appropriateness would apply at the time of development of said lot.
D. Compliance with the required subdivision review process.
A subdivision preapplication was submitted on August 21, 2008. The pre-application was
reviewed by the DRC on October 16 and October 23, 2008 and summary review comments
forward to the applicant in preparation of a preliminary plat application.
A preliminary plat application was submitted on March 05, 2009 and the required completeness
letter was sent on March 16, 2009. The preliminary plat was reviewed by the DRC on March 15,
April 1, and April 8, 2009. The applicant requested an extension to the 60-day review period to
reschedule the hearings before the Planning Board and City Commission. On the final week of
DRC review, a favorable recommendation was forwarded for consideration by the Planning
Board and City Commission. Public notice for this application was placed in the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle on Sunday, May 3 and May 10, 2009. The site was posted with a public notice on
May 8, 2009. Public notice was sent to adjacent property owners via certified mail, and to all
other property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property via first class mail, on
May 8, 2009. No letters of public testimony have been received at the Department of Planning
& Community Development in regards to this project.
On May 26, 2009 the minor subdivision staff report was drafted and forwarded with a
recommendation of conditional approval to the Planning Board for consideration at its June 2,
2009 public hearing. The City Commission is scheduled to make a final decision at the June 15,
2009 public hearing. The final decision for a Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a
Tract of Record Preliminary Plat must be made within 60 working days of the date it was
deemed complete or in this case by June 11, 2009. However, an extension to the 60-day review
period was requested by the applicant due to scheduling conflicts.
E. Provision of easements for the location and installation of any planned utilities.
All public and private utilities access the site from the Evergreen Drive 60-wide utility and
access easement. A 25-foot sanitary sewer easement currently exists along the southern portion
of the property (shared by Lot 10 of Evergreen Business Park Subdivision) that contains a 21-
inch sewer main to service this area. A 30-foot sanitary sewer easement crosses the site
diagonally in proximity to Evergreen Drive that services the existing development of the site and
will limit the development of any structure(s) in the area of Lot 2. A detailed plan of utility
locations and associated easements is required as part of the civil drawings necessary during site
plan review.
F. Provision of legal and physical access to each parcel.
The proposed lots will have legal and physical access from the existing private road, Evergreen
Drive.
201
CHB Properties, LLC Minor Subdivision Staff Report - #P-09001 9
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Office has received no public testimony from the general public regarding the two-lot
minor subdivision. Any public comments received after the date of this report will be distributed at the
public hearings.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Based on staff's evaluation of the applicant’s proposal against the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and
Unified Development Ordinance, the Development Review Committee (D.R.C.) has forwarded a
recommendation of conditional approval of the application for Preliminary Subdivision Plat review of
the two-lot minor subdivision for Tract B-1-A of Certificate of Survey No. 156D, with said
recommended conditions of approval provided at the beginning of this staff report (pages 2 thru 4).
THE BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD WILL FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION WHO SHALL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS
APPLICATION. THE DECISION OF THE CITY COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED BY
AN AGGRIEVED PERSON AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18.66 OF THE UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
Encl: Applicant’s preliminary plat submittal materials
CC: CHB Properties, LLC, 269 Jackrabbit Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718-9487
Gaston Engineering & Surveying, P.O. Box 861, Bozeman, MT 59771
File No. P-09001
202
1
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the
Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning
Cathy Costakis David Skelton, Senior Planner
Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Erik Henyon, Vice President
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell, President
Chris Mehl
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Donna Swarthout Bob Hietala
Bill Quinn Dennis Foreman
Sally Hickey
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{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 public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion of
the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of February 18,
2009 with corrections. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice
President Henyon, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those
voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REIVEW
1. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-09001 (Cardinal MiSub) - A
Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application for a Second or Subsequent Minor
Subdivision from a Tract of Record on behalf of the owner, CHB Properties, LLC,
and the representative, Gaston Engineering, to allow the subdivision of 3.157 acres
into two lots for M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial District) development. The
property is located at 1750 Evergreen Drive and is legally described as Tract B-1-
A of Certificate of Survey No. 156D, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.
(Skelton)
203
2
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report on behalf of Senior Planner David
Skelton noting the location of the project and a description of what was being requested with the
application.
Dennis Foreman stated the application was a second or subsequent minor subdivision and
explained the proposed layout of the subdivision.
Vice President Henyon asked how the building had been permitted straddling the lot line.
Assistant Director Saunders responded the structure had been built when Building Permit
requirements allowed a lease agreement to be in place to allow the building to straddle the lot line.
Mr. Mehl asked the depth of the water table in that location and if any public comment had been
received regarding the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders deferred the depth of the water
table question to Mr. Foreman and responded that no public comment had been received for the
proposal. Mr. Foreman responded the depth of the water table was about 20 feet, several pits
dug on site show no ground water in them.
Vice President Henyon asked where access would be located. Assistant Director Saunders
responded the access would be off of Evergreen Drive.
Mr. Sypinski asked if Certificate of Appropriateness review would be included in the Site Plan
review for the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Certificate of
Appropriateness would be required.
President Caldwell noted that water/sewer could be financially guaranteed until Final Plat
approval and asked why the lift station had been included for financial guarantee. Mr. Foreman
responded the lift station had been required to be completed prior to Final Occupancy for an
existing building on the site.
President Caldwell opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Seeing no public
comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed public comment.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinksi seconded to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission with Staff conditions and the amendment suggested by Ms. Costakis if
she desired. Ms. Costakis declined to include her amendment. The motion carried 7-0. Those
voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms.
Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. A public hearing to present the draft Economic Development Plan prepared by
Prospera Business Partnership and City of Bozeman. Discussion on integration of
the Plan into the Growth Policy. (Saunders)
Assistant Director Chris Saunders noted that the meeting was a public hearing for the proposed
204
3
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
document.
Bob Hietala, Prospera Business Network, introduced Peter Bertleson and Cherlyn Wilcox. He
stated he would give a quick overview of the Plan and mention some of the integration techniques
planned for the document to be included in the Growth Policy. He noted the three outcomes of
the Economic Development Plan and stated the collaboration of public and private partnerships
would be mentioned throughout the document. He stated the Economic Development Advisory
Committee had met once or twice a month and they had been a diverse group which had
recognized the diversity in the community; he noted the research process utilized had been to
analyze comparable cities, had gathered local economic information, and had conducted a survey
to gauge Bozeman’s economic needs as well as conducted 34 in-person interviews. He stated the
introduction to the Plan included the impetus to create the Plan and discussed the economic
backdrop. He noted the past growth of Bozeman and recent economic downturn and that had
both been included in the document.
Mr. Hietala stated the second section contained the economic vision and values and the language
had been taken from the Growth Policy. He stated strengthening and diversifying the local
economy had been included as well as the creation of higher paying jobs. He stated the profile
was a snapshot of the local economy and contained demographics including; population,
employment and workforce trends, land use, etc. He stated the level of entrepreneurship in the
community had also been addressed. He stated industry sectors had been specific to Bozeman
and included technology, retail, tourism, hospitality, etc. He stated Gallatin Field had emerged as
an economic partner for the business community and had been recognized as an excellent level of
air service for the community. He stated construction was the third largest employer for the City
and had been hit hard by the recent down turn in the community. He stated MSU was the
economic anchor for the community with government being the largest employment sector. He
stated there were a surprising number of non-profit organizations providing employment within
the City. He stated an economic development analysis had been done as different factors
identified different impacts from businesses. He noted the economic development survey results
had been included in the document to provide service and amenity ratings. He stated a large
venue for statewide conferences was identified as a need for the community.
Mr. Hietala noted rankings from other questions from the survey and those ratings. He reiterated
the ratings for the final fifteen questions and added that the downtown business area had been one
of the top eight priorities for the community. He stated improvements to infrastructure,
technology transfer, and expanded vocational and certification job training had been among the
top eight priorities as well.
Mr. Hietala stated the next section of the Plan contained the SWOT analysis of the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in the community. He stated the development of the goals
and strategies had taken quite some time and noted what each goal was while noting that each
goal contained six to eight specific strategies. He stated there was a strong recognition that there
was a young population with a highly educated workforce. He stated the fourth goal was
included in most every Economic Development Plan and recommended looking at local, state, and
federal economic resources. He stated the fifth goal suggested collaboration between the business
205
4
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
community and the City and to see if there was a way to make the regulatory environment more
efficient. He stated the last goal was to maintain the high quality of life as it was an asset to the
business community.
Mr. Hietala noted the last section, section 8, contained the priorities and responsibilities for the
City.
President Caldwell opened the item for public comment. Seeing no public comment forthcoming,
President Caldwell closed public comment.
Ms. Smith asked for more information regarding the on-line survey; where it was located, who
responded to it, etc. Mr. Hietala responded notice had been placed in the Chronicle and the
Chamber of Commerce, MSU, and other groups had distributed the survey with no specific group
targeted so no specific demographic identified. Mr. Mehl added he had sent the survey to the
Planning Board as well as other groups. Ms. Smith suggested she would like to be certain that
people in other areas of the work force had been encouraged to participate and not just business
owners. Assistant Director Saunders responded a public service announcement had been sent out
and a link had been included on the City website. Mr. Hietala added that the TV had also done an
interview and there were slight differences in responses from different sources, but they were
generally pretty close.
Mr. Sypinski asked Mr. Hietala to expand more on the suggestion of a liaison from the City for
economic responsibilities and community development. He suggested his experience had been
that the City Manager or another member of City Staff had not historically been included. Mr.
Hietala responded he was not sure if the model had occurred in Montana but thought someone
should be the main contact for the City and sit on the Economic Board.
Ms. Costakis stated the document had included that one of the more positive things was the
quality of life with the parks and recreation being one of the more positive things as well. She
suggested there was some language missing as quality of life had not been specifically identified.
She suggested differentiating the aspects of quality of life by including the necessity of planning to
maintain the quality of life. Mr. Hietala stated the Planning & Development process was seen as
needing addressed, but the Plan did not detail how those items would need to be addressed as it
should be dealt with in a separate process. Ms. Costakis suggested seeing what Planning was
seen to be inhibiting would have been helpful.
Mr. Sypinski stated there was a lot of discussion regarding tax increment finance districts in place
already in the City and asked if the current processes had been found successful. Mr. Hietala
responded that those specific incentives had not been discussed and had been left general.
Vice President Henyon stated he found the report very informative with a lot of good detail that
he enjoyed reading. He noted the document seemed to need to go one level deeper to answer the
“how” goals would be accomplished. He noted on page 2-1 the vision was discussed and then the
values; he asked how higher paying jobs would be created for example. He stated on page 3-30
he thought there should be another bullet point at the bottom to include the language “green job
training” such as solar or wind technology. He stated on page 3-36 the workers compensation
206
5
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
rates were of great concern, but no method on how to accomplish those goals had been included.
Mr. Hietala responded workman’s compensation was a great example of framing the issue
without specifically citing the issue as the City’s responsibility.
Vice President Henyon stated the TIF districts should be better utilized but no guidance had been
included. Mr. Hietala responded that a fair amount of time, resources, and development would
have to go into that level of specificity for those types of projects; he noted the Committee had
concurred that those items would need addressed and had identified that there should be a Board
or Committee in place to deal with each individual issue. Vice President Henyon stated health
care had been mentioned and had included expansion of the emergency room, raising the trauma
level, etc. which would take money; he noted all of the ideas would go back to the Planning
process but should include ways to facilitate those changes. Mr. Hietala responded that on the
job certification and training side there would be opportunities, but that was as far as the
discussion had gone. Vice President Henyon stated one weakness in the survey results was that
the Planning process had ranked as one of the lowest priorities and suggested there should be a
clear and predictable planning process evident in the Plan. He asked how the micromanagement
at the Commission level could be halted to provide for a predictable way for businesses to come
to the City. Mr. Hietala referred Vice President Henyon to page 7-5, goal 5, which was the
Committee’s language that had been included as the method of intent to address possible
micromanagement issues. Mr. Mehl added that proper planning would enhance long term value,
but a process would need to be clear, consistent, and concise so a blend would need to be
accomplished. Vice President Henyon stated that Legends @ Bridger Creek had been approved
by Staff and the Planning Board while the City Commission had ultimately modified the design of
the infrastructure at the cost of the applicant. Mr. Mehl responded that particular issue had been
addressed in the document.
Vice President Henyon asked if there was any way to measure the implementation of the
document and suggested the use of timelines and benchmarks throughout the document. Mr.
Hietala responded timelines had been included in implementation, but there was no real way to
make specific recommendations on general goals. Vice President Henyon asked if there had been
any ordinances that had stood out that should be modified to encourage businesses to come to
Bozeman. Mr. Hietala responded that level of detail had not been included but some ordinances
had been identified. Vice President Henyon suggested making North 7th Avenue an impact fee
free zone or giving leases to businesses on Mandeville lane to relocate businesses and encourage
development. He stated the Chamber of Commerce had developed an Economic Development
Committee and had proposed to bring together the business neighborhood that should be
recognized by the Commission, provided a Commission liaison, and would provide
recommendations to the City. He stated the implementation matrix included the City Manager’s
Office and should instead reflect that the City be the supporting partner and the primary partner
be the community members. Mr. Hietala responded the Economic Development Council language
included in the Plan was the intent of the recommendation.
Mr. Becker stated that a lot of what had been addressed by the Planning Board had been
addressed during the process of compiling the Economic Development Plan and a lot of the
207
6
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
implementation would depend on the economic advisory body. He stated things change and there
was a dynamic economy so the Plan would need to provide the ability for the City to decide how
to implement those goals. He stated social capital, with the role of volunteerism, seemed to be
missing from the Plan and there were a significant number of community members involved in
non-profit organizations. He stated he was not sure the City should be the lead on economic
issues, but if they didn’t, then who would. He stated the adoption and motion tonight would
reflect the Board’s concerns.
Ms. Smith asked where the service industry would fit in to the Plan; she noted she meant low level
daily services such as lawn care, beauty salons, etc. Mr. Hietala responded that under
employment and workforce those services were included and the industry sectors focused more
on retail, healthcare, technology, etc. Ms. Smith stated that left her wondering where the entry
level workforce was in the Plan and stated that element of the workforce was missing. Mr.
Hietala responded the economic profile and unemployment information addressed that element of
the workforce and noted the labor statistics had changed dramatically. He noted entry level
workers seemed to be something that was being taken care of in Bozeman. Ms. Smith stated she
thought it was unfair to put so much of the responsibility on the City of Bozeman; she noted the
City and County were not part of their hurdles when she and her husband had purchased their
business and the most difficult thing for them had been financing.
Mr. Mehl thanked Prospera for presenting the Plan. He stated a variety of groups had been
contacted and had not decided to participate. He stated the Economic Development Plan’s
concern was for the whole of Bozeman and individual task forces would be more specific as to
methods and implementation strategies. He noted the balance between the City and the
community would be hard to achieve and the Plan was to encourage the City to promote the Plan
as a whole.
President Caldwell thanked everyone for their time in review and thanked Prospera for their
diligent work and time on the taskforce. He noted it was incumbent on the Board for them to
track the Community Plan and the implementation strategies with outreach to the public and
private sectors to provide methods by which the goals could be implemented. He stated that
without a clear indication that the City was ready to promote economic development, it would be
difficult to encourage people to participate.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for the Economic Development Plan with detailed Planning Board
minutes.
Mr. Sypinksi suggested implementing the Economic Plan as an appendix to the Growth Policy,
but as that was not possible he suggested references to the Plan be included throughout the
document. He suggested discussing the implementation of the Plan into the Growth Policy.
President Caldwell asked if the edits as part of the three bullet points in the Staff Memo had been
approved by the Commission. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would explain which
208
7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
edits would need to be discussed after the motion had been formalized.
Ms. Costakis asked how the objectives in chapter 8 of the Community Plan and the Economic
Development Plan would relate. Assistant Director Saunders responded the goals and objectives
in the Economic Plan were specific to that Plan and the Growth Policy goals and objectives would
meld the two together, though there would be some differences; he added that some crossover
language had been proposed.
Mr. Becker suggested the resolution of adoption include language for the immediate organization
of an advisory board for the Economic Development Plan. Vice President Henyon asked if the
Commission would be amenable to the existing Chamber of Commerce committee being that
advisory board. Mr. Mehl stated he was in favor of forming the advisory board, the City should
form it, and he thought it would be a mistake to highlight that advisory board specifically as the
Plan should stand as a whole. The Board concurred that none of the advisory bodies should be
specifically required to immediately organize. The motion carried 6-1. Those voting aye being
President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski.
Those voting nay being Vice President Henyon.
Mr. Sypinski suggested the Economic Development Plan should be included as an appendix to the
Growth Policy. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Commission had voted on some of
the language to be included in Chapter 8 of the Growth Policy and listed those items. He stated
that the missing pieces in the Growth Policy to further integrate the Economic Development Plan
would be included as a formal amendment to the Growth Policy to include those items and it
would have to go through the Commission review process as some of the items had not been
included in their previous action.
Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of why all of the changes had not been presented to the
Commission. Assistant Director Saunders responded the modifications the Commission had
approved were amendments that the Commission themselves had requested and listed those
amendments; he added that the Planning Board had not reviewed all of the proposed edits in the
Economic Development Plan and Staff was allowing time for those to be reviewed as well. The
City Commission had not yet received the Economic Development Plan.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Vice President Henyon seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for the proposed edits to Chapter 8, including clearly identifying
the Economic Development Plan, the Downtown Plan, the North 7th Avenue Plan, and the
inclusion of TIF’s map and any other extraneous changes staff deems necessary. The motion
carried 6-1. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr.
Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being Ms. Smith.
President Caldwell stated he had a problem with specific references to the Economic
Development Plan sections and chapters throughout the document. Mr. Sypinski suggested
referencing the document as a whole instead of sections and chapters. Mr. Mehl suggested a link
could be provided to the document for reference instead of distinct chapters and sections.
209
8
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
Mr. Sypinski stated the Downtown Neighborhood Plan had not been included in either the
Growth Policy or the Economic Development Plan. Vice President Henyon responded references
to the Downtown Plan had been included as well as other renewal districts and the North 7th Plan.
President Cladwell suggested clearly referencing all the Plans in the front of the Growth Policy.
Vice President Henyon stated he was supportive of the proposed amendments.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
President Caldwell reminded the Board that Thursday, June 18, 2009 there would be a
presentation of the Downtown Plan and suggested members attend. He stated he thought it
would be a great opportunity to understand how to help downtown businesses. He noted there
would be other presentations and he would forward times and locations to the Board. He
reminded the Board of the roundtable discussion with the Commission on Thursday, June 4, 2009.
Mr. Mehl asked President Caldwell to poll the members on what they would like to discuss.
Vice President Henyon stated he would like feedback on what the future mayor’s agenda would
be and suggested it was a matter of predictability. President Caldwell suggested the Board focus
their time with the Commission regarding implementation policies of the Growth Policy related to
UDO edits. Ms. Costakis asked who had called the meeting. President Caldwell responded he
had requested the meeting some time ago. Assistant Director Saunders responded there would be
two items on the agenda and he was not sure which item would be first. President Caldwell
suggested communication between the City Commission and the Planning Board should be the
main topic.
Ms. Costakis suggested the meeting should have been discussed quite a while ago if the Planing
Board had instigated the meeting; she suggested she would like to discuss in-fill development and
the importance of design to make sure the development would fit in and be well done. She added
in-fill done right could be a positive; otherwise backlash from the community would be inevitable.
President Caldwell concurred that those dialogs would be good for discussion; he noted there
would be an opportunity to see how other changes to the code could promote and encourage the
Growth Policy. Ms. Smith concurred that the UDO should more strongly support the Growth
Policy and should be discussed with the Commission.
Ms. Costakis suggested parking be discussed. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had
already been looking into parking.
Mr. Mehl asked for clarification on how the Growth Policy had been adopted; he suggested it
seemed that 99% of the document had been approved. Assistant Director Saunders responded
Mr. Mehl was close with the 99% adoption and stated there had been a few changes to the map
on the east and west ends of Main Street. He noted there had also been a change to rename
future urban to present rural. He stated the definition of suburban residential had been changed to
include subdivision outside of the City “80% or more built-out”. He stated the Commission had
210
9
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
decided that the supermajority vote was too small for a proposed amendment. Mr. Mehl added
Mr. Rupp and Mayor Jacobsen had added language. Assistant Director Saunders noted that none
of the goals or objectives from the Planning Board had been modified. Mr. Mehl asked Mr.
Saunders to explain the contrary votes. Assistant Director Saunders responded the change to
residential from future urban near Story Mill Road had prompted two Commissioners to vote in
opposition.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting
at 9:28 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
211
CHB Properties Minor Subdivision – Planning Resolution No. P-09001
1
CHB Properties MiSub RESOLUTION #P-09001
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD ON A
RECOMMENDATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT MINOR SUBDIVISION FROM A TRACT OF RECORD TO DIVIDE 3.157 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY
ZONED “M-2” (MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT) WHICH
IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1750 EVERGREEN DRIVE, AND DESCRIBED AS TRACT B-1-A OF CERTFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 156D, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 6, T2S, R6E, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a Master Plan pursuant to 76-1-604, M.C.A.;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the
Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A., and a jurisdictional area created
under 76-1-504, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, CHB, Properties, LLC, represented by Gaston Engineering and Surveying,
submitted a Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application to divide 3.157 acres of land into two lots
on property described as Tract B-1-A of Certificate of Survey No. 156D, located in the Northwest
One-Quarter of Section 6, Township 2S, Range 6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application has been properly
submitted, reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the procedures of Section 18.06.040 of the
Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 2,
2009, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for said Minor Subdivision
Preliminary Plat Application; and
WHEREAS, no written testimony has been received by the Planning Office and no public
testimony was presented before the City of Bozeman Planning Board on the matter of the preliminary
plat application; and
WHEREAS, members of the City of Bozeman Planning Board discussed depth to
groundwater, street access, Certificate of Appropriateness with future development, and infrastructure
improvements required with subdivision review; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board, on a vote of 7 to 0, recommends conditional
approval of Planning Application No. P-09001 for the two-lot minor subdivision with the conditions
outlined in the staff report of the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community
Development; and
212
CHB Properties Minor Subdivision – Planning Resolution No. P-09001
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Planning Board, on a vote
of 7 to 0, recommends approval to the Bozeman City Commission to divide 3.157 acres of land into
two lots on property described as Tract B-1-A of Certificate of Survey No. 156D, located in the
Northwest One-Quarter of Section 6, Township 2S, Range 6 E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin
County, Montana, be approved with the following conditions:
City Engineer’s Office:
1. New water and sewer services for Lot 2 shall be installed, or financially guaranteed, prior to Final
Plat approval. Building permits will not be issued prior to installation of the services.
2. The sewer service for Lot 2 shall be run from the existing 21” diameter main.
3. The existing lift station, forcemain, and gravity sewer connection on the site shall be brought into
conformance with applicable requirements of the adopted Uniform Plumbing Code and City
Design Standards. This work shall be completed, or financially guaranteed, prior to Final Plat
approval.
Planning Office:
4. Applicant shall provide with the final plat application a written summary addressing on how the
conditions of approval have been met, both specific and code provisions outlined in the staff
report, as well as related code provisions provided by the City Engineer’s Office and Planning
Office. The final plat shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Bozeman
Municipal Code. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are
not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other
relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
5. Water rights, or cash-in-lieu thereof, as calculated by the City Engineer’s Office, is due with the
final plat of the minor subdivision.
6. Any waivers for area Special Improvement Districts or infrastructure paybacks identified by the
City Engineer’s Office shall be addressed with the final plat application.
7. Section 18.42.060.B “Private Utility Easements” – If a utility easement is greater than the
building setback required by the U.D.O. (sanitary sewer easement) a note to that effect shall be
placed on the final plat and/or final site plan. If a shared access road is proposed between Lot 1
and Lot 2, the required yard setback shall be taken form the edge of said easement for Lot 2.
Utility easements must be clearly shown on the preliminary plan and the preliminary plat
application will need to provide written comment from all utility companies that the development
can be adequately served with said easements proposed.
8. The “As Built” exhibit provided with the preliminary plat application shall remain on file for
further reference. However, the final plat shall exclude all reference to existing structures,
impervious surfaces, and physical features.
9. Development of Lot 2 will require compliance with the regulatory standards of the Unified
213
CHB Properties Minor Subdivision – Planning Resolution No. P-09001
3
Development Ordinance is it relates to lot coverage, setbacks, parking, etc. As the lot-to-length
ratio is almost 1:3 the ability to maximize building-out of the proposed second lot is limited.
10. Consideration should be given to a perpetual shared access easement between Lot 1 and Lot 2 to
improvement the egress/ingress points along Evergreen Drive as well as the interior circulation
for both lots.
DATED THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2009, Planning Resolution #P-09001.
____________________________________ _________________________________
Andrew C. Epple, Planning Director Erik Henyon, Vice President
City of Bozeman, Department of City of Bozeman Planning Board
Planning & Community Development
214