Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-07 Planning Board Minutes.doc **MINUTES** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 2007 7:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Acting Chair, Dave Jarrett called the meeting to order at 7:45 PM and asked the secretary to record attendance. Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Jarrett, Vice President and Acting Chair JP Pomnichowski, President (excused) Brian Caldwell Ed Sypinski (excused) William Quinn Randy Carpenter Caren Roberty Erik Henyon Steve Kirchhoff, Commission Liaison Staff Present: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Walt Banziger, Facilities Planning, Design & Construction, MSU Victoria Drummond, MSU Chuck Hinesley, Hinesly Development Matt Cotterman, C & H Engineering Chris Budeski, GVRE & Development 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 there was none, Dave Jarrett closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 17TH, 2007. Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, Brian Caldwell moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Erik Henyon. All in favor, motion passed 5-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Subdivision Pre-Application #P-06068 (Laurel Glen, Phase III & IV). A Major Subdivision Pre-Application requested by property owner and applicant, Hinesley Development Company, LLC, and representative, C & H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. to allow the subdivision of 68.912 acres into 140 single household lots and 4 multi-household lots on property legally described as Lots 2 & 3, Minor Subdiv. No. 201, SE1/4 of Sec. 4, T2S, R5E of PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton) Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Dave Skelton gave his staff report. He noted this application has been submitted by C& H engineering. This is a pre-application that was submitted to DRC, Planning Board, and the City Commission in order to receive direction and advice to prepare for the Preliminary Plat application. Planner Skelton noted the property consists of 68+ acres of agricultural land. This application is proposing 144 mixed use acres consisting of 140 Single Family Residences and 4 multifamily lots. He added this totals 265 dwelling units or 4.52 units per acre. Mr. Skelton stated that in 2002, phase one and two was approved by the City Commission with several conditions and their request for an extension on the plat approval has been granted. He noted the UDO has changed quite a bit since the prior phases were designed so this application for phase three and four has been designed to accommodate these issues. GVLT is recognizing the creek running through this as an open space corridor. Planner Skelton noted there is an artificial pond which will be reclaimed and mitigated by GVLT to be included as part of the park land requirements. Dave Skelton added the applicant wanted to address the goals of the 2020 plan, so they have eliminated cul-de-sacs that were originally proposed in 2002. There is now more connectivity in phase III and they have added more parkland to meet the new UDO requirements. They have also incorporated RSL's into this plan in order to meet with the UDO. Planner Skelton noted there are numerous variances that are being requested by the applicant such as block lengths that exceed the standards laid out in our City ordinances which will be addressed by the City Engineers office. There will be a minor encroachment request for the watercourse setback of Baxter creek. He stated the City Planning Office is supporting a partial waiver of the supplemental information with the preliminary plat application. The Planning office is recommending that Emmanuel Way be a straight line down south through to Durston. He stated that Annie Street is not identified as a collector according to our Transportation Plan, but it is being used as a collector. It has been designed as a collector. Dave Skelton noted the biggest issue will be the dedicated parkland because when this was reviewed in 2002, the parkland requirements according to the UDO were different and now the applicant needs an additional 2 to 4 acres. He added there is a recommendation by the Parks and Recs Advisory Board to achieve that additional parkland on the eastern fringe between the Rosa Subdivision and Laurel Glen. He closed his presentation by stating the applicant is aware there are changes that need to be made before a formal application is submitted. Questions for Staff: Dave Jarrett asked Mr. Skelton about the status of Durston Road, to which he responded the current SID goes down Durston to Fowler and he is not sure what the Engineering department is going to recommend during the preliminary plat process. Erik Henyon asked Mr. Skelton for an update on the ground water monitoring. Planner Skelton replied the developer has been monitoring it, however there is an issue from the building department as to whether or not a partial or full basement can be built. He closed by stating the City will get an updated ground water report with the preliminary plat application. Brian Caldwell asked what the timeframe is for getting the preliminary plat through and Mr. Skelton answered the sooner it comes in, the better. If too much time passes, the City Attorney could ask to see another application. Erik Henyon asked if the applicant and staff have discussed any solutions to the parkland requirements. Mr. Skelton responded the applicant has some alternatives, of which, cash in lieu is an option. Mr. Henyon wondered if Bronken Park has Recreation Fields and Mr. Skelton noted they have soccer fields, however it is not a ‘true neighborhood park’ for Laurel Glen. Bronken Park is a good for organized activities. Applicant Presentation: Chuck Hinesley, 3663 Durston Road, is the applicant and noted he has no further comments, but is available for questions. He stated they are going back and trying to redesign this project since the Laurel Parkway design has been completed. Mr. Hinesley closed by stating the design the board is looking at presently is the one they came up with to tie into these streets and recognized there were some areas that needed to be revised. Questions for Applicant & Discussion: Brian Caldwell asked Mr. Hinseley if he has been kept abreast to any action taken on by the affordable housing task force in hopes that his design team has addressed this. Mr. Hinesley replied his team does not have anything to present at this time. He added his firm has been the premier builder for affordable housing under a $100,000 and sold all 64 condos they had built. Mr. Caldwell noted there is a potential opportunity to offset the parkland requirements with affordable housing, however this has not been approved just yet. Dave Jarrett asked Mr. Hinesley what his plans were with the pond on that property and Mr. Hinesley responded they plan on filling it in and will no longer be there. Mr. Jarrett stated the applicant could do is end Glen Ellen Drive at Christian Drive so no one individual crosses one of the creeks or trails and they could move the retention ponds a little further to make the park a little bit bigger. Mr. Hinesley stated he is willing to look at all the alternatives and noted he has to take on a new process of calculating parkland so they can arrive at a number all parties can agree on. Erik Henyon stated the applicant is asking for 8 variances. He suggested one of the variances could be addressed by accessing Lionheart from Oak by making this a right in, right out access way. He added that there is much traffic on Oak and making a left seems to be difficult to accomplish. Mr. Jarrett noted this possibility would still require a variance. Mr. Henyon asked if the newer map addressed the issue of constructing a roadway within 50 feet of the wetlands. Matt Cotterman noted this has been addressed in the new map. Mr. Henyon closed by asking Mr. Hinesley to make sure they address the vacant land and see what they can design with the wetlands before they submit a formal application. Caren Roberty asked the applicant what part of the plat will the RSL’s be on and Mr. Hinesley replied they will be using some of the low end condominium construction as affordable housing and this area will be located in the smaller lots of phase three along Glen Kirk and Emmanuel. Ms. Roberty stated it would be nice to scatter these RSL’s around the subdivision and around the park. Steve Kirchhoff asked the members of the board if they saw the rendition drawn up by Rob Pertzborn. Mr. Jarrett stated Mr. Pertzborn’s version addresses everything except Annie Street and there was a proposed pathway to the park instead. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted he thought this plan proposes some nice suggestions for fine tuning and is hopeful that the applicant would take Mr. Pertzborn’s ideas into consideration. Dave Jarrett noted that before the applicant proceeds any further with another submittal, the issue of the intersection at Annie and Laurel Parkway needs to be addressed with a different design to accommodate the anticipated traffic. Commissioner Kirchhoff commented that he is aware this is a work in progress as it is in its informal stage and encouraged the applicant to keep working with staff to find a good resolution. He added he is hopeful that Rob Pertzborn’s rendition will help to assist all the areas the City feels needs to be addressed. He closed by recommending the applicant continue to move in the direction they are currently in. Brian Caldwell stated that there are a lot of existing conditions with Rosa Way that make it hard to achieve a positive result. He closed by noting that Annie Street is a collector and it pleases one portion of the alignment but added there seems to be a lot of infrastructure to develop on such a small part or land and suggested the applicant consider a more efficient use of infrastructure. Dave Jarrett closed the discussion portion of the meeting by stating he felt the applicant has a good project and could end up with a few more lots than originally planned. He noted the connectivity and parkland adds amenities to this subdivision and feels that overall, this is going to be a great development plan. ITEM 5. PRESENTATION MSU Long Range Campus Development Plan – A presentation by Walt Banziger to introduce the proposed long range campus plan. This will serve as a guideline to preserve the university’s history and advance its future aspirations. Presentation: Walt Banziger, the director of facilities planning, design and construction at MSU stated they started on this project a while. He stated that Victoria Drummond is in attendance and assisted on this project. Mr. Banziger noted that his team started on this project with open public forums, state representatives for the University, and various other groups over a year ago. During that time, they gathered information from these groups and he, Victoria Drummond, Bob Lashaway, a consultant, and two reps from the MSU architectural planning department studied these results to campus open space. Mr. Banziger stated the purpose of this plan is to preserve MSU’s history and create a dynamic campus a dynamic campus that people want to explore, walk through, and enjoy. He added they wanted to make this transition from City Scape to Campus Scape. In regards to the design concepts, the challenge was to find a way to extend Centennial Hall. They approached this by looking at entry points and at major buildings. In the future, MSU will have 4.4 million gross feet of building space and are currently looking to increase that by another million. Mr. Banziger noted that right now, MSU is looking at creating 1 ½ million square feet of additional building space. He stated this plan is a 75 to 100 year plan as it will take about that long to lay out all the framework and Infrastructure for MSU’s future. There are only a couple of options as to where they can expand; to the west or to the south. He noted they plan to take the academic core down along College where the family residency housing units are and take them through to 19th, this will allow for a front academic core along College. Soldier buildings (Service buildings) and Hero Buildings (Library and Student centers) would be located here. He added that west of 19th, past Fowler, would be the new proposed housing district for faculty, family, and graduate housing. This could help create housing in hopes of recruiting staff for MSU. In looking at connecting Centennial Hall, MSU would connect to the future residential area west of Fowler. They anticipate creating a nice bike path and walking connector from that residential area. Mr. Banziger noted they would take the existing streams running north/south, and create another walking path/bike path. He stated that with the Bozeman Gateway development just to the North of the proposed residential area, they felt it would be a good dynamic to help support that development. At College and 19th, they are looking at developing some conference centers or community center that could help serve both MSU and the community. Mr. Banziger noted they are putting recreation fields in several areas; by the Field House, by the Museum of the Rockies, just east of 19th, and another very north of Kagy. There will be a bridge connector across 19th and it will be challenging. MSU is also looking at adding new bus routes to alleviate the campus traffic. Although 11th seems to be the main entry point today, 19th is becoming more of the entry point and Garfield might be where the new entry will be off of 19th. The campus has multiple parking lots and their plan is to develop pedestrian oriented parking areas with garages right off of 19th and Garfield and remove the parking areas that are currently off of 11th. They would like to create a shuttle service from the proposed residential over to the campus and use the bus to transit people around campus instead of driving and adding more traffic to the congested areas of concern. Langford and Johnstone Centers are centers that have been identified as historical facilities that need to be upgraded. Johnstone Center will go away so people can see up to the University all the way to Montana Hall. With the Langford buildings, the first floor would be recreated to be commercial areas like bookstores, MSU apparel stores, and coffee shops. Mr. Banziger noted that this process is already taking place across the street at The Pickle and Joe’s market. He then asked the board for suggestions or any comments they would like to provide. Dave Jarrett asked what they plan on doing with the large parcel of land to the south of Garfield, but west of 19th. Walt Banziger replied this area is about 500 acres of empty land and since this is a college of agriculture, this has been identified for their continued programs with the agriculture department. Mr. Jarrett suggested that if they move that parcel to the east, the residents in the proposed living area would not have to walk so far to campus. Mr. Banziger responded MSU does not have the ability to purchase any extra land and they must use their own land. He added that this large portion would be a protected agricultural plot for the MSU students to use for their studies and would create a buffer zone between the residential segment and the campus. A large portion of this land is wetlands and MSU wants to preserve them. Bangor Creek would be an amenity if they are successful in bringing it to the surface since it is covered by shrubbery. The bridge going over 19th would have a park-like area that would be a gateway to the campus onto Garfield. Dave Jarrett asked Mr. Banziger what their enrollment figures are currently to which he answered MSU has about 12,500 and with their five growth plan, it will be over 13,000. Mr. Banziger stated they expect their growth rate to be about 3% and by the next 25 years, about 20,000 students will be added. Erik Henyon noted there is significant growth throughout the country, yet there seems to be a lack of aggressiveness with this project. He added that he is just surprised this plan spans over 75-100 years. He asked why MSU would want to take so long in building an academic campus to attract additional students. Mr. Henyon stated that if financing is their concern, the University of Virginia raised $250 Million in donations, so it is possible. Walt Banziger responded it will all depend on how much can be raised and noted MSU is looking at over 1 million square feet of building space added over that long amount of time. Brian Caldwell asked if MSU needs to meet a level of enrollment before this long range campus plan can commence. Mr. Banziger stated that the University needs to revisit this subject about every five years or so to meet the needs of the demands and make the necessary modifications. Ultimately, it just depends on what happens to MSU over the next 10 years. Mr. Banziger noted this plan was only able to predict the types of buildings needed for housing, administration, and academic. He added that MSU wants to create higher density on campus before spralling outside the campus limits. Caren Roberty asked if MSU plans on keeping the duck pond. Mr. Banziger confirmed that MSU will keep it. Erik Henyon stated that the university in Wyoming uses a tunnel system and noted that MSU could adopt that same concept because the climate is similar. Mr. Banziger responded this is not a bad idea, but in Bozeman, this underground tunnel will interfere with current infrastructure and high ground water. He added that MSU hasn’t really thought of that plan and were just looking at trying to design and grow the eclectic style for the campus. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Seeing there was no new business before the board, Vice President and Acting Chair, Dave Jarrett closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Jarrett adjourned the meeting at 9:08PM. ___________________________________ __________________________________ Dave Jarrett, Vice President and Acting Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director of Planning City of Bozeman Planning Board City of Bozeman *City of Bozeman Planning Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a special need or disability, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).