Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-07 Planning Board Minutes.doc ** MINUTES ** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, COMMUNITY ROOM, GALLATIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 WEST MAIN STREET TUESDAY, MARCH 6TH, 2007 7:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairman Pro Tempore, Randy Carpenter called the meeting to order at 7:55PM and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present: Members Absent: Randy Carpenter, Chairman Pro Tempore JP Pomnichowski (excused) Brian Caldwell Erik Henyon (excused) Caren Roberty Steve Kirchhoff, Commission Liaison Ed Sypinski William Quinn Staff Present: Andrew Epple, Director of Planning and Community Development Jody Sanford, Senior Planner Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Sean Becker, Commission Liaison Guests Present: Kenneth R. MacDonald Eugene Graf Erin Graf Jim McKenna Heidi Graf KC Cassidy Jerry Smania Mike Nornemann Steve Wagner WW Locke Lowell Hirlermar Ross Taylor CG Kress Stephen Johnson Harley Huestis Jason Leep Tom Schmidt Paul Brock Rick Meis Leonard J. Baluski Noah Poritz Joyce Hynes Bart Manion Shereen Brock Meagan Snodgrass Larry Cloninger Dexter Wester Carol Wester Colleen O'Quinn Matt Merrill Susan Bolgiano Kathy Hayner Donald McBride Chuck Paden Diane Wheeler Brad Ebel Martha Wheeler Frank Munshower Nicolas Grochowski Al Lien Cheryl Ridgely Carol Anderson 00:05:40 [19:55:39] ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) Seeing there was none, Randy Carpenter closed this portion of the meeting. 0:06:00 [19:55:56] ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21ST, 2007 Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections, Brian Caldwell recommended approval of the minutes, seconded by Bill Quinn and Ed Sypinski. All in favor, motion passed 5-0. 0:06:23 [19:56:09] ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Growth Policy Amendment Application, #P-07003 (Cornerstone) - A Growth Policy Amendment Application requested by the owner, Alan Fulton, and applicant, Covenant Investment LLC, and representative, Intrinsik Architecture, to change the land use designation set by the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan from Future Urban to Residential for 40 acres of land just southwest of the existing Laurel Glen Subdivision. This property is legally described as Tract 1 and 2 of COS No. 1581, NW ¼ , NW ¼, Section 9, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. (Bristor) Associate Planner Allyson Bristor stated the applicant has withdrawn the Growth Policy Amendment, it was withdrawn today, March 6th, 2007. Therefore, there will be no presentation tonight. 2. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, #P-07004 (Baxter Meadows PUD, Phase IV) – A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the owner and applicant, Baxter meadows Development LP, and representative, PC Development to subdivide ~67 acres into four lots for further subdivision on property legally described as Lot 4A-1, COS 2202B, in the SE ¼ section 34, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Windemaker) 0:07:46 [19:57:39] Staff Report Lanette Windemaker, contract planner, gave the staff report. The applicant is requesting to divide 67 aces. This is an unusual subdivision request. Ms. Windemaker noted the City has agreed to accept this request with the provision that there will be nothing developed on these four lots until the rest of this area is subdivided. She stated this parcel is located west of the West Winds subdivision and on the southeast corner of Baxter Meadows subdivision. There has been no public comment submitted to date. There are standard provisions and on page 9 of the staff report and there are five conditions of approval. Contract Planner Windemaker stated the City has agreed to delay the water rights until the rest of the property is subdivided. She closed her portion of the report by noting this is in the Baxter Lane signal payback district. 0:11:43 [19:57:48] Questions for Staff Bill Quinn asked Ms. Windemaker if this project is a minor subdivision and she replied that technically, it is five lots meaning it is a minor subdivision. However, this is a re-subdivision so this application gets thrown into the major subdivision review process. Brian Caldwell asked how conditions one and three would relate to site plan development. Planner Windemaker no site plans will be allowed, but they will have to come forward with a subdivision review process. They may have a site plan concurrently with that, however it is possible to see one lot subdivision review. Randy Carpenter asked Ms. Windemaker to expound on the Baxter Lane Signal payback district. She responded it is a small amount of all of Baxter Meadows is included in, it is based on acreage and based on the final plat. It was based off of the improvements made off of Baxter Lane and established during the time of annexation. Brian Caldwell asked how this would be affected with any new SID's. Planner Windemaker stated there aren't any SID's they are involved in. This is the only payback district that engineering said they were included in. 0:14:46 [20:02:01] Applicant Presentation Harley Huestis representing PC Development stated the basic purpose of this application is to get it ready for further subdivision. They are working with Baxter Meadows Development to develop the park south of Baxter Lane. This is just a legal remedy to transfer land so they can move forward with the subdivision development. 0:16:23 [20:05:02] Discussion Brian Caldwell stated it seems like there is a bit of housecleaning with the configuration of the road and it seems to have transpired with the regional park. He closed by stating this remedies the boundary description of the property as well as its ability to be transferred. He noted this is an agreeable item and the Planning Board should move forward with a recommendation of approval. 0:17:11 [20:05:20] Motion and Vote Brian Caldwell moved to recommend approval of PUD Application #P-07004 with conditions as recommended by staff, seconded by Caren Roberty. All in favor. Motion passed 5-0. 3. Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Application, #P-07007 (The Knolls at Hillcrest PUD) – A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Application, with relaxations, to allow concurrent construction for an 80-lot major Subdivision that received preliminary plat approval on July 24, 2006. This application would also permanently protect 3.7 acres of open space in the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan planning area by transferring the right to develop 12 homes to the nearby Bozeman Deaconess Health Services (BDHS) Subarea Plan planning area. The first 3.86 acre property is legally described as Lot 2 of Certificate of Survey No. 203 and a portion of Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 1557, NW¼, SE¼ of Section 18, T2S, R6E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, is located at 1417 South Church Avenue and 425 East Lincoln Street. The second 31.56 acre property is legally described as the south portion of Tract 1, COS 2047, E½ of Section 18, T2S, R6E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana, is located just south of the existing Aspen Point complex at 1201 Highland Boulevard. (Sanford) 0:18:25 [20:07:30] Staff Report Senior Planner, Jody Sanford, gave the staff report. She stated the applicants are seeking no changes in the layout of the subdivision. This project received preliminary plat approval last July. They want to do a planned unit development to achieve concurrent construction approval. They are also trying to get two PUD relaxations from Sections 18.44.060.D and Section 18.74.020.B of the UDO which is related to the level of service standards for street intersections. The City does not allow a level of service below level D. There are some issues at Highland and Kagy that need to be addressed. Planner Sanford stated they would be required to put in a right in, right out at that intersection. Staff is supportive of granting this relaxation because there will only be minimal construction traffic impacts to the current neighborhood using that route. The improvement agreement relaxation is not supported by the Engineering Department and Planning Staff is recommending denial of this relaxation. The applicants are proposing to satisfy their performance points by proposing open space and protecting a small amount of open space in the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood. Ms. Sanford noted this proposal wants to transfer development rights out of the Soman property in the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood. She stated they would be adding nine lots in locations previously approved for open space in the Knolls property in exchange for the Soman Property. Planner Sanford stated they have received two letters of public comment. One letter is from a New Hyalite View resident which opposed the addition of these lots. The other letter was from GVLT and they had some recommendations. Senior Planner Jody Sanford stated the only two conditions were that the PUD be approved with the relaxation of Kagy and Highland intersection, and the second relaxation be denied. If the Planning Board approves the lots that will be transferred for development rights, she asked they pass on their recommendations about height blockage of the proposed development and the obstruction of view. 0:27:24 [20:08:21] Questions for Staff Ed Sypinski asked Planner Sanford about the TDR itself, he wanted to know if that applies to townhome units or acreage. If it is units, the original plan was much lower than 12 units and asked how that applies to this transfer. She responded Soman Development was initially proposing 12 units, but it was denied. Ms. Sanford noted that Planning Staff is not looking at this in a unit per unit transfer, but as an acre for acre transfer. Brian Caldwell followed up on Mr. Sypinski's thoughts. He wanted to know if the acreage based on the net buildable lot area or the gross acreage. Ms. Sanford stated they are proposing to protect that entire 3.83 acres of the Soman property by the Bozeman Creek. This area is actually larger than the property in the Knolls property. This would leave us with a net gain of open space. Mr. Caldwell ask if the reason why staff is recommending denial of the improvements agreement by the applicant is due to the length of time and relation in dealing with MDT for this area. Ms. Sanford stated that since the applicant will have to go through MDT, they know this will take a long time and the developers do not want to wait that long to get started on this project. Not supporting the relaxation request; we need to treat all developers equally. It was more of an equity issue from the Engineering Department. Ms. Sanford stated that during the review process of the original Knolls project, the applicant did a traffic impact study, but these specifications are not being reviewed in a timely manner. She stated the improvements that need to be made, need to be made for the subdivision. It is important to bring this to the Planning Board because it involves two neighborhood plans and subdivisions. Caren Roberty asked for clarification about concurrent construction. She wanted to know what staff's rationale if for thinking it would be okay to achieve approval at this time. Planner Sanford stated that in this case of concurrent construction, the Hillcrest Group is going to be in charge of overseeing the subdivision improvements, they will be doing all the building themselves and will not be selling individual lots. Ms. Roberty asked if there anything in this proposal that deals with the impact on the neighborhoods. Ms. Sanford replied the applicant cannot receive occupancy permits until all the infrastructure is completed. Therefore, there will not be any residential traffic until the streets are done. She closed by stating the City has requirements in place regarding construction routing and cleanliness that will help with these concerns. Bill Quinn stated that in the improvement procedure that allows street improvements, staff is recommending denial of this. He wanted to know the difference between Highland and Kagy infrastructure improvements versus what is considered concurrent construction at the Knolls site. Ms. Sanford the only problem the City has with everything the applicant is proposing to do at this site, is that Staff feels like the plans at Main and Highland could end up bringing drastic changes that MDT would require the Hillcrest Group to add to their plans. Randy Carpenter wanted to make sure the Board is clear on the PUD application because it is somewhat convoluted since it has been eight months since the subdivision was approved. He stated that the applicant should limit the building heights on those nine additional lots that could obstruct the views of the New Hyalite residents or that those nine lots possibly be moved someplace else. Mr. Carpenter asked if there has been any discussion on this subject with the applicant. Planner Sanford stated the applicant is only looking at getting approval from the Planning Board of these modifications to their original subarea plan. She added that the next pre-application process, there is significant reduction in the original density proposed. She closed by stating the Board can make recommendations during the pre-application process. Ms. Sanford stated that this application is only dealing with the modifications to the subarea plan. Suggestions on how to better deal with those nine lots can be addressed during the subdivision pre-application which is the next item to follow. 0:43:26 [20:08:31] Applicant Presentation Jason Leep representing PC Development, the Bozeman Deaconness Health Services Group, and the Soman Development group. He stated this is a unique application. The Edgewood Townhouse project would have left a bad taste in the community's mouth because the townhouses could have been brought forward as a potential legal conflict and the neighborhood was very uncomfortable with the eight proposed units next to the Bozeman Creek. He stated the Manion and Sobrepena family withdrew their prior application in November 2006 and looks forward to the outcome of this application. Mr. Leep stated the Deaconness Group was contacted about a transfer of development rights. He added they are trying to advance the goals of the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan, trying to get the Manion and Sobrepena Families to realize the value of their property, and Deaconess is trying to proceed with its project through the lengthy MDT process. Mr. Leep stated there are three recipients who benefit in this proposal; the City of Bozeman gets their open space and trail goals advanced, the Soman Group receives the fair market value for their land and improved neighbor relations, and the Bozeman Deaconness Health Services will hopefully get concurrent construction to begin on four model homes. The Soman Group will be placing a deed restriction on their ground so that no development can occur on their property by the Bozeman Creek. Each party is giving to the other. Mr. Leep stated that all they are asking for is to start construction on the four model homes because Deaconness has developed eight floor plans for this area. None of these homes have ever been built before with new designs. They would like to start on these plans to improve the quality of construction in the other homes. He stated the only related traffic will be construction vehicles. There are safeguards in the application during the construction process and they will not interfere with public health and safety. There will be no residential traffic allowed until the improvements are in. He stated the Engineering Department recommended denial of the improvements relaxation because they feel that every developer will be asking for this. Mr. Leep noted this proposal is advancing the City's goals in the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan which is why it should be approved. Mr. Leep presented his intersection modifications to Highland and Main that were presented to MDT. They have proposed a center left hand turn lane so people going north down highland and are waiting at the signal could turn left at the light as people who wish to make a right onto Main Street can do so at the same time without Highland backing up during peak traffic hours. He closed by noting the wait time at that intersection which is currently five minutes will end up being reduced to thirty seconds. 1:03:55 [20:18:22] Questions for Staff Brian Caldwell asked if the only reason why Highland was created was due to the hospital. Mr. Leep stated he did not know. Director Andy Epple stated there is an old Highland Boulevard that was the old platted boulevard. The decision was made to locate the new Highland Boulevard the way it currently runs. Mr. Leep responded the new Highland Boulevard was made because of the hospital access issues. Mr. Caldwell stated that regarding the transfer of development rights of usable, developable, and buildable land should be more like 1 to 2 acres. He noted there is an additional community benefit because of the current storm water management plan on Sourdough. He just wanted to make sure that they are not running storm water down the hill. Mr. Leep stated there is a current storm drain line that dumps the water directly into the creek. They want to reserve a portion of the Soman's property to install a wetlands storm water treatment area. That way the water gets treated prior to landing into the creek. Caren Roberty asked why they are requesting a relaxation on the financial guarantee with submitted plans instead of approved plans. Mr. Leep replied that with the project sitting in wait for a prolonged period of time to have MDT respond, they could use that time very constructively to try to make the construction process more efficient. It's an opportunity to get something productive done while waiting for the Montana Department of Transportation to do whatever it is they do with their plans since that is the only department that does not have a state mandated timeline by law. If they were like DEQ that has laws that require them to complete their review in 30 days, this situation would not be part of the request. Bill Quinn asked if the TDR location on the Hillcrest property is the only location the developer could determine to put the twelve lots. Mr. Leep responded this is what they could fit into the preplanned areas already taken. Mr. Quinn then asked if they have exhausted all possible ideas. Mr. Leep answered that multifamily lots will not be accepted in the preplanned pods. Ed Sypinski asked what the sizes of the areas would be that Hillcrest is willing to do the transfers on. Mr. Leep stated that they are roughly at 100 to 120,000 square feet total. Randy Carpenter asked why they are going forward with a deed restriction instead of a conservation easement on the Soman's property. Mr. Leep responded they spoke with GVLT and the outcome was the current conservation easement rules do not work well for properties under 10 acres. Mr. Carpenter asked why they did not ask for a PUD when they originally came forward with the subdivision. Mr. Leep stated that at that time, they would not be asking for any relaxations other than concurrent construction like they are now. Mr. Carpenter stated the TDR does have some public benefits, however these are equal lot exchanges given to Soman as what was in the original Edgewood plan. Mr. Leep responded this was a legitimate exchange and Soman gets paid for their ground. Ed Sypinski asked how this reduces the number of open space of the subarea plan since those areas being given to Soman were not planned for development. Mr. Leep stated there is no problem with the open space in the subarea plan. There will be over 100 acres of open space and legally, they will easily meet the City's requirements. Randy Carpenter asked if the City is allowed to do a Transfer of Development Rights. Ms. Sanford stated they are not literally proposing to do a TDR because this would be considered a private matter between the two parties. The only thing they need from the Planning Board is to agree to the amendment to the subarea plan. Mr. Carpenter stated that if the City does not want to allow street improvements prior to receipt of plans, what does staff consider to be the downside of this of approving this type of relaxation. Planner Sanford stated that Mr. Leep's assessment of public safety and health issues is accurate because they built enough safegaurds in their proposal. However, Engineering is opposed to this application because it would set a precedent. The City does not feel comfortable with granting exceptions to this rule at this time. Planning Director Andy Epple stated that on the issue of precedent, it is an issue that City Staff is concerned with. However if it does set a precedent for land or a corridor that needs to be protected, he would welcome this opportunity. 1:25:28 [20:33:34] Public Comment Chuck Payton lives at 507 Ice Pond Road and is speaking on behalf of the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Advisory Council. He noted their group has discussed this and does support the protection of this Soman area and applaud the parties involved to find a positive outcome. Mr. Payton stated they should be protecting the character of the Bozeman Creek Corridor to preserve that natural area. He stated they support adoption of condition two of the staff report to preserve the open space and also support the exchange of property between the two parties. Mr. Payton noted the neighborhood would like to know how the analysis was done and what values were give to the property. He stated that although this is a private agreement, it could help others in the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood as to how they could have a dedicated conservation easement on their property. In conclusion, he stated they are not raising these questions to shoot down this proposal because it is good. We believe it is in the public's best interest to resolve the prior problems. Ed Montos from Bridger Engineers representing Jimmy Pepper. He noted the Pepper family lives just north of the donor property along Bozeman Creek. The Peppers live at 1322 South Rouse and have approximately 3 acres just north of the Soman properties. The Peppers want to say they fully support what is going on here in order to support the Bozeman Creek Corridor, but they have three concerns. One of them is that even though this is not a TDR program, it is the start of the City of Bozeman doing similar things like this and they just want to make sure there is some process where they can participate in case they want to do a conservation easement on their property. Mr. Montos stated the Pepper Family does not want this to reduce their property value. In closing, he stated whatever procedure is done, the City needs to think about the next participants involved with this type of transaction. They, the Pepper family, just want a mechanism in place so other property owners along the corridors can participate. Steven Johnson, on behalf of GVLT stated the two prior speakers spoke eloquently about their support for this. GVLT supports the creativity and initiative of this proposal and is in support of it as well. They would like to see the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan advanced. Mr. Johnson stated they do have a concern for the precedent, but do not see a problem with the change in density of the subarea plan. They are requesting this proposal move forward. Noah Poritz lives at 1418 Maple Drive. He stated he feels this might be a direct impact to his home. He opposes the TDR because if you look at the significant changes in the Bozeman Creek property and the equity of the Hillcrest property. The benefit analysis does include the costs and impacts to the New Hyalite View residents. Mr. Poritz stated that to put nine homes directly across from a park which happens to be native ground with native brush would not be appropriate. He noted that the fact the applicant did not notify any of the residents of the Hyalite View Subdivision because they were not required to really speaks to the character of the developer. Had we been formally notified other than the announcement in the paper, we would be hearing more voices on this subject who would be opposed. In closing, Mr. Poritz suggested that the Planning Board reject this proposal. Bart Manion lives at 425 East Lincoln Street stated that the comments made by Andy Epple summed this up perfectly because this does set a precedent. It shows we can come up with a remedy to a real problem. They have tried three application processes to develop the Soman Property of which all were denied. This is an agreeable outcome. Both Mr. Leep and Director Epple were the ones who proposed this to the Soman group since we had so many issues with the prior three applications. Mr. Manion stated he'd be glad to answer the questions from the Bozeman Creek group and the surrounding neighbors. He would be happy to share all his information and be more than happy to help them if they want to do this. For five years, they have been trying to develop our property and for once, we have come to a positive result. Scott Creel lives at 1430 Cherry Drive in the New Hyalite View subdivision. He stated there is a lot to like and dislike in this proposal. A year ago, when they were discussing the plan, the room was full of people. Mr. Creek stated that twelve lots does not seem like a lot of new homes, but some of these lots are directly adjacent to the Hyalite View property. So there has been a huge compromise made and he feels the details are what matters. He is not opposed to putting twelve lots in the Hillcrest area, but would like them to be put somewhere else because of the adjacent park. There is a trail running through that park area and directly through the proposed 12 lots that is highly used. This would not be a great use of that area and is not in support of this application. KC Cassidy lives at 1316 South Rouse stated she is excited about the TDR. She stated this is a precedent setting situation of which everyone would benefit. Ms. Cassidy stated there has been such a good effort on the part of PC Development and the Manions to have an amicable outcome and would not like to see policy roadblocks. She will be supporting this application. 1:51:34 [20:56:13] Discussion Brian Caldwell noted that this precedent in the transfer of development rights, it is important to recognize the watercourse areas, setbacks, and floodplains. On a good day, there is only an acre and a half of good buildable property on the Manion property and feels that the transfer to 3 acres is an over value. Mr. Caldwell stated that this is something we should be supporting. He would strongly suggest the board should reduce the transfer of ground by half. As far as the public benefit, this is most certainly something we should support. Mr. Jason Leep stated that reason they came to a result of 12 lots, this was the calculation of buildable area zoned R2. While they are looking at gross acreage versus gross acreage, however the zoning of the Soman Property is what caused the number of 12 lots. Mr. Caldwell noted they need to not look at this transfer from a unit standpoint, but square footage of buildable space. The issue that MDT is going to pull some magic expense out of their hat will not likely happen. He added that Mr. Leep does have safeguards in their proposal to make sure that improvements are made. Mr. Caldwell noted the overall approval of this PUD are very much worth supporting, but the issue of the TDR and red areas need to be equivalent. Ed Sypinski stated his concern is not about the land value, but the location of the TDR's. He noted he is afraid they are putting two neighborhoods against each other. They can look at a conditional use as to where the development can take place. He is supportive that the new construction could occur on Kagy intead of next to the New Hyalite residences. Mr. Sypinski agrees that the TDR is good first step in the process. They could, however, relocate these nine units and distribute them amongst this development. With the relaxations, he disagrees because during the subarea plan, the Planning Board agreed that a traffic impact study had to be done. Therefore, Mr. Sypinski stated he can approve this conditionally if they take out some of the recommendations of this PUD. Caren Roberty stated she does not want to vote against this application because she agrees that the Bozeman Creek Corridor area needs to be preserved. The TDR lots adjacent to the Painted Hills Road across from the park will have significant aesthetic impacts, eliminate usable open space, and will have driveways crossings to a shared used path. She stated this is a lot to deal with at this stage of the process. Ms. Roberty stated there has to be another place to put these units. She would like to make a recommendation reflecting this. There is a way to tailor this project to meet everyone's needs. Concurrent development will not hurt anything and does not have a problem with the financial guarantees. Bill Quinn stated that the board is considering two proposals. If they vote to approve this, are they voting to approve the locations in the preliminary plat. Ms. Sanford noted that the pre-application is an informal review, but if the board approves this application with the change in the subarea plan, they are saying they can have those twelve lots in that particular area in that application. If it is declined by the board, they would be required to remove those lots. She noted they could state they are okay with squeezing in those extra lots, but perhaps find another location. Mr. Caldwell stated he is hopeful there is a greater exchange than just wanting to get construction started early. Bill Quinn stated that in that regard, he is very much in favor of protecting that Bozeman Creek area and is in favor of the concurrent construction since we have a financial guarantee. Mr. Quinn noted the only issue he has is the location of where the TDR's are going to end up. Mr. Caldwell stated the board to recommend approval of this application, but put a condition that the exchange be 1 and 1/2 acres instead of 3 acres. This would help address the issues raised by adjacent property owners. Mr. Sypinski stated the Planning Board is only allowed to recommend approval of the modifications to the plan and they cannot approve the TDR because that is a private matter. Director Epple stated that the TDR is a private negotiation between two property owners. If the board is comfortable with two out of the three major aspects of this project; the protection of land in the Bozeman Creek Corridor and the concurrent construction. However, the problem is where the receiving areas of the TDR are that were originally planned for open space. Mr. Epple stated there are two times they will be able to address this issue because of this application, modifications to the original plan, and the next agenda item where the informal subdivision pre-application will be discussed. Chair Pro Tempore, Mr. Carpenter agreed with the rest of the board. They can vote to approve the concurrent construction, approve the TDR to preserve the Bozeman Creek Corridor, but they can put a condition on the location of those lots by coming up with new ideas of where they can put these lots. Mr. Carpenter noted that if the board were to support this, he would hope they are not entitling the applicant to having these lots in the locations they are currently in. He could approve this with the 9 lots to the north of Hyalite View being reduced and building height restricted. They can deal with this portion of the issue during the next agenda item. 2:17:00 [21:17:19] Motion and Vote Brian Caldwell stated it is important to note the land will have to come from somewhere. It will come from what is shown as open space on this plan. His motion will speak specifically to the amount of TDR, to be addressed in acreage and not unit. In addition to this, he will give a favorable opinion of the other conditions. Brian Caldwell moved to recommend approval of the CUP/PUD Application #P-07007 amended that the receiving area be reduced by 1.5 acres along Painted Hills Road as well as recommending approval the relaxations as proposed by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Bill Quinn. Mr. Carpenter asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Sypinski stated he has trouble with the amended transferrable acres. He noted the board has no authority to do that. Ms. Roberty stated the board is only making a recommendation. Those in favor of Mr. Caldwell’s motion being Brian Caldwell, Bill Quinn, and Caren Roberty. Those against being Ed Sypinski and Randy Carpenter. The motion failed. Ed Sypinski moved to approve the CUP/PUD Application of #P-07007 as conditioned by staff and with the added condition that the nine units proposed along Painted Hills Road be removed to an area designated for development and to reduce lot sizes. The motion was seconded by Caren Roberty. Those in favor being Caren Roberty, Bill Quinn, and Ed Sypinski. Those against being Brian Caldwell and Randy Carpenter. The motion failed. Randy Carpenter recommend approval of CUP/PUD Application #P-07007 as conditioned by staff and the added condition of the Planning Board and City Commission to consider reducing the building height of the new lots along Painted Hills Road be limited to 24 feet. The motion was seconded by Ed Sypinski. Mr. Carpenter stated he believes the board can address the issues in the pre-application that is coming up next with the motion given. With the recommended conditions of approval by staff and with the new condition to restrict the building height on the newly added lots, Mr. Carpenter stated they can better address the pre-application of the subdivision next. Mr. Caldwell stated the conditions approved are not clear in the relaxations requested by the applicant in the recent motion. Mr. Carpenter stated he wishes to amend his previous motion and moved to recommend approval of CUP/PUD Application #P-07007 to allow street improvements to be financially guaranteed based on submitted plans instead of approved plans. Those in favor being Caren Roberty, Bill Quinn, Randy Carpenter, and Brian Caldwell. Those against being Ed Sypinski. The motion failed. Senior Planner Jody Sanford stated the Planning Board does not have to make an official recommendation. She further noted that not every board member is present tonight to help give additional input. This project is going before the City Commission without a formal recommendation from the Planning Board. 4. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-07002 (The Knolls East and Highland South) - A Major Subdivision Pre-Application on behalf of Bozeman Deaconess Health Services to allow the subdivision of 216.95 acres into 374 single household lots, 2 attached single household lots, 1 multi-household lot, and 1 mixed use lot for a total of 460 dwelling units on property located east of Highland Boulevard and the New Hyalite View Subdivision. The property is annexed with a zoning designation of R-1 (Residential Single Household, Low Density District) and R-S (Residential Suburban District). (Sanford) 2:29:40 [22:09:58] Staff Report Senior Planner Jody Sanford gave the staff report. She stated there are a variety of residential zones and possibly some B2 in this informal application. This property totals 216.95 acres in size. The applicant will dedicate 60 acres for a public park. She noted the applicant would also set aside approximately 37 acres for dedicated public open space. Ms. Sanford noted they are creating 5 single household lots for affordable housing. The total dwelling units will be 460. She noted this pre-application has considerable less density than the subarea plan, but this is due to the topography. The UDO requires they have 6 units per acre and Planning Staff found that they would only have about 5 1/2 units per acre. They will need to do a PUD to relax that standard or find a way to put more housing units here to meet the approved subarea plan. Senior Planner Sanford stated the UDO requires the applicant have 100% street frontage along city parks, and it could never be less than 50% street frontage. This proposal does not meet the 50% criteria. She noted that Planning Staff is recommending that they have street frontage along the proposed park. The Parks and Recreation advisory board also made the same finding. She noted that the lots that were approved for open space are being encroached upon on the east and west sides. Staff would like to see more connectivity along the east and west sides of Painted Hills Road. The lots proposed on Painted Hills bring some safety concerns to the Planning Department. She stated there are an awful lot of driveways facing that busy street and a better plan would to have those lots accessed by installing an alley and it would give more visual appeal. If the applicant cannot install an alley, those developments would need to have a shared driveway. Ms. Sanford stated the Affordable Housing Board reviewed this and CAHAB suggested the RSL's be scattered throughout this development instead of in one localized area. The comments were received from the Bridger Ski Foundation, GVLT, and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 2:39:34 [22:22:12] Questions for Staff Ed Sypinski stated that on the Preliminary Plat Application, it is clearly noted where the 9 TDR lots will be located. However on this application, it is not clear and he asked if there is an indicator on this application of where the alternative location would be for these lots. Planner Sanford stated it is hard to tell and Mr. Leep stated it is too early to tell. She was only able to indicate the general area of their locations. 2:40:35 [22:22:26] Applicant Presentation Jason Leep representing PC Development and the Deaconness Group. He stated the trails and the nature of the community park are two large issues that are going to have to be resolved. The trail on the subarea plan is general in nature and not intended to show trail configuration. Mr. Leep noted he does want to ensure the Planning Board that there will be an excellent trail in this proposal. There will be two improved park areas on each end and then a long linear park in between. He added the park is natural ground, it is not a "park". It is intended to be a controlled access park that includes parking and restrooms. They are okay with most of the conditions outlined by staff except lining park space with a road because of the steep grade next to it. The 9 lot TDR area is part of the original open space plan. Mr. Leep stated they are 64 residential lots short of what was approved in the subarea plan. He noted they feel it is not right to cram those 64 extra lots into this plan. There is a total of 58 affordable housing units in this plan to include some rental lots. This project is split into five phases. Mr. Leep noted the affordable housing plan eliminates the Restricted Size Lots. Jason Leep commented they have added additional road connection between the pods and met the intent of pedestrian pass through with this design. The pedestrian corridors are aligned with streets and they are going to put in a Nordic Ski Trail System. There is a new lot configuration that allows for trail corridor widening that intertwine with the pods. He noted they now have access onto Kagy and added alleyways which will allow for garage access. Mr. Leep closed by stating they are not in the position to try and get road frontage along the park because of access control and added this park is not Cooper Park because it is a natural park, but agrees with staff on all the other issues. 2:53:40 [22:33:05] Questions for Staff Caren Roberty asked Mr. Leep if they added the connections to the streets specified by Planner Sanford. He responded they did comply with her direction in two spots. 2:54:41 [22:33:58] Public Comment Ted Lange representing GVLT stated his firm has enjoyed working with PC Development and the Bozeman Deaconess Group. He noted the biggest problem, in that area along the park land, it that there is a 50 degree drop along some of those areas so there was no choice but to move the homes up another 25 feet. That 'Rim Trail' is gone, there is no Rim Trail at its specified site because it is completely gone and the lots extend completely to the slope. There is no way one could build a trail there. This does however provide for a great Nordic Track for the City of Bozeman. Mr. Lange noted this new plan looks like significant improvements were made overall. His biggest concern is the lots along Rim Trail. He closed by stating the jury is out on the nine TDR lots. Noah Poritz lives at 1418 Maple Drive and noted that if the board looks at the original adopted subarea plan, there is a different street alignment now. He stated he does not want a road that shines headlights right into his living room window. Mr. Poritz stated if they could change that, the New Hyalite View residents do not become victims to light pollution. Scott Creel lives at 1430 Cherry Drive. He noted he keeps hearing "we can change this later". He is aware that they are not approving anything at this time. However, a decision is being made. Mr. Creel stated the UDO says that PUD's must keep to the existing character of the adjacent neighborhoods. He encouraged the board to not get lost in the details and compare it to the existing neighborhoods that this is adjacent to. Even though the changes are individually small, they all add up in the end. Mr. Creel stated he understands the city wants to get six units per acre, the City has some obligations to meet in considering the neighborhood right next to this property. 3:05:31 [22:47:24] Discussion Ed Sypinski stated he appreciates the responsiveness that Mr. Leep and the Deaconness Group have shown in the master plan. He also appreciates comments from the adjacent neighborhoods to keep the board on track. Brian Caldwell commented this plan shows the skill taken and is a better proposed plan that what was presented to planning staff originally. He added this land was already given to the hospital for future development for the City. Mr. Caldwell closed by stating the nine TDR lots that are added are in his opinion, not necessary. Randy Carpenter noted he these changes are appreciated and are good ideas. He likes the numerous park lands in this plan. Mr. Carpenter closed by stating we need a better regulation on street frontage in regards to parks. This particular park in question does not need street frontage. 3:07:58 [22:48:34] ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT Ed Sypinski motioned to adjourn the Planning Board meeting, seconded by Randy Carpenter and Brian Caldwell. All in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 PM. _____________________________________ __________________________________ Randy Carpenter, Chair Pro Tempore Andrew C. Epple, Director Planning Board Dept. of Planning & Community Dev. City of Bozeman 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).