Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-07 Planning Board Minutes.doc ** MINUTES ** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, COMMUNITY ROOM, GALLATIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 311 WEST MAIN STREET TUESDAY, APRIL 3RD, 2007 7:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President Dave Jarrett called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present: Dave Jarrett, Vice President Brian Caldwell Randy Carpenter Bill Quinn Caren Roberty Steve Kirchhoff, Commission Liaison Members Absent: JP Pomnichowski Ed Sypinski Erik Henyon Staff Present: Andy Epple, Director of Planning and Community Development Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Tony Renslow, Village Investment Group Kimerick Hayner Kathy Hayner BJ Cope, Allied Engineering Don Pilotte Jason Burke, Allied Engineering Don Bachman Carla Healy 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, Vice President Dave Jarrett closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MARCH 20TH, 2007 Bill Quinn moved to approve the minutes of March 20th as written. The motion was seconded by Brian Caldwell. Those in favor being Bill Quinn, Dave Jarrett, Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell, Randy Carpenter, and Steve Kirchhoff. All in favor, motion passed 6-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-07008 (Village Homesites) - A Major Subdivision Pre-Application on behalf of the owners, The Village Investment Group, and representatives, C & H Engineering and Bitnar Architects to receive advice and direction to allow the development of 20 lots; 19 for single household dwellings and 1 for the existing Village Lofts building. The application is being reviewed in conjunction with a PUD PreApplication Plan. The property is located on both sides of Village Downtown Boulevard, which is east of Broadway Avenue at East Mendenhall extended. (Windemaker) 0:01:24 [19:02:06] Staff Report Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker gave the staff report. She noted this is a single family residential proposal involving 19 lots. The applicant is requesting five relaxations; The applicant intends to request the following relaxations from the UDO; First is from Section 18.16.030.A, regarding Lot Coverage. They are asking for lot coverage greater than 50 percent instead of the maximum of 50 percent lot coverage. Second is from Section 18.16.040.A, regarding Lot Area and Width. The applicant is asking for a minimum lot area of 4,152 square feet instead of the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. Third is from Section 18.16.040.B, regarding Lot Area and Width. Ms. Windemaker stated they are asking to allow a minimum lot width of 40 feet instead of the minimum lot width of 50 feet. Fourth is from Section 18.16.050, regarding Yards. The applicant is requesting a minimum 4 foot side yard setback instead of minimum 5 foot side yard setback. Fifth and last relaxation requested is from Section 18.16.050, regarding Yards. The Village group is asking to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback instead of minimum requirement of 20 feet with alley opening doors. Planner Windemaker stated this application is running concurrently with a PUD plan which is currently being reviewed. The property is zoned R-4, and noted this project will have a net density of 8 dwelling units per acre. She noted the applicants are requesting several waivers; One is to use the wetlands in lieu of park land dedication and to accept a park that has no frontage to a street, second is to not provide for a continuation of Front Street to Village Downtown Boulevard, third is to allow the East Main Street and North Broadway Avenue intersection to operate at level of service less than "D". Planner Windemaker stated these were just a few of the waivers requested. She noted no public comment has been received to date. Planning Staff sees numerous issues with this proposal that will need to be resolved. Connection of Village Downtown Boulevard to Front Street, level of service at North Broadway onto Front Street be improved to Broadway, pedestrian access, wetlands preservation, and the overall project design in accordance with the City's code. She closed her report by noting this proposal is to identify solutions prior to making formal application. 0:09:08 [19:02:17] Applicant Presentation Tony Renslow representing the Village Investment Group noted this is the final portion of the Village Downtown. Their firm has chosen to revamp the Village Terraces plan a little bit and are quite excited about the changes. Mr. Renslow stated they are moving the trail around to enable them to allow parking in a number of different areas. They are working on how to resolve parking issues. This proposal is not finalized yet. As part of the preliminary submittal they are planning on doing a large model of this area. These lots are all roughly 40 feet wide and narrow, long lots. There is no availability to be able to design a building in the downtown area which allows for walk-ability and this is why we are choosing to move away from the Village Terraces concept and move to the Village Homesites. 0:11:55 [19:10:13] Public Comment Ted Lange representing GVLT stated they have been looking at the wetland area for many years as one of the most unique wetlands in the City because it creates a great bird habitat. He noted they are supporting the waiver. Mr. Lange stated they like the trail in this project and commented the pedestrian connectivity is good and justifies that wetland becoming a park. If this wetland becomes a public park, it would be an outstanding experience. They think this is well worth the granted waivers and relaxations. He noted there are some parking issues, but this is a well loved area for decades. People walk and bike from the neighborhoods, but there are some parking issues that need to be resolved here. Mr. Lange stated they would like to see a bike/ped connection. This would provide connectivity not available now. The trail would allow one to use Frontage Street. This is an important trail link. 0:16:04 [21:01:26] Questions for Staff and Applicant Brian Caldwell asked if the intent is to utilize R-4 as single family detached residences. Mr. Renslow concurred and added they want to continue with the architectural theme of the Village Downtown. Mr. Caldwell wanted to clarify that there are going to be 19 units for 2/3 of an acre of parkland. Mr. Renslow confirmed that and also noted they have ample parkland. He added the Parks/Recs board supported this project with its wetlands and has been well received. Mr. Renslow stated the tennis courts will be counted as open space and is part of the Village Homesite application. Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff asked the applicant if they have addressed the issue of RSL's. Mr. Renslow replied there are four or five RSL lots at 5,000 square feet or under. Mr. Kirchhoff stated this subdivision is a 'rich people' habitat and stated this is contradictory to having RSL's within this project. He asked how this will work. Mr. Renslow responded stated they are working with Bitnar architects to provide different floor plans to help address some of these concerns. They are working on providing architectural guidelines as part of their preliminary plat submittal. He stated the front doors will be off the boulevard and have rear entry. They plan on using brick, but also incorporating other materials so they can follow the current design of the Village Downtown. Steve Kirchhoff stated that in October 2001, the Mayor's design council in San Diego reviewed this proposal and they commented what should be done is to build a bunch of bungalows. This is not what happened and this is a good thing with handsome buildings. He asked if there is any room for a middle class type of housing. Mr. Renslow replied they are trying to cater to the middle class with this latest proposal. The reason why they steered away from the Village Terraces, was they were producing a product that was similar and felt it was best to not compete with themselves. He noted there is a high desire for affordability in downtown Bozeman. Randy Carpenter asked Lanette Windemaker to explain the relaxations. Planner Windemaker noted the applicant is requesting five relaxations: First is for allowing lot coverage greater than 50 percent instead of the maximum of 50 percent lot coverage. Second is to allow a minimum lot area of 4,152 square feet instead of the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. Third is to allow a minimum lot width of 40 feet instead of the minimum lot width of 50 feet. Fourth is to allow a minimum 4 foot side yard setback instead of minimum 5 foot side yard setback. Fifth and last is to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback instead of minimum requirement of 20 feet with alley opening doors. Dave Jarrett asked the applicant what they plan on doing to Front Street. Mr. Renslow noted that they currently have use of Front Street for emergency access use only. He noted there is quite a bit of truck traffic going through that area and do not want the trucks to use Village Boulevard as a cut through. Randy Carpenter asked Planner Windemaker to clarify how this project design and lack of connection with Front Street relates to the UDO requirements. Ms. Windemaker responded the UDO states that roads be extended to undeveloped property lines. Mr. Renslow stated the DRB support not connecting Front Street. His plan is to bring forward a large model of how their plan will look to give everyone a better idea of how the narrow homes will fit on these lots. There is quite a bit of work to be done. Bill Quinn asked if their plan is to make this residential area level with the wetland. Mr. Renslow stated it will be level somewhat. They have quite a bit of earth work to do on this project. Dave Jarrett stated the boulevard is too long to be considered a cul-de-sac. He stated they need to reevaluate the wetlands because it seems there are a substantial amount of cattails in that area. The public park area they have designated looks like a bunch of bushes and not like a park area. He suggested maybe some enhanced trails around that area. He questioned the ability of the homeowners association being the responsible party for the maintenance of the park. Mr. Jarrett asked Ms. Windemaker if the City Engineers conducted a traffic study. Planner Windemaker stated the applicant will have to come forward with another traffic study in the Preliminary Plat package. She noted that Bob Murray in Engineering is requiring they do a warrant analysis study in their next proposal. Mr. Renslow stated they did conduct an updated traffic study. Mr. Jarrett asked if they plan to sell the lots or build them. Tony Renslow stated the initial plan is to sell the individual lots. Mr. Jarrett stated he is hopeful they can come up with a good design on the RSL lots. Caren Roberty asked if the changes to the UDO reflected a new square footage of RSL lots to be 5,000 square feet or less. Andy Epple stated they still need to be amended and adopted, but will look up the code as it pertains to RSL lots. Bill Quinn asked how critical the 10 foot rear yard set back is compared to a 20 foot rear yard. Ms. Windemaker stated it is a private enforcement issue and they currently do not have a problem with it. This area has a strong homeowner's association. The issue is there are current residents who are parking in front of their garages. Mr. Jarrett stated this is a problem because he drove by there today and saw two cars parked in front of their garages, the residents should have a 20 foot rear setback so they do not block their garage. Ms. Windemaker noted that in light of this, the City should re-evaluate this so it will not be a problem. Caren Roberty asked about the trail in the park. Planner Windemaker noted the City wants a circular trail going around the wetlands, however we will not be supportive of not having a boardwalk put in. The City does want a circular park it has always been a requirement to have a trail going all the way around the wetlands regardless of the bird watchers. Randy Carpenter asked Mr. Lange to give his opinion on the lack of having a boardwalk in that area. Ted Lange responded this has been a matter of great debate amongst several advisory groups. Some of the parks/recs boards have stated their concerns as well. GVLT and the Audubon Society is willing to give up the board walk because there are strong feelings that the installation would cause significant habitat impacts. Mr. Lange closed by stating they are comfortable with the project as it is proposed. 0:52:23 [19:13:06] Discussion Brian Caldwell stated that wetland area should be a public park. He noted the alley could be a private street and this could give the applicant the street frontage needed. If they plan to build individual lots, a public park would be feasible. Mr. Caldwell added they should allow for a 50% street frontage and then have the trail circle around the park. He noted if this were a public park, it would more than satisfy the parkland requirements and enhance the wetlands. Mr. Caldwell stated this area is a disregarded portion of town and having an enhanced trail network would be a great benefit to the community. The Northeast Neighborhood is adamant about having parkland and this 10 acres should be given regardless. He stated the opportunity lies in making the alley a private street which could help the potential parking issues. He also suggested the applicant lighten up the exclusivity of this area and let it be for public use. Caren Roberty commented she likes Mr. Caldwell's ideas a great bit. It covered most of her concerns. Bill Quinn noted he agrees that there is no need to connect to Front Street other than emergency traffic or a bike trail because it can serve no other purpose than that. He stated that not having that connectivity to the boulevard seems to be rational in his opinion. He concurred with Mr. Caldwell's comments regarding the proposal of getting additional parking with the private street. Randy Carpenter stated it is his understanding that these wetlands were not going to be part of the required parkland. He would not support that when it comes forward. In terms of the rear setback, he was concerned with the cars parking in the alley. Mr. Carpenter also noted the issue of access and stated this needs to be addressed. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated the City has encouraged the applicant to follow a PUD path. He noted the board has heard a lot of good comments tonight like those of Mr. Caldwell's that make great sense. At the suggestion that the tennis court area become part of the park land makes good sense. Mr. Kirchhoff noted the alleyway conditions and added they need to provide enough area for someone to park in the alley and this will no longer be a problem. He stated he is not sure why some people think that Front Street could not be a viable access someday. He noted he does not think we should let present conditions state that factor. He is open to the idea that it could be a good connection at some point in the future. The Northeast neighborhood has worked with Simkins in reducing traffic. The parking, the level of service, the frontage, the RSL size, lot coverage/lot size are not problems in his opinion, but he would like to see the applicant make good on the RSL's. Mr. Kirchhoff stated they should meet the intent of the RSL's to provide some sort of moderate income homes and noted this would be a bonus. He closed by noting the comments provided tonight would help provide enhancements to the community. Dave Jarrett addressed the relaxations. He noted that regarding lot coverage, allowing someone to use a smaller footprint could still allow them to have an architecturally good product. He stated he was not concerned with the width of the lot, but added they will need to get enough of the lots to meet the 5,000 square foot requirement. Mr. Jarrett stated he was concerned with the four foot relaxation on the side yards. He noted that is just too close and six feet on each side would be better and will not support the four feet. The ten foot rear setback instead of twenty will not work in his opinion because one needs to be able to park a small car outside the garage. As far as the park is concerned, Mr. Jarrett stated it is currently a private park unless the developer allows access to the trail. He suggested they put in a parking area so guests could use it or the Audubon Society can get over there and look at the birds. He further commented the boulevard is great, but should expand the lots around this property to make an alley in the middle, this will give the residents better connectivity but the developer could end up losing a couple lots. It is important that the public has access to this park. Dave Jarrett stated the applicant will have to deal with Front Street. The culvert is in the floodway and in the watercourse setback, regardless of whether or not it is an emergency access, it has to be dealt with and needs to be larger than 10 feet wide. He noted their traffic study will lend some insight towards what would happen to Main Street or Broadway. The impact will be on Main Street. He closed by stating he hopes the board has provided the applicant with some good input. 2. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, #P-07012 (South Towne Square). A Preliminary Plat Application for a Minor Subdivision requested by the owner and applicant, Kailo Design and development LLC, and representative, Allied Engineer Services Inc., to subdivide 4.97 acres of land into a Second or subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record to create one lot for a commercial condominium subdivision. The subject property is generally located at 2000 South 3rd Avenue and is legally described as Lot 3, Block 4 of Thompson’s Addition #3 Subdivision, SW1/4, Sec. 18 T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger) 1:09:45 [19:54:19] Staff Report Andy Epple introduced Brian Krueger to the Planning Board. He noted he came from Park County where he had planning experience as well as worked in Seattle as a planner. Mr. Epple stated he is the liaison to the Design Review Board and took Jami Morris's place in the Planning Department. Planner Brian Krueger gave the staff report. He noted the applicant wishes to create one lot for commercial condominiums. The subject properties were originally platted as a lot for a church building. Now, the applicant would like to develop the site as a neighborhood mixed use development with retail and office uses. Mr. Krueger noted this area is currently zoned B-1 (neighborhood business district). The intent of the B-1 district is to provide for smaller scale retail and service activities frequently required by neighborhood residents on a day to day basis, as well as residential development as a secondary purpose, while still maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Planner Krueger stated that during the pre-application review, the development review committee (DRC) voted to grant two of the requested waivers. He noted additional development on this parcel may have some impacts on the Figgins Creek watercourse corridor. A City standard a 50 foot setback on the watercourse should provide adequate space for the corridor to function as a travel corridor for wildlife while providing a functional buffer area for the watercourse and mitigating any potential impacts. Planner Krueger noted the Wetland Review Board has recommended conditions that affect the site planning of the parcel, these recommended conditions will be considered with the site plan application. He stated this condo development is for commercial uses and has no residential component. Planner Krueger noted there has been no public comment received to date and the applicant has been working with the community. They have had significant contact with the neighborhood. He stated GVLT would like to see a more direct connection of the trail and this could be taken care of during the Site Plan review. The UDO as this application is currently proposed would make the director be the decision maker, however we do have the ability to have the City Commission review the site plan in certain circumstances. Mr. Krueger commented the Planning Director has taken this to the City Commission and has not heard how they plan on dealing with this application just yet. The Wetlands Review Board met and reviewed this proposal and stated they are concerned that the loading area because it is too close to the wetlands, and if they need to keep it, maybe the applicant should put a low fence in to keep animals from straying into that area. Planning Staff did discuss this with the applicant. The amount of vegetation in that corridor along with the required vegetation from the applicant would make this a thick area and we are not sure people would be straying that far. Trash flowing into that area would be mitigated because they would be responsible for the upkeep of those areas per the owners association and would not let the area adjacent to their site become unsitely. He closed by stating Planning Staff recommends conditional approval subject to the conditions listed on pages 7,8 of the staff report. 1:23:55 [20:11:47] Applicant Presentation Jason Burke, a Professional Engineer representing Allied Engineering stated they are happy with the level of community involvement that his client has sought. A good chunk of this property is taken up by Figgins Creek and with that, they are trying to make the best use of what is left. Mr. Burke noted they are asking for City Commission review of this project to ensure there is as much public input as possible. He commented this project is intended to be retail and commercial. Mr. Burke stated this site fits well with the existing zoning and the 2020 plan as far as complementing the neighborhood needs. They appreciate the feedback from staff and the issues that did come up were expected and can be dealt with. He noted the floodplain and associated wetlands were an issue for City Engineering and Bob Murray pointed out they would need a floodplain permit to build that trail. Mr. Burke stated that WRB's comments were forwarded too late and this timeframe did not allow them an opportunity to address their issues. As far as the army corp. of engineers is concerned, he noted they felt the wetlands did not need any permitting because there is fairly heavy vegetation in there and there would not be many people varying from the trail because of the heavy vegetation in that wetland area. They plan to install strict association rules regarding these wetlands. Mr. Burke stated that maybe a fence is not necessary because of the heavy vegetation. Jason Burke stated there will be room to negotiate how the entrance on Third will look. He noted the only times they have seen this area's traffic backed up is in the morning due to the schools. Traffic at this site will be spread out during the course of the day. He commented there will be restricted access to this site. Mr. Burke stated that the DRC was concerned about lighting and security of the trail to keep citizens safe. He commented they need to do this, but in a manner that will not create a nuisance to the neighbors in the R1 district to the south of this property. Keeping that trail safe is a concern. He closed by addressing his concerns for the advisory board's comments as to what would be a course of action for this. 1:35:30 [20:12:02] Public Comment Ted Lange representing GVLT noted his three concerns were human nature, safety, and public enjoyment. The trail is critically important to help serve this area for bicyclists and pedestrians. This route will allow them to get there safely on foot. Mr. Lange stated the human nature of people it to cut the corner and make their own path that goes straight through to the other end of the trail. Therefore, cutting the trail into a triangular section around building number 5 is not ideal. He stated the willow tree behind building 5 is one of the nicest amenities to this site. Carla Healy lives at 2017 South Tracy, right behind this development. She stated she is concerned of the impact to her home. There is extreme vegetation in that area, and there may need to be a buffer in the areas where it is not that thick so as to not disturb the residences south of this development. Ms. Healy noted the truck loading area would be noisy. She stated in her experience, she has never been on trail that was lit. It just does not need to be lit. She was not sure of the traffic impact on South Tracy. Her suggestion was to maybe add speed bumps. She closed by stating there should be some provision that states in the future they should be required to do something about the potential traffic increases in that neighborhood. Kimberick Hayner lives at 1 Hill Street. He noted the applicant is requesting to not meet with the school district because this is a commercial development and not impact the school traffic. However, they do not know this until they meet with the school district. Director Epple stated that from a traffic standpoint, the school district should be consulted. Mr. Hayner stated he would like to get a copy of the waivers because the applicant is also requesting to be excused from meeting with the historic preservationist and feels this needs to be addressed. 1:45:27 [20:26:30] Questions for Staff Brian Caldwell asked Planner Krueger to give more detail on the importance of the wetlands in this proposal. Mr. Krueger responded the UDO addresses wetlands adjacent to watercourse corridors and when the applicant had this area delineated, they found these wetlands are isolated according to the federal government. Both the wetlands in this area are isolated and there is no specific setback requirement regarding this. Caren Roberty stated this is a commercial development and is not sure what they can press as a requirement. Dave Jarrett noted his concern is with the trail and connectivity. There is adequate area to use for this. Jason Burke stated they will take GVLT's comments and move the building forward about ten feet and are accepting that as a viable option. Caren Roberty suggested the applicant take the turn off of 3rd and put the access ways somewhere else. Bill Quinn stated he likes the way this looks and is hopeful that the trail will continue down to the Allison and Figgins subdivisions. Randy Carpenter stated he has no comments about the plat itself, but regarding some site issues. He noted GVLT made some good points regarding connectivity and stated if the developer does not provide for connectivity, they will end up having a path going back there whether they like it or not. He noted the fence does not seem to be that big a deal. He suggested that they could separate the parking lot from the trail with some nice landscaping and this could be a good idea. Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff stated his concern is this potential drive through bank. The building would discourage cut through traffic. That drive through has consumed so much space that this now causes the applicant to have to put another building in the back of this property. He closed by suggesting they remove the drive through. Vice President Dave Jarrett stated he thinks this is a good project. He noted his dislike in having the backs of these buildings facing Kagy. Mr. Jarrett suggested the applicant take GVLT's comments into consideration in regards to the trail. He is hopeful they will resolve the design of the rear of the building so they look good. He closed by noting he concurs with the other comments. 1:57:20 [20:38:19] Motion and Vote Randy Carpenter moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat Application #P-07012 with the conditions as listed by Planning Staff. The motion was seconded by Steve Kirchhoff. Those in favor being Randy Carpenter, Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell, Bill Quinn, and Dave Jarrett. Those against being Steve Kirchhoff. Motion passed 5-1. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Andy Epple commented the County Growth Policy Master Plan proposal may come before the Planning Board. He stated the County and City Staff are working on this and at some point, the City and County Planning Boards will be reviewing this. Randy Carpenter stated he put together a slide show and would like to present this at some Planning Board meeting in the future regarding the new growth policy. Mr. Epple noted it was enlightening. The Planning Board members were all in agreement to either put this on the agenda as a future item or to meet on their own time to review Mr. Carpenter's presentation. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Vice President Dave Jarrett adjourned the meeting at 9:04 PM. ___________________________________ _____________________________________ Dave Jarrett, Vice President Andrew Epple, Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development 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).