Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-07 Planning Board Minutes.doc **MINUTES** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL 411 EAST MAIN STREET TUESDAY, APRIL 17TH, 2007 7:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair Pro Tempore Erik Henyon called the meeting to order at 7:04PM and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Members Absent Erik Henyon, Chair Pro Temp JP Pomnichowski Randy Carpenter Dave Jarrett Brian Caldwell Caren Roberty Ed Sypinski William Quinn Steve Kirchhoff Staff Present Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present Katryn Mitchell Jami Morris Craig Mendenhall Cory Ravnaas 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 none, he closed this portion of the meeting Seeing there was none, Erik Henyon closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 3RD, 2007 Brian Caldwell moved to approve the minutes of April 3rd, 2007 as written. The motion was seconded by Ed Sypinski and Randy Carpenter. All in favor, motion passed 5-0. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-07015 (Story Mill Neighborhood) - A Major Subdivision Pre-Application on behalf of the owners, Blue Sky Development, and applicant, GoBuild Inc., and representative, Hyalite Engineering and GBD Architects to receive advice and direction to allow the development of a 166 lot major subdivision and planned unit development consisting of 72 Single Household lots, 21 Townhouse lots, 28 Condominium lots, 10 Commercial lots, 3 Industrial lots, and 32 Park/ Recreation/ Open Space lots on 106.621 gross acres of property. Legal description of property varies, please see applicant submittal materials.(Saunders) Staff Report Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development Chris Saunders gave the detailed staff report. He stated that the board is familiar with this project as they have already seen the Informal Application and the Growth Policy Amendment for this applicant. Mr. Saunders noted there are several different components to this subdivision process and the Zone Map Amendment had listed a wide variety of uses for this area. He stated all previous applications for this project have been approved and no public comment has been received to date. Assistant Director Saunders commented the biggest issue for this proposal is traffic and the levels of service. The applicant is proposing to do private streets in this subdivision. There is current discussion regarding the connection of Cedar Street. There are existing water and sewer services to this area. He added there is ample open space and park land. Mr. Saunders noted this project would allow the City to make some trail connections. There are a lot of water concerns on this property and these concerns affect the layout and design of this subdivision. He closed by stating the applicant does not have a full phasing plan as of yet. Applicant Presentation Cory Ravnaas from Hyalite Engineers opened by stating the Planning Board has heard from him on previous occasions and to not repeat his previous presentation, he will be introducing Craig Mendenhall from GBD Architects who will be conducting the applicant’s portion of this presentation. Craig Mendenhall stated the property consists of 106 total acres and there is 50 acres green space on this property. The Story Mill will be the focal point of this project and the cultural hub. There is also 13 acres of wetlands and these wetlands are currently in bad shape. Their proposal will rehabilitate those wetlands. Mr. Mendenhall noted they will have an extensive trail system and this project will include 1,200 dwelling units. They are trying to accomplish higher density on this site to equal 22 units per acre. This will promote prime farmland outside of city limits. Steve Kirchhoff asked the number of single family detached and single family attached homes there are in the residential portion of project. Mr. Mendenhall responded these are all multiple family homes and added there are only seven single family home lots in this project. He added there will be 10% of affordable housing which will be dispersed throughout this site. Mr. Mendenhall commented 118,000 square feet of community neighborhood commercial on this property. They will limit the amount of pervious services on this site. He noted they are creating pedestrian paths along the streets. They are trying to achieve LEED certification for these buildings. They fully intend to document and tell the story of Nelson Story and the Story Mill district through the design of this project. They will add canopies to the Story Mill itself. He noted they will be bringing in some new buildings to complement the historic buildings in this area. This area will have seven districts and are looking to achieve ‘community through interaction’ with their design. A way people can constantly interact with each other and create street activity. The plan is to create streets free from cul-de-sacs. Mr. Mendenhall stated they are trying to create onsite energy, hide and buffer parking, promote alleys where possible, and have higher vertical buildings of up to 75 feet. They plan to introduce some dock like bridges across the wetlands. Cory Ravnaas stated this project will be done in ten phases. They designed this project around the buildings and broke this area up into thirty different blocks. This will take about ten years to build out this entire project. He noted they only have 41 acres of net buildable property on this site. Mr. Ravnaas stated they have 22 acres of ‘road right of way’. They want to get away from the typical standard of ‘bridge design’, but because of the desire to preserve the wetlands, they had to come up with a better idea than the standards. Questions for Staff Brian Caldwell stated there are 41 net buildable acres, obviously vertical construction is the viable way to get density from this project and with a building that is 3 to 4 stories tall, accommodating the parking is appropriate. He added this is a positive direction and needs to be encouraged. Mr. Caldwell noted his biggest concern is the timing for subdivision review. He asked Chris Saunders if a project can be approved for fifteen years if the ten years is not enough time to get this project completed. Mr. Saunders noted there is no prohibition about extending the approval beyond a certain limit, only that it is approved between the municipality and the developer. He noted the issue is how would one guarantee this would be completed. He noted that a big part of this is that they do a good design in the first place, but most of it revolves around zoning – if they follow up, the zoning aspects can be carried forward. Mr. Caldwell stated he liked the pedestrian design that does not completely revolve around vehicles and added this is a positive direction and needs to be encouraged. He noted that to make a financial commitment on a project of this grand scale is paramount. It could be easier to agree to the construction of all things just one time instead of having to approved a new phase once every three years. Steve Kirchhoff asked the board if the current direction of this project makes sense and added that in his opinion, it does. He noted that Brian Caldwell stressed how important timing is. Since this is a LEED project, it is doubtful we will have a change in the land use philosophy over the next three years. It seems the merits of the project, the multi modal forms of transportation are the aspects of this project he likes the most. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted the five to seven story format is wonderful and great, but there might be friction. He stated he does not anticipate they will have rave reviews from every member of the community, but vertical construction is the direction we need to move to in accomplishing density within city limits. He noted he dislikes the private streets, but stated it seems this projects needs it. Mr. Kirchhoff noted the bridges are a great asset aesthetically and wished the applicant success in this large scale process. Ed Sypinski stated his concern with the view shed and noted five to seven stories seems a little too high. He was concerned about the historic nature of this property and whether the mills and grain elevators can be saved. He asked the applicant to address these issues. Craig Mendenhall noted there are economic pressures in getting this done and they are all about adaptive reusing. The LEED project requires certain amounts of densities to achieve points. They are really at the low scale of density with 20-30 units per acre. This is why they stuck to the 5-7 story buildings, but are interested in creating view corridors. He noted they are sensitive to where we are placing those buildings. Cory Ravnaas stated the historic questions and answers will be included when they come forward with the formal PUD. They rated the historic buildings on which buildings were the best to reuse and renovate and stated there are two buildings that are in really bad shape. One building has a caved in roof and the grain elevator building has environmental concerns along with building structure issues. He noted no one wants to see either building taken down. Mr. Ravnass stated this will be a delicate matter and have not made any final decisions as to what is planned for those buildings. Mr. Mendenhall noted they want to use the silos for storage as they were originally intended. Chris Saunders stated that area is not located within the conservation district, but it is located in the national registry of historic districts. Ed Sypinski stated he does like the proposed bridges, but noted he did not think Bozeman has ever used that concept. He added it is a unique and distinctive advantage. There is concern for the 0 setbacks and whether or not this proposal is truly pedestrian friendly because of that setback. Mr. Saunders responded there is a two part elevated pedestrian pathway by the warehouses now. He noted his issue is to make sure the proper utilities can be installed in a 0 setback, but it is an important element in the subdivision review process. Mr. Saunders added concurrent construction is allowed in PUD projects. This can be used in combination with financial security. Ed Sypinski asked if there was a bus shelter in their proposal on private streets and asked if there was a bus route to and from Story Mill. Mr. Saunders clarified the term ‘private streets’ is not about who can traverse these streets, but who maintains these streets like an HOA. Mr. Sypinksi encouraged the development to use multimodal forms of transportation. He will be in support of this project. Randy Carpenter stated he felt the applicants are clearly going in the right direction. He was concerned that density is going to be problematic on the transportation infrastructure and felt that there could be no concise answer until a new traffic study is done. Until they can get an idea of what the impact is of 1,200 more dwelling units on top of the commercial that is planned and how that will impact traffic, he could not comment on that issue. Mr. Carpenter noted he was also concerned about the timing of this and long build-out. He stated the City of Bozeman could be at 60 thousand residents in ten years and truly felt this project is needed. Mr. Carpenter asked the applicant to explain the ‘dock bridge’. Mr. Ravnaas replied the bridges will have to meet the hydraulic requirements otherwise they will not get approved by the engineering department. He noted that it is possible to construct them because the other option is to pull a 404 permit and fill the wetlands to build a road over and they would rather preserve the wetlands. Mr. Carpenter asked the applicant if the underground parking will work there considering the ground water issues. Mr. Ravnaas responded there is a stigma in building in areas with high ground water. He noted they went to Portland and saw underground parking done properly and stated they just need to design for it by having pumps and backward bathtubs. Randy Carpenter stated he hopes they can do it because the mere presence of parked cars really changes a neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter asked the applicant to clarify how architecture drove the design of this neighborhood. Mr. Ravnaas stated they started on the design over a year ago and they had to start with parking and existing historic structures. They had to design the buildings first, then draw the lot lines after that. Randy Carpenter noted they mentioned the east/west orientation being a factor for an energy efficient building and asked the applicant to explain that. Mr. Mendenhall noted this was for the taller buildings. Mr. Carpenter asked him to explain why they keep using the term “LEED Pilot Project”. Mr. Mendenhall responded this project could be the first LEED certified pilot project because they are only allowing 120 of these projects in the U.S. to be certified with this criteria and they would like to be out of that 120. Randy Carpenter noted the setbacks are an issue just to accommodate the higher density. He stated people do not want to be crowded into an area and understood this 0 setback to only be in the commercial street areas. He asked if they were asking for 0 setbacks in the residential areas as well. Mr. Mendenhall replied they are only asking for 0 setbacks in the residential area where the residential buildings are providing a variety of uses. Mr. Carpenter stated the board is very much in support of this because this is the direction we will need to be in ten to fifteen years. His only issue is the traffic and it could really hurt this project if there is no articulation on how this will be clearly handled. Even with the deviations, Mr. Carpenter stated they will need to clearly define how they will address the traffic. Chair Pro Tempore Erik Henyon commented he only a problem with one of the sixteen deviations requested. He asked for clarification on the deviation to reduce the 150 foot separation from Bridger Drive. Cory Ravnaas stated this was the only way to provide an alternative, otherwise they would have to install cul-de-sacs and that would defeat their goal of connectivity. Mr. Henyon stated he is satisfied with the 0 setbacks because of the amount of green space and parkland in this area. He will not address his concerns with easements and right of way as these issues will be addressed with City Planning. Mr. Henyon commented that traffic is going to be an issue with this entire project and could be a sticking point. He suggested that Wallace could be a one way street going south and Broadway be changed into a one way going North. Mr. Ravnaas noted they were looking at that option. Mr. Saunders stated the City can look at this, however he noted the difficulty with one way streets is that traffic seems to go faster. Mr. Henyon stated he is in favor of predictability and in favor of extending the permitting process longer than the three years. He noted he is concerned with hazardous materials and site clean up in this area and asked the applicant how they are mitigating the clean up. Mr. Ravnaas responded the clean up is extremely expensive. He noted there is a minimum of 6-12 months worth of cleanup. The trailer park will be the biggest amount of clean up due to the fact they had their own sewer system. He noted they filled their existing sewers with concrete. Mr. Ravnaas stated they have about a million dollars worth of clean up. Erik Henyon stated as long as the traffic can be mitigated, he is comfortable with their request for building height. He noted those higher elevated buildings will be against the Story Hills and felt it would not interfere with the view sheds of the residents living there. Mr. Henyon would prefer the bridges be constructed in the ‘dock’ format so they can preserve the wetlands. These bridges work well in dry and wet climates, however they freeze much faster. He closed by stating he will be looking forward to this project and added the applicants have his full support. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Henyon stated the board received a letter from Bob Swinth regarding notification on the Allyson Subdivision. He noted this project has been on the City’s agenda and in the planning process for several years. Mr. Saunders stated phase one of that project was about six years ago. Mr. Caldwell stated public noticing is mandated by state statute. Mr. Saunders noted the state statute for noticing is that you would send the immediate adjoining persons within 200 feet these notices and publish it in the newspaper. The Planning office goes beyond that because we also post the site. Erik Henyon stated he will address his concerns and note that project was duly noticed and added this gentleman attended the public hearing and chose not to give public comment. Mr. Saunders stated this project was on several agendas even in the pre-application process to the City Commission and was televised. He closed by stating the City encourages public awareness and public participation. Ed Sypinski stated the local neighborhood councils are doing a great job. He added he feels the public needs to step up and take responsibility to get involved and create their own neighborhood councils. Mr. Saunders responded the City is also working on adding to the list of outreach tools. The City is working coordinating a map and connecting it to what is happening in the City by visually being able to tell which projects are active and give you a point of reference. He noted they are looking at some new software to connect all the links. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Ed Sypinski moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Brian Caldwell. All in favor. Meeting was adjourned at 8:37PM _________________________________ ________________________________ Erik Henyon, Chair Pro Tempore Chris Saunders, Assistant 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).