Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-07 Planning Board Minutes.doc AMENDED DRAFT **MINUTES** **Revised 6/18/07 CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, TUESDAY, MAY 15TH, 2007 7:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President and Chair, JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:00PM and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present: Members Absent: JP Pomnichowski Ed Sypinski Brian Caldwell Dave Jarrett Randy Carpenter Bill Quinn Caren Roberty Erik Henyon Steve Kirchhoff, Commission Liaison Staff Present: Lanette Windemaker, Planning Consultant Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Harley Huestis, PC Development Jason Leep, PC 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, President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 1ST, 2007 Seeing there were no changes, corrections, or additions to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated the minutes will stand as written. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, #P-07011 (Baxter Meadows PUD, Phase 4). Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application by applicant and owners, Baxter Meadows Development LP, and representative, PC Develoment, to subdivide ~ 48 acres into 125 single household lots, one multi household lot, one community center lot with open space and trail system on property legally described as a portion of Tract 4A-1, COS 2202B, located in the Northeast ¼ of Section 3, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.(Windemaker) Staff Report: Planner Lanette Windemaker gave the detailed staff report. She noted the Preliminary Plat for Phase 6 and Phase 3 of the Baxter Meadows PUD was given conditional approval in early 2006. Ms. Windemaker stated the property is zoned R-3 and is consistent with the 2020 plan’s designation of “Residential”. She added the pre-application was reviewed by the DRC in May 2006 where several concerns were noted: The need for improved multi model connectivity to the east, reverse frontage lots should only be allowed with superior design, pedestrian safety issues related to school access routes, the need for park and open space areas to be both physically and visually accessible, the need for street frontage on park areas, and the need to achieve minimum net density. Planner Windemaker noted the applicant has requested several relaxations; from Section 18.44.050 of the UDO to allow a 55 foot right of way width for local streets, from Section 18.42.040 to allow block length width to be more or less than the standard, from Section 18.42.150.C.5 to allow local street light mountings to be less than 25 feet, from Section 18.16.050.A to allow a corner side yard to be a minimum of 10 feet, and from Section 18.40.410 regarding community centers which was determined unnecessary and is addressed in condition number six of the PUD preliminary plan. She added condition number six is for the subdivision itself and notes the community center is an accessory use and not a conditional use. To address affordable housing, Planner Windemaker noted the applicant has some RSL’s on this property and have been asked by CAHAB that they not be single family, but be multi-family lots. She noted the UDO requires the developer to provide a minimum of 10% of the net buildable acreage be dedicated to RSL’s. She stated Chuck Winn noted the applicant shall not be granted final plat approval nor can construction commence until an appropriate fire station site has been secured. Ms. Windemaker added the proposed subdivision is adjacent to the regional park on the south and west and there are no direct impacts to that park, or other public lands. She noted staff is not recommending full or partial basements due to high ground water. There has been no public comment received to date. Planner Windemaker closed by stating staff if recommending conditional approval Questions for Staff: Commissioner Kirchhoff asked what the logic was behind only allowing townhomes on the RSL’s. Planner Windemaker responded single family homes are not affordable, the construction costs for a townhome are much less than the costs for building a single family home. Caren Roberty clarified these homes will be single family homes, but they will be attached. Planner Windemaker concurred. Erik Henyon asked who is responsible for finding a fire station on this site, the City? Ms. Windemaker noted the need for public safety in adding 400 + new residents to the area which would require a new fire station. Mr. Henyon asked what is keeping the City from doing this and Planner Windemaker stated it is the availability of land and the cost of land that is difficult. She noted the land has to be at a price the City could afford. Applicant Presentation: Harley Huestis with PC Development representing Baxter Meadows Development gave his presentation. He gave a conceptual overview of the project and noted this project is really shaping up after the minor subdivision and ZMA were approved by the Commission. The greater Baxter Meadows area, Phase IV, has a commercial node to the north, then further to west is multifamily, and single family. This new phase reaches six dwelling units per acre, and once you insert the multi family, it will equate to 7.2 units per acre. Mr. Huestis stated they are going to reconstruct the ditch area and put some nice landscaping in there. He noted they have designed some house plans that are of a nice architectural nature. Mr. Huestis stated they are asking for a narrower right of way along the fronts of the houses for access purposes. On the previous Pre-Application they submitted, he noted the plan was originally all single family housing, but at the recommendation of CAHAB, there will be a six acre multi family housing area to the south east. The community center will be owned and maintained by the residents in Phase IV. Mr. Huestis stated Planning Staff is supporting all their relaxations, but they do have a couple of conditions. He commented with condition 5, they would like to add the RSL's in the single family lots, because if they try to create those in the 6 acre home area, they would have to create 3,000 square foot townhouse lots which would make one lose creativity and flexibility, and each lot would require it's own water and sewer service, which ups the cost per unit. He noted this does not allow for a practical use of the land. They will not be able to meet the affordability problem if these lots are across from the regional park. Mr. Huestis stated what would end up happening is people would buy them and rent them out which would defeat the purpose of making these affordable units. He added the UDO only requires they dedicate 10% to RSL’s, it does not state where these RSL’s should be in a development. With condition #1, Mr. Huestis noted his team came back with the layout and found they could do a 55 foot right of way and added it sounds like Planning and Engineering would support that. He stated they request the language reflect that in the report. Mr. Huestis noted they are having a difficult time with condition 13, as the fire department issue would set them back. They did offer to look at finding the Fire Department a place north of Baxter lane. He added they are trying to help them, but feels this condition is unfair because they cannot have this project held up until the fire department finds the land for a new station. Questions for Applicant: Brian Caldwell asked if the fire department could fit into a location in the regional park master plan. Mr. Huestis responded they are looking at a 1-2 acre parcel not in that area, but in the meantime are working with the regional park and could possibly get the fire station some land there. Erik Henyon asked the applicant how many homes have been sold out in Baxter Meadows to date. Mr. Huestis responded they have sold 30-40 condos and 50-60 single family homes. Mr. Henyon then asked how many homes will be sold by the time construction is completed. Planner Windemaker replied that would be a hugely flexible number and could not be determined. Mr. Henyon commented the reason for this line of questions is that the impact fees for each lot should be used for the fire department location and this project alone could fund a fire department there. Ms. Windemaker stated the fire department is asking PC Development & Baxter Meadows Development to sell them a piece of ground to put a new fire station on. Mr. Henyon asked why the City would hold up a project just for a piece of land for a new fire station. Planner Windemaker responded there are service issues and safety issues out there that need to be addressed. Mr. Huestis noted Chuck Winn came to the DRC meeting and stated he realized they probably could not do it, but they have been talking to developers and cannot afford the full price for a parcel of land. He added they have spoken to their attorney and the City is putting a moratorium on this development and that is not legal. He closed by requesting that condition be removed to send another signal to the Commissioners that stopping this development is not appropriate. Caren Roberty asked the applicant what the price point would be for the restricted size lots. Jason Leep from PC Development replied this development is going to be marketed toward empty nesters, but it will be a 0 maintenance issue so it's carefree. It will definitely be marketed to the upper end. He added the smaller units will be in the $425K price range and larger units will be at $650K range. With the multifamily attached units, they will end up with three price points in that area. Mr. Leep noted the project as a whole has different housing types with three different products, but this phase is not geared towards affordable housing Randy Carpenter asked the applicant to clarify the right of way sections. Mr. Huestis responded they are asking for the 55 foot right of way just along the fronts of the homes with the access ways. Mr. Carpenter if a parkway would be the same as this. Mr. Huestis replied a parkway has to be a 70 foot right of way, but this street is a local street and not classified as a collector or arterial in the transportation plan. Mr. Carpenter stated it is difficult to understand the trail systems in this development and asked if the applicant has received comment from GVLT. Mr. Huestis noted they are currently finishing up a mile’s worth of trails and are working closely with GVLT on this as well as a mid walk crossing. He added they are looking at a three way stop as well. Randy Carpenter asked what they were planning on putting in the community center. Mr. Huestis replied it will be one structure, maybe 11500 square feet in size, and it will have a kitchen with a big meeting room for functions, and maybe a gym. Mr. Carpenter asked if they will have parking allotted for the community center. Mr. Huestis commented there will not a lot of parking, but they will have to supply some parking. He added this center is meant to be primarily for the members of Phase IV. Randy Carpenter asked the applicant where he anticipates the other RSL’s to be in this development. Mr. Huestis responded that on the preliminary plat, there are 18 to 23 restricted size lots with alleys on the two blocks right in the middle. The alleys will allow for a garage in the back. Erik Henyon noted he liked the idea that the retention pond was on the northeast corner away from Spring Creek ditch, but was wondering if that would disturb the creek and whether it was sufficient enough for storm water. Mr. Huestis replied it is not sufficient enough for storm water, but there are a number of retention ponds to help with this issue. He commented they have been working on getting the landscaping to work with the retention ponds. President Pomnichowski asked the applicant if they have the required 310 and 404 permits. Mr. Huestis noted they have both permits and they are in the appendix of the supplemental materials. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the Spring Ditch is owned by the Farmer’s Canal Company. Mr. Huestis replied this question was raised by Bob Murray. He noted Spring Ditch is a naturally occurring stream that can be drained into, but it is foremost a stream. JP Pomnichowski asked if they completed their flood plain delineation. Mr. Huestis stated they have not done that as of yet, but it will be done in the engineering design before the Final Plat. He added the flood plain is not even half way to the stream ditch. Planner Windemaker noted the applicant will have to demonstrate where the flood plain is before the City gives them final plat approval. It is a very small are to the north. JP Pomnichowski noted her concerns and stated she wants to see the delineation done. Ms. Pomnichowski asked Mr. Huestis what the alley way widths will be. He responded they will be 30 feet wide. She asked why they did not propose a wider alley width because this will not accommodate a turning radius on some of the newer vehicles. Mr. Huestis noted the minimum for an alley way is 20 feet, but they are doing 30 foot alleys. He added that is the standard being used all over town and they are going to use the same plan and feels like that is plenty generous. JP Pomnichowski asked if Fired signed off on this at the DRC meetings. He noted these lots all have the standard setbacks, another 20 feet from the back of the lot to the garage. Lanette Windemaker also commented the fire department did not present any objections to this. JP Pomnichowski noted the lot coverage seems pretty aggressive and asked if they were meeting the requirements. Planner Windemaker stated they would have to meet it, but we will not see it until they apply for a building permit. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she would like to keep the requirement that the fire station site be in your development. She added there are going to be hundreds of people living there and the fire safety issues are for the many structures in this development. Mr. Huestis asked President Pomnichowski if she would recommend the other subdivisions have a fire station as well. She responded they are going to have $425K homes in their area and wouldn’t they want to protect those homes. President Pomnichowski noted the development along Oak and Baxter had to be stopped in order to improve the streets. She stated the fire station be placed somewhere on their site or in the surrounding area to give security to the residents. Brian Caldwell asked if condition 14 addressed the 100 year flood plain. Planner Windemaker concurred, but added if the limits start to encroach upon a lot, they would need to pull the lot out of the flood plain. JP Pomnichowski stated the applicant commented earlier that they will not meet affordability across from the park. She asked them to at least try. She asked Mr. Huestis to clarify the single family RSL’s will be in the center and the multi-family in the South. Mr. Huestis confirmed and noted the town homes will end up getting rented. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how they plan to meet the affordable housing requirement. Mr. Huestis replied they are supplying 10% of the lots to RSL lots. She asked if they could think of ways to bring the prices down so it is not such expensive 'square footage'? Mr. Huestis stated one could, but this is not their intention of this development. President Pomnichowski commented to the applicants that what they are truly after is profitability. Planner Windemaker stated that sadly, the UDO only allows for a smaller size lots, we cannot manage the cost per unit, we only require smaller lots. Mr. Huestis noted the smaller lots would require smaller homes which would decrease the cost of a house. Discussion Brian Caldwell stated that regarding the fire department issue, having a fire department there and their presence would have a positive impact on the regional park. We could offer an alternate condition that would help them modify their master plans in order to accommodate a fire station. It seems that in a 100 acre park, a 1-2 acre lot for a fire department seems reasonable. He noted this fits the community. Randy Carpenter asked the board to define this condition. Caren Roberty remarked one could not purchase land that was bought with open space bond money like the regional park and are not allowed to use the parkland for anything else except parkland. Mr. Caldwell stated the applicant expressed their willingness to find another location for the fire department, time and site plans, it seemed to line up with the willingness of the applicant. There would be some public benefit and synergy because the YMCA would be there as well. Randy Carpenter stated he would not support anything that would take away parkland and suggested to the board to leave this condition as it is. He stated they applicant has an attorney and the board members should let the legal departments work this one out. JP Pomnichowski asked if the regional park is owned by the City or County. Planner Windemaker responded the parkland has been annexed into the City, however it is owned by Gallatin County. Erik Henyon asked Commissioner Kirchhoff to give his opinion and educate the board members on the issue at hand in regards to a new site for the Fire Department. Steve Kirchhoff replied it is easy to assume the City of Bozeman can purchase land with impact fees collected from development projects. However, development is progressing much faster than our current city services can provide. He added the city can construct a fire department, but do not have enough money to service that fire department. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted he agreed with Mr. Caldwell’s suggestion to let the developer assist the City in finding a location for a new fire department. He stated stopping development of a project to meet the service needs of the community is not uncommon, but it is unpleasant and must be addressed for public health and safety issues. Caren Roberty noticed how on recent projects, the proposals are putting the RSL’s into little pods in the middle of these high end developments. She noted this does not solve the issue of creating a ‘neighborhood’. She noted the RSL's should be mixed within the development and not in a pocket in the middle of the development. Ms. Roberty closed by stating the advisory boards need to push the idea that affordable homes need to be scattered throughout the developments. Bill Quinn noted the requirement for RSL's is being met in this application. He added the affordability is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Henyon stated in looking at this project as a whole, the applicants are meeting the UDO standards because the size of the lots and percent allotted have been met. Commissioner Kirchhoff replied he agrees with Ms. Roberty’s suggestions and added the intent of RSL’s have not yet materialized and is in support of mixing up the restricted size lots within the development. Brian Caldwell commented the applicant could also aggregate some of the lots to create another RSL and this could answer the problem. Motion and Vote: Brian Caldwell moved to recommend an added sentence in Condition Thirteen regarding the fire department to read “the applicant will help facilitate the possibility of locating fire station #3 at the regional park”. The motion was seconded by Erik Henyon. All in favor, motion passed unanimously 7-0. Bill Quinn moved to amend Condition Five to strike the second sentence reading “The additional RSL’s not identified as a single household detached dwelling unit on the preliminary plat shall be designated as single household attached Restricted Size Dwelling Units within the multi-family lot, Lot 12, Block 7.” Leaving only the very first sentence where the subdivider shall ensure the minimum of 10 percent of the net buildable acreage is dedicated to Restricted Size Lots (RSLs). The motion was seconded by Erik Henyon. Those in favor being Bill Quinn, Erik Henyon, Randy Carpenter. Those against being Caren Roberty, JP Pomnichowski, Steve Kirchhoff, and Brian Caldwell. Motion failed 3-4. Bill Quinn moved to accept the recommendation of Condition One to read "The right-of-way widths of "A" Way and "B" Street shall not be less than 55' wide.  Any street with a ROW less than 60' wide shall be subject to the following conditions." The motion was seconded by Steve Kirchhoff. Those in favor being Bill Quinn, Steve Kirchhoff, Erik Henyon, Randy Carpenter, Brian Caldwell, JP Pomnichowski, and Caren Roberty. All in favor, motion passed unanimously 7-0. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Erik Henyon stated he needs an updated UDO. The recording secretary responded she will bring one to the next Planning Board Meeting. Brian Caldwell announced he would like to be on the subcommittee for the 2020 Update and will contact Senior Planner Jody Sanford and Assistant Director Chris Saunders to inform them. Randy Carpenter suggested the City Planning Board meet again with the County Planning Board. President Pomnichowski concurred and recommended it be very soon. She noted she will put in that request and asked the members of the board to submit agenda items. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there we no other issues before the board, Chair and President, JP Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 8:32PM. __________________________________ __________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, President & Chair Andrew Epple, Director Planning Board Department 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).