HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-07 Planning Board Minutes.doc*** MINUTES ***
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
7:30 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Acting Chair Erik Henyon called the regular meeting of the City Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present:
Erik Henyon, Acting Chair
Caren Roberty
Randy Carpenter
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell
Members Absent:
JP Pomnichowski (excused)
Eric Roset
Bill Quinn (excused)
Kaaren Jacobsen (excused)
Staff Present:
Martin Knight, Planner
Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Priscilla Walcheck, 5551 Cottonwood Road
Rob Pertzborn, Intrinsik
John Dunlap
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 were no members of the public wishing to give any comment, Acting Chair Henyon closed this portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2007
Seeing there were no corrections, changes or additions to the minutes, it was moved by Caren Roberty, seconded by Ed Sypinski, that the minutes of the regular meeting of August 21, 2007,
be approved as submitted. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
Subdivision Preliminary Plat #P-07028 (West Winds Phases 4-8) - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of the owners, Cascade Development, and the representatives,
HKM Engineering, to allow the subdivision of ~ 85 acres into 220 lots in the West Winds Planned Unit Development, zoned R-3 (Residential Medium Density District). The property is legally
described as NW ¼, Section 2, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Windemaker)
Staff Report:
Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker briefly reviewed this application for preliminary plat for Phases 4 through 8 of West Winds Subdivision, noting that the plats for Phases 1 through
3 have been finalized. The property is generally bounded by Baxter Lane, West Oak Street, North 27th Avenue and Davis Lane. The application for preliminary plat includes a variety of
lots, including single-family, single-family townhouse, multi-family, and a church lot, up to a potential of 220 lots. She stated the applicant wants to retain the idea of the two planned
unit development options like was previously approved and has submitted two options for some of the phases. She noted that, in conjunction with this application, the applicant is seeking
a modification to amend the building height; and that is an issue to be addressed by the City Commission.
Contract Planner Windemaker noted that two options have been provided for Phases 4 and 5, one being a multi-family option and the other being a single-family townhouse option. Phase
6 includes the church block and single-family residential; Phase 7 is single-family residential with the remaining one-third of parkland dedication; and Phase 8 is residential located
in the northwest corner of the project.
The Contract Planner stated that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust has submitted a letter expressing concern about the location of the east/west linear green space with trail across the
top of Phase 5 and suggesting that it be relocated to the south side of Winter Park. She then forwarded staff’s position that the present location is preferable, particularly since
there is no certainty that sidewalks will be installed adjacent to the parkland.
Contract Planner Windemaker stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the applicable criteria, and staff’s comprehensive findings are contained in the written staff
report. Based on those findings, staff has forwarded a recommendation for approval subject to several conditions. She indicated that, while none of the conditions are unusual, the
applicant has voiced concern about Condition Nos. 14 and 20. She noted Condition No. 14 is the standard condition that the Fire Department is recommending for any development in this
quadrant of the community; and Condition No. 20 has been forwarded by the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
Questions for Staff:
Responding to questions from Brian Caldwell, Contract Planner Windemaker stated that parks do not have to be physically attached; rather, sidewalks and trails can provide connectivity.
In this instance she finds there is not a lack of connectivity.
Further responding to Brian Caldwell, Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker stated that the street lighting required is dependent on the type of street, its design and the speed limit.
She noted that South 19th Avenue, which was the subject of a lighting discussion at the last Planning Board meeting, is designated as a state highway with a speed limit of 60 miles
per hour; and the lighting standards for that roadway are substantially different from those for a local major arterial with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
Responding to Ed Sypinski, Contract Planner Windemaker confirmed the only formalized trail corridor that goes through all phases of the subdivision is the one on the north side of Winter
Park. She noted that where block lengths exceed 600 feet, mid-block pedestrian crossings will be provided, and there will be short pedestrian trails through various blocks within the
subdivision.
Responding to Erik Henyon, the Contract Planner stated that Project Engineer Sue Stodola has worked with the applicant to ensure that the streets meet spacing requirements.
Further responding to Erik Henyon, the Contract Planner stated that parking requirements must be met for all phases, no matter which option is selected. She noted that the assisted
living component will have a lower parking requirement and then indicated that some on-street parking may be counted toward meeting parking requirements, except there is no parking along
an arterial.
Responding to Erik Henyon, Contract Planner Windemaker stated that the fire service overlay and map in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan has been superseded by the new fire master plan
that was adopted in November 2006.
Responding to additional questions from Erik Henyon, Contract Planner Windemaker confirmed that this subdivision is exempt from the new work force housing ordinance. She then addressed
the building height relaxation being sought, noting that the maximum height for the steepest pitch roof in the R-3 zone is 42 feet; and the applicant is requesting a relaxation to allow
a 42-foot height with a lower pitch roof.
Applicant Presentation:
Clint Litle, HKM Engineering, voiced concurrence with the staff report as presented by Contract Planner Windemaker. He stated that the preliminary plat before the Board is in compliance
with the planned unit development for West Winds and meets the Engineering Department’s requirements. He indicated that all street lighting will be in compliance with the Unified Development
Ordinance, and parking will also meet code requirements. He stated that The Village is a senior housing development, with independent living homes next to the large building. He noted
that a traffic impact study was done with the original planned unit development for this subdivision, and the Engineering Department has determined it does not need to require renewing
of that study because of recent work completed on North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street.
Mr. John Dunlap, applicant, noted that modifications and adjustments have been made to the original conceptual plans for this subdivision to ensure that connectivity with neighboring
developments works well. He then turned his attention to Condition No. 14, which requires that an appropriate fire station site be secured prior to final plat approval and construction
of any infrastructure improvements. He noted that when he went through the planned unit development process for this subdivision, he had to make sure that the development matched with
the fire overlay and that public safety could be satisfactorily provided. He is now caught in the middle of a change because a revised fire master plan has been adopted. He stressed
that he embraces health and safety issues, but Condition No. 14 as written presents a significant hardship for him and asked that the condition be stricken or that, at a minimum, he
be granted the same standards as the neighboring Baxter Meadows Subdivision. He then turned his attention to Condition No. 20, noting that connectivity has been provided throughout
the subdivision, including connections to the park as referenced in No. 20.f. He noted that Item No. 20.c. encourages townhouse lots, but cautioned that the West Winds community is
already overloaded on townhouse lots. He noted that the RSL lots include a restriction on the size of dwelling units and directly ties to the affordable housing issue. He concluded
by stating he agrees with the remainder of the conditions and will comply with them.
Questions for Applicant:
Responding to Caren Roberty, Mr. Dunlap stated the requested building height relaxation is to allow a three-story building with a 5:12 pitch at the maximum height allowed in an R-3 zone.
He stated the building is to be located in the northern two blocks of Phase 3, along Breeze Lane.
Responding to Erik Henyon, Clint Litle stated that Lynn Bacon has been retained by the applicant, and she is applying for the 310 and 404 permits that are needed under the planned unit
development.
Responding to Brian Caldwell, Clint Litle stated that the watercourse along Davis Lane and any wetland mitigation will be done in conjunction with the planned unit development. He assured
the Board that they will work closely with the irrigation ditch company and will ensure the ditch remains open and free of any obstruction. He stated that the roadway is to be located
in its current alignment with the irrigation ditch located in the center median, similar to the North 27th Avenue alignment where the power poles are located in the center median.
Public Testimony:
Seeing there were no members of the public wishing to comment on this matter, Acting Chair Henyon closed this portion of the meeting.
Discussion:
Responding to questions from Brian Caldwell, Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker stated she has heard the site for the new fire station is near resolution; however, she cautioned that
under the condition as written, it must be finalized before this subdivision can move forward.
Ed Sypinski stated he will weigh in on the side of public safety. He voiced his concern about this quadrant of the community, noting that with all of the development in this area, a
fire station is needed. As a result, he feels Condition No. 14 should be retained.
Randy Carpenter voiced his agreement, stating he has heard no good argument to strike Condition No. 14.
Brian Caldwell suggested that the issue of the fire station location should be addressed separate from any specific application, noting that it could then be the subject of a more direct
discussion.
Caren Roberty addressed the various elements in Condition No. 20, noting these were recommendations from the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board. She noted that when this application
was presented to the CAHAB, they viewed the large church parcel as a significant loss of townhouses, which they felt was the best affordability option. She stated the CAHAB has been
told repeatedly that RSLs are not affordable, so the CAHAB is trying to encourage more attached units because they find unattached units are not affordable. She proposed that Item 20.f.
could be stricken, stating that she feels the issue of connectivity has already been addressed. She then turned her attention to Condition No. 14, stating she supports retaining the
condition as written. She suggested that the developers in this area should become actively involved in trying to find a site for the new fire station, although she recognizes that
the City and the County need to get that process moving.
Erik Henyon asked about the condition that was negotiated with Baxter Meadows. He suggested another option would be to allow installation of the subdivision infrastructure and tie the
fire station site to the issuance of building permits.
Brian Caldwell suggested that the Board forward a second recommendation to the Commission instead of conditioning projects in this manner. He then noted he is not sure the Board should
wordsmith a condition that has been written by the Fire Marshal.
Randy Carpenter stated he does not want to make any changes to the conditions, noting that the Commission may have better information on which to make its decision.
Ed Sypinski reiterated his support for Condition No. 14, noting he will always weigh in on the side of public health and safety.
Erik Henyon suggested that the motion could include the conditions as proposed, with a recommendation that the Commission look at Condition No. 14; the language in the conditions of
approval for Baxter Meadows Subdivision, Phase 4; and the option of tying the fire station site to the issuance of building permits rather than installation of the subdivision infrastructure.
Responding to Erik Henyon, Caren Roberty confirmed that she feels Item No. 20.f. should be stricken. Following a brief discussion, it was determined the condition should be changed
to read “Encourage connectivity with the park shall be provided.”
In response to comments from other Board members, Caren Roberty stated the CAHAB’s experience is that it is almost impossible to finance a condominium because such a large percentage
of them become rentals and the values then drop.
Motion and Vote:
It was moved by Caren Roberty, seconded by Ed Sypinski, that the Planning Board recommend approval of the preliminary plat for West Winds Subdivision, Phases 4 through 8, under Application
No. P-07028 as conditioned by staff, with Condition No. 20.f. amended to read “Encourage connectivity with the park shall be provided.”; and encourage the City and County to begin the
process of taking action on getting the site for the new fire station selected. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote.
Growth Policy Amendment #P-07036 (Cottonwood Crossing) – A Growth Policy Amendment Application on behalf of the owners, Betty Madill Trustee of B. Madill Inter Vivos Trust, and the
representatives, Intrinsik Architecture, to amend the Land Use Designation on 6.6 acres from “Residential” to “Business Park”. The property is legally described as Ne¼, Section 16,
T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Knight)
Staff Report:
Assistant Planner Martin Knight noted this application is for a growth policy from “Residential” to “Business Park” on 6.6 acres at the southwest corner of the intersection of Huffine
Lane and Cottonwood Road. He referenced two previous applications for this property, noting that in the Spring and Fall of 2005, applications were submitted to amend the land use designation
in the growth policy to “Neighborhood Commercial”. He stated that, at that time, neither the staff nor the City Commission was supportive of the request, determining that commercial
development along Huffine Lane west of Cottonwood Road was not appropriate.
Assistant Planner Knight stated that staff has reviewed this application in light of the applicable criteria, and staff’s findings are contained in the written staff report. He noted
that staff is not supportive of the requested amendment as they found it does not satisfy all of the review criteria. He cautioned that approval would set a precedent for extending
commercial uses along the south side of Huffine Lane further west than had been anticipated.
Assistant Planner Martin Knight reminded the Board that the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan is currently undergoing an update; and one of the recommendations being considered is the elimination
of the “Business Park” land use designation because it focuses on a single land use pattern, is land consumptive, and does not reflect current market trends toward mixed use.
The Assistant Planner concluded by stating that this application will be heard before the City Commission at its September 17 meeting.
Applicant Presentation:
Rob Pertzborn, Intrinsik, representing Covenant Investments LLC and the Madill family, distributed copies of his speech outline, noting it includes his key points. He characterized
this as a simple change, stressing that he is not asking for a zone change but is asking for a different percentage of the allowed uses. He noted that the subject parcel has 440 feet
of frontage at the intersection of two arterials, with the traffic on Huffine Lane approaching 20,000 average daily trips. He stated this type of location does
not lend itself well to residential development. He noted that, as a result, he is requesting the change in land use designation to allow a greater percentage of office space, and stressed
that no retail space is being proposed.
Rob Pertzborn noted that the property across Huffine Lane has an underlying land use designation of “Business Park”. He stated that allowing the same land use designation for this site,
when combined with the existing “R-O” zoning, the entryway corridor guidelines, and the development manual for Loyal Garden, will ensure compatibility with the area while allowing a
more appropriate mix of office and residential uses.
Questions for Staff and Applicant:
Responding to questions from Brian Caldwell, Assistant Planner Martin Knight cautioned that approval of this application cannot be based on a specific site plan; rather, development
of the site will be done through a separate application. He noted that, if this application were being reviewed in conjunction with a site plan application, then that information could
be taken into consideration but that is not the case in this instance. Further responding to Mr. Caldwell, the Assistant Planner confirmed that it would be possible to change the percentages
between office and residential development on the subject property through the planned unit development process.
Responding to Erik Henyon, Rob Pertzborn confirmed that under the current “Residential Office” land use designation, a minimum of 51 percent must be residential while up to 49 percent
can be office development. Under the requested “Business Park” land use designation and the existing “Residential Office” zoning designation, up to 100 percent of the site could be
office development.
Further responding to Erik Henyon, Rob Pertzborn stated he is not sure what percentages of residential and office uses will be proposed; however, he stressed this is not the place for
residential development. He noted it would be good to do a nice grouping of offices on the two lots fronting on Huffine Lane, with a look at the market helping to identify the mix of
residential uses that could be incorporated on the third lot, which fronts along Cottonwood Road.
Public Comment:
Priscilla Walcheck, 5551 Cottonwood Road, noted she lives just south of this property. She stated that, while she has no problem with changing the land use designation for the two lots
fronting on Huffine Lane, she does object to allowing offices or businesses along Cottonwood Road.
Discussion:
Brian Caldwell stated he feels the Planning Board should try to plan development along Huffine Lane, rather than fearing what changes might be proposed. He acknowledged that the Board
is unable to consider massing, design and architecture at this time, which is where the fear arises. He noted, however, that he supports modifying the land use designation for the two
lots fronting on Huffine Lane, while leaving the designation for the lot fronting on Cottonwood Road the same.
Ed Sypinski stated that he agrees in principle; however, he cannot support the change without seeing specific development plans for the site.
Caren Roberty stated she is skeptical of approving a “Business Park” land use designation when it may be eliminated in the growth policy update and noted that, ideally, she would like
to see a reasonable amount of neighborhood commercial allowed for this corner. In the alternative, however, she finds Brian Caldwell’s proposal to modify the land use designation for
the two lots fronting on Huffine Lane would be appropriate while leaving the land use designation for the lot fronting on Cottonwood Road as residential.
Randy Carpenter stated he is surprised that this application has been submitted at a time when the growth policy is being updated and this area is so uncertain and controversial. He
agrees that a mix of office and residential use makes more sense than residential development. He concluded by stating that he is inclined not to support this application, remaining
consistent with previous decisions, and to wait for the update of the growth policy.
Caren Roberty suggested that, if the Board chooses not to recommend approval of this amendment, it should make a fairly strong statement of how it feels this corner should be developed
so it can be considered in the growth policy update.
Erik Henyon stated that residential development on this corner is not appropriate. He agrees that neighborhood commercial would be a better use of this site, particularly with the growth
that is occurring in this area; however, he recognized that type of use has been consistently denied. He stated that amending the land use designation to “Business Park” on the two
lots fronting on Huffine Lane while leaving the land use designation for the lot fronting on Cottonwood Road as “Residential” would allow for a true mixed use development. He does feels
it would be appropriate to partially approve this amendment in that manner, stating he feels that the growth policy update would allow for that type of use anyway. He concluded by noting
the applicant has a proven track record of providing quality development, and the Board must rely on the process to ensure that development of the site is done appropriately.
Randy Carpenter expressed his concern that this is an important intersection in the community, and that the Board is being asked to make a change without any community discussion. He
then reiterated his position that the land use designation for this corner should be determined through the growth policy update process.
In light of additional discussion, the Board members all agreed that residential development fronting on Huffine Lane is not appropriate and that a good mix of office and residential
development would be acceptable; however, some of the members continued to voice concerns about considering this amendment when the growth policy update process is underway.
Motion and Vote:
It was moved by Ed Sypinski, seconded by Randy Carpenter, that the Planning Board recommend to the Commission approval of the growth policy amendment land use designation from “Residential”
to “Business Park” on the two lots adjacent to Huffine Lane but not on the lot adjacent to Cottonwood Road, requested under Application No. P-07036, with the conditions recommended by
staff. The motion carried on a 3-2 vote, with Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell and Erik Henyon voting Aye and Ed Sypinski and Randy Carpenter voting No. Because less than five members
voted to approve the requested amendment, this is an unofficial recommendation to the City Commission.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
September 18 meeting. Caren Roberty asked if there will be a quorum for the September 18 meeting. Randy Carpenter indicated that he will be present, although previous e-mails might
have suggested otherwise.
Vice Chair. Responding to Brian Caldwell, Erik Henyon stated that selection of a new Vice Chair is scheduled for the next meeting.
Invitations to meetings. Randy Carpenter invited interested Planning Board members to attend a meeting on subdivision design in small towns, to be held on September 25 and 26 in Three
Forks. He also invited members to attend the panel discussion sponsored by the Gallatin Grassroots Forum and NewWest.com on September 12 at the Museum of the Rockies.
Topics for upcoming meetings. The Board members requested that they be given updates on certain topics as soon as possible, before delving into the master plan update. They include:
(1) presentation from Chuck Winn on the fire service areas and new master plan, (2) presentation from the Police Department, (3) discussion with the School Board on upcoming needs,
and (4) a presentation from Chris Saunders on the maps for the sewer and water services for the next twenty years. They recognized that the information garnered from these presentations
will be beneficial background information for updating the City’s growth policy.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board at this time, Acting Chair Erik Henyon adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Erik Henyon, Acting Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman