Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-07 Planning Board Minutes.docMINUTES CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2007 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members present: Staff Present: JP Pomnichowski, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Caren Roberty Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary Erik Henyon Kaaren Jacobson Brian Caldwell Randy Carpenter Edward Sypinski Eric Roset William Quinn Guests Present: Craig Mendenhall Steve Domreis Katherine Schultz Katryn Mitchell Cory Ravnaas Joby Sabol Scott Carpenter Jami Morris Jeanne Bucher, Boys and Girls Club Michael Bucher Paul L VanOrden Mark Cusack Tom Moore Ray Friesenhahn Representative from Panda Sports Rentals Joyce Miller Tim & Martha Jo Kearns 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 OCTOBER 16, 2007 Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated that the minutes of October 16, 2007 will stand as written. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-07032 (Story Mill Neighborhood Phases 1-10) - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application with relaxations through a concurrent Planned Unit Development for the owners, Blue Sky Development, Inc., et al. and Wake Up, Inc., and the representatives, GBD Architects and Hyalite Engineers, to allow the subdivision of ~ 106.651 acres into 166 lots in 10 phases for B-1 (Neighborhood Business District), B-2 (Community Business District) , R-S (Residential Suburban District), R-2 (Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District), and R-4 (Residential High Density District) development. The property is generally located east and south of Bridger Drive, east and west of the intersection of Griffin Drive and Story Mill Road. The various legal descriptions are found on pages 2-3 of the introduction to the application (Saunders) Staff Report: Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the staff report on Story Mill Neighborhood Preliminary Plat Application for Phases 1 through 10. He noted this discussion was limited to the plat rather than items addressed through the Planned Unit Development application. He noted both applications will be considered by the City Commission on December 3, 2007, and both files could be viewed by the public at the Alfred M. Stiff Professional building. Planner Saunders highlighted an overview of the plat beginning with the Growth Policy Amendment which had been adopted 8 months ago. He noted this was an intensive development with many different ideas contained within it. He noted that the growth policy would be advanced by this application. There are six different zoning districts contained within the application whereas previously the area was primarily industrial. He noted that the application proposed 65 single household lots, 88 multi-household lots, 11 mixed use/commercial lots, 21 attached single household lots, 32 Park and Open Space lots, and 4 mixed use/industrial lots. Planner Saunders noted the applicant was seeking approval for concurrent construction during Phases 1 and 2 of the plat. He noted there were conditions of approval mitigating the health and safety concerns of building concurrently. He stated the applicant’s request of a ten year approval period for the completion of all the phases. He highlighted Planning Staff’s concerns regarding Parks and Open Space, Transportation, and the length of time for development and the related conditions of approval which mitigated those concerns. Planner Saunders noted the public comment letters he had received to date. He noted Planning Staff is recommending approval with the conditions of approval. He also noted they are waiting on the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board’s recommendation on the project which will be received in time to utilize in the presentation before the City Commission. Applicant Presentation Joby Sabol, legal council for the applicant, noted the applicant’s desire to make sure public comment was heard and a part of the legal record. He also noted the inclusion of the application as a part of the record. Cory Ravnaas of Hyalite Engineering located at 1111 Research Drive presented the application on behalf of the applicant. He noted the Board first saw this project as an informal review in early November 2006. He began by noting construction would be a disruption at some point to current land owners in the area no matter how many phases were included. In light of that, Staff have recommended the completion of improvements to Story Mill Road with Phase 1. The applicant’s hope is to have the improvements completed within the course of a single year. Mr. Ravnaas shared that the application is broken down into 30 different blocks. Approximately 80 acres is zoned R-4 most of which is located on the east side of the Gallatin River. He also noted the more complex components of the application are those contained within the PUD application. He noted the applicant’s desire to work with and around the wetlands in the most respectful way. He stated the design of the plan was based on the Story Mill and those areas they needed to stay out of. He also mentioned the conflicting recommendations received from the Wetlands Review Board, GVLT, and the Recreation and Parks Board. He stated that the applicant was supportive of Planner Saunders’ recommendation. Mr. Ravnaas described the process the applicant went through to mitigate concerns regarding traffic. He noted the projected traffic distribution resulted in an estimated 9% of usage being on Wallace Avenue. The applicant had a review of the study done which resulted in various comments about the impact on Wallace Avenue. As a result, the applicant feels it is a reasonable projection. He noted that the TIS indicated a significant amount of offsite traffic improvements in regards to the plat. He noted Staff’s request for an Oak Street Connector which the applicant feels will benefit the City. He noted the Senior Design Group from MSU has been working on designing an overpass there. He feels that the project is feasible, but noted the project will need to be done through a partnership of public and private efforts in support of the greater transportation plan. Mr. Ravnaas concluded his presentation by showing some of the proposed pictures to give a greater idea of the streetscape, and pedestrian amenities within the proposed plan. Questions for Applicant and Staff Caren Roberty asked what the proposed Affordable Housing was for the plat. Mr. Ravnaas stated that the plat had been reviewed by the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board on November 5, but they had not received any direction from the Board. He noted the City’s requirements called for 17 units. If they are not able to proceed with the plans in the present application, they will meet the current UDO requirements. The applicant has proposed sustainable constructed affordable units. They have requested the City’s help to set up a TIF district to generate revenue for additional units. Eric Henyon questioned Mr. Ravnaas if the proposed 9% of the traffic on Wallace would bring the City Street to the maximum capacity. Planner Saunders noted a local street has the capacity to carry far more than 3,000 vehicles per day, and he noted the increase would put the traffic on Wallace close to 3,000. The actual carrying capacity is determined by the frequency of intersections, the width of the street, and other variables. At President Pomnichowski’s request, Planner Saunders reminded the board and public what components of the plan were applicable to the plat itself. Public Comment Ted Lange, of Gallatin Valley Land Trust located at 25 North Willson, noted GVLT had met with the applicant and their engineers on multiple occasions over the course of this project. He noted he had just seen the Recreation and Parks Board recommendations earlier in the day. He thought the Open Space and Trails were looking good and were well connected. He noted GVLT did not have a preference as to what happened with the ponds at the stockyards. He noted GVLT would like to see a trail in the northwestern corner closer to the river for the connection to the Boys and Girls Club. He noted the only place he could see some issues was within Condition 35 and the debate between the Recreation and Parks Board and the Wetlands Review Board. He does not feel that all the trails are necessary, as he did not see a huge ecological value in them. He would like to see a balance between giving people a chance to walk through some wetlands and giving people a chance to walk through every wetland. He noted that the trail to the creek is a critical point, but as long as there is a connection GVLT is supportive. He also noted that some of the proposed trails were along back fences in order to keep the trail out of the wetlands setback, but having the trail that close to backyards would raise different issues. Mark Cusack resides at 1320 Hillside Lane which borders the eastern edge of the application. He noted his concerns regarding the wildlife residing in the area which include whitetail and mule deer, pheasants, and a black bear. He also noted the proposed overlook park being made available was straight up the hill. He is concerned about the steep incline and would rather have the park come down to Hillside Lane. He also noted moving the park would fit into the nature and culture of the current land use. He did not understand why the Board would want multiple houses on one acre across from a space where there is only one house per acre. He also noted his concern about some of the building heights being 75 feet with another 15 feet for wind and solar energy harnessing devices. He also questioned what the purpose of Vollmer Street was. Martha Jo Kearns resides at 1325 Nichols Peak Trail. She questioned the condition regarding the Oak Street Connector and noted her concern about emergency vehicle access. She questioned what the timing on the construction of the overpass was in regards to the phases within the plat. Planner Saunders noted that the design for the overpass had to be completed and ready for construction prior to the approval for Phase 5 of the plat. He noted TIS surveys were a condition for each of the phases so when or if the phases after Phase 5 required the build out, it would be ready to start on. Ms. Kearns then asked where the funding for the project was coming from. Planner Saunders noted that the Connector was an asset to the community, and impact fees could be used to fund a portion of the project. The City would obtain and apply the impact fees, possibly the State would contribute, possibly the rail lines, and other funding would be needed for the project. Discussion Mr. Henyon asked for clarification from the applicant why lots within Phases 1 and 2 had lot lines which were atypical in design. Mr. Ravnaas noted the applicant desired to have townhouses rather than condos, and the atypical design was utilized to accommodate that desire. Mr. Henyon questioned if the applicant would submit a full parks plan to be accepted during the first phase. Planner Saunders noted the neighborhood center requirement can be satisfied by parkland requirements. In this case, the business court meets that requirement. The parks plan is a single document which coordinates the development of each park as related to the phase it is located within. The common elements of each separate park are identified in one document for congruency throughout each of the proposed phases. Mr. Henyon wondered if the plaza was considered Parkland and Open Space. Planner Saunders noted there was a hardscape park which was submitted as a part of the park plan. He also noted Staff felt it was consistent with the intent of the area. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on the location and actual height of the tallest building within the proposed plat. Mr. Ravnaas noted it was proposed in the high density area as a part of Phase 8. Steve Domreis noted the grain tower is 110 feet. Planner Saunders further added the Story Mill building is 88 feet, and the highest bank of windows while facing the western face is approximately 75 feet. Mr. Sypinski sought further clarification for the funding of the phases Planner Saunders had mentioned during his staff presentation. Mr. Sypinski also noted there had been a number of multi phase projects before the Board lately, and wondered if the City had considered construction bonds for longer projects. Planner Saunders noted the City does not require someone to guarantee work before it is started, but they do require bonds once a project is started if a final plat is sought before completion. Mr. Sypinski noted that the SHPO had some concerns and stated the project did not qualify for tax credits. Mr. Sypinski also noted they were concerned about the reuse of the buildings and the keeping of the character of the buildings. Mr. Sypinski wanted to know how the applicant was planning on addressing those concerns and the keeping of the character of the buildings. Mr. Ravnaas noted they were not eligible for the SHPO tax credits. He noted the cultural resource inventory from October 15 which identified the resources and impacts along with the appropriate mitigation. He also stated each improvement would need to go through the City’s certificate of appropriateness review. Planner Saunders responded to Mr. Sypinski’s earlier question noting condition 8 related to funding as no subsequent phase could commence until the previous phase had been completed. He noted this was not a financial guarantee, but it limited the disturbance of the area. Mr. Sypinski asked if the private road standards would be relaxed. Planner Saunders noted the proposed private streets were under subdivision review. He further noted the application contained a cross section for each variation of the private streets which Staff reviewed for functionality. The proposed private streets have considerable diversity within the plat, but they are all fully functioning. Mr. Henyon wondered where the 120 affordable housing units were located within the plat. He also sought clarification about the urban renewal and the creation of the TIF district. He noted that wages for police and fire staff come out of the general fund. He wanted clarification making sure that the TIF district was not impacting the general fund in a negative way. Planner Saunders noted that a TIF district does not take out of the general fund, but does delay new revenues. He noted how the TIF district could be used to generate revenue for the project. Mr. Henyon asked the applicant if the intent of the proposed TIF district was to create the affordable housing units. Mr. Ravnaas responded that the proposed TIF district was going to be designed to allocate the necessary funds for schools, police, and fire to the general fund. Mr. Carpenter mentioned he was not able to preview the section addressing wildlife and wondered if that section answered his question regarding the wetlands and the trails. Planner Saunders noted Staff recognized the southern most section provided a significant connection for those heading north and Vollmer Street as a significant connection for those heading south. The proposed middle piece through the wetlands has been removed, and the southern most trail has been relocated through a condition of approval to be adjacent to the wetlands rather than through its center. He also mentioned Staff mitigated concerns regarding the wildlife in the vicinity through various conditions. Mr. Carpenter sought clarification on the trail relocation. Mr. Saunders noted the relocation of that section of trail was a condition of approval before the Board tonight. Mr. Carpenter asked if there was a planned transit stop in the first two phases. Planner Saunders noted the language was not specific regarding the placement, and he noted Staff’s discussions with Streamline for a more formal agreement in the future. Mr. Carpenter wondered if the applicant had considered participating in a better design or designing their own bus stops. Mr. Ravnaas noted the placement of the stops was contained in the Planned Unit Development application. He noted they have not reached a stage in the development where they were actually designing the stops themselves, but the design is essential to the LEED program. Mr. Carpenter wanted to know the current process and procedure addressing the LEED certification. Mr. Ravnaas noted the proposal was one of two LEED pilot programs in Bozeman. Mr. Carpenter noted the applicant had been accepted for Phase 1, but wanted clarification as to where Phase 2 was in regards to LEED certification. Mr. Ravnaas noted they needed to begin construction to actually move further with LEED. Mr. Carpenter wondered what that meant for each phase and for the entire project. Mr. Ravnaas noted buildings could receive LEED certification, but the development would need to be completed before receiving any LEED certification for the entire neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter asked the applicant to clarify their storm water management plan. Mr. Ravnaas noted the applicant plans to put storm water to use. They are proposing bioswales with treatment before directing the storm water into a management system which could be used to irrigate parks and open space. Ms. Jacobson sought clarification on affordable housing as it related to the creating of a TIF district. She wanted to know if the TIF would be financing the building of the affordable housing or it would finance the amount to make those units sustainable. Mr. Ravnaas noted the TIF would subsidize the housing, but the developer would also contribute. He noted the Workforce Housing Task Force looked at construction costs, but the cost of sustainable units increased the cost from approximately $130 per square foot to $200-240. He noted the applicant is hoping to make up the difference with the TIF dollars. Ms. Roberty noted the applicant had mentioned donation of 120 lots to the City along with the first chance to build on those lots. Mr. Ravnaas noted that 120 lots usually denotes single family homes. In the proposal tonight, 95% of the buildings are attached multi-level so 95% of the affordable units are also attached multi-level. He noted that turning over a condo to a land trust is not as easy as turning over a regular lot. The applicant has had experts working on the project, and they believe it is possible. Ms. Roberty noted the City does not have a public land trust. Mr. Ravnaas noted the applicant’s main concern was help in managing the units from CAHAB and HRDC for the proposal. Ms. Roberty noted that keeping units affordable is not the problem; the problem is making them affordable. Ms. Jacobson sought clarification on the location of the wetland containing the trail which was being mitigated by condition 39. Planner Saunders pointed out the area on the map. President Pomnichowski sought clarification on the applicant’s statement about precedence for the affordable housing units to those displaced from Bridger View. Mr. Sabol noted he had been corresponding with the displaced residents to keep them informed. He noted the applicants must still qualify for the affordable housing units. President Pomnichowski wondered when the units would become available. Mr. Sabol noted proportionality would be maintained and all the affordable housing units would not be built at the same time. Mr. Ravnaas noted the schedule for development was in the plan. President Pomnichowski asked the scheduling of parks to be addressed with the adoption of the Parks Plan and the development of the parks within the phases. Planner Saunders noted the parks corresponding to the phase would be developed with that phase. The parks plan as presented is the parks in their final stage. President Pomnichowski wondered if that some of the trails would be completed after the completion of Phase 10. Planner Saunders replied that it could be. He noted a section in Bryant Street that the City did not have a mechanism to obtain an easement to. He noted other areas where parks would be required with the completion of a particular phase. President Pomnichowski wondered if the phases were in sequential order for construction and if the plaza was the only park in Phases 1 and 2. Planner Saunders noted that it was. Mr. Ravnaas noted that the developer would like parks developed as soon as possible, but noted that the developing of the parkland before the corresponding phase was not feasible if not noted in the conditions of approval. He feels the proposed mitigation will work. President Pomnichowski noted the application referenced the Idaho Pole Controlled Ground Area. Mr. Ravnaas noted the plume is known to be shrinking. He noted the controlled ground water area barely fell within the property lines and the most significant area of the plume is offsite. He stated the site has been designed so infrastructure is away from the area. President Pomnichowski wondered if the applicant had set up monitoring with DEQ. Mr. Ravnaas noted they had written letters to EPA, DNRC, and DEQ. He mentioned the EPA and DNRC had replied with letters setting forth conditions for the applicant. President Pomnichowski asked if the applicant had monitoring wells. Mr. Ravnaas noted the applicant had hired an environmental assessment. The assessment identified a superfund site that may affect the project. The applicant then hired a consultant who installed a monitoring well. The results indicated that there was no contamination from that plume within that area. President Pomnichowski noted the plume does advance and the area is downstream and downgrade of the plume. She encouraged the applicant to contact DEQ again and to establish an ongoing monitoring system for the development. President Pomnichowski asked how the applicant felt about the wetlands. Mr. Ravnaas responded their fear is if there is not a trail, people might make their own. He feels having a boardwalk mitigates people taking the initiative. President Pomnichowski asked where wetlands setbacks were in relationship to the property lines. Planner Saunders noted the most significant area was on the northern end. He brought up having open space next to a backyard can result in “larger” backyards. He noted the PUD contained a section noting the developer will be responsible for the marking of the outer perimeter of the wetlands. He noted concrete curbing around the property line had been suggested, but the preference is for another way of noticing the property line. President Pomnichowski also wondered why the applicant referenced a 30 foot setback from the floodplains. Mr. Ravnaas noted the watercourse setback was in place so the applicant meets the 75 and 100 foot setbacks at all times. President Pomnichowski asked if the applicant was ready and willing to meet the SHPO recommendations. Craig Mendenhall noted that to achieve high LEED certification for each building and for the development they needed to meet energy requirements. He also noted they would be submitting COA applications for any modifications to the buildings. Planner Saunders noted the buildings were being addressed through the PUD application. President Pomnichowski questioned if every private street would include curbs, gutters, boulevards, and landscaping. Mr. Ravnaas noted the City did not want to maintain the streets due to raised streets in some locations, but they do meet the intent of public street standards. President Pomnichowski wondered which streets had parking only on one side. Mr. Ravnaas noted they were festival streets and were designed with existing buildings in mind. He also indicated they were located in districts zoned B-2, B-1, and R-4. President Pomnichowski wondered if the parking was structured otherwise. Mr. Mendenhall noted the applicant had proposed streets with parking only on one side to create connection and provide linear parks. He stated there was parking one level below grade to meet parking needs. President Pomnichowski wanted to know who would be taking care of the streets. Mr. Ravnaas responded that it would be set forth in the covenants and taken care of by the Homeowner Association. Mr. Sabol noted the maintenance difficulties arose from the difference in this development and the standard for the area. He noted neither the City nor the County wanted to maintain raised roads and the Homeowner’s Association was the best way to mitigate those concerns. Mr. Ravnaas noted snow removal problems with the use of permeable paving. He also stated this homeowners association would be managed by professionals. President Pomnichowski wondered if the applicant would be opposed to having public streets if the City would take steps to mitigate issues such as permeable paving. Mr. Mendenhall noted to meet LEED requirements the proposed private streets were different from City Standards. Mr. Sabol noted if the City approved those deviations for LEED certification; the applicant would not be opposed to having public streets. Planner Saunders noted the underground parking was under multiple lots which brought up concerns which would need to be mitigated. President Pomnichowski wondered if the parking lot could be turned over to the Homeowners Association but have the streets still be public. She would like to see the City take steps to make LEED Certification a possibility for developers rather than involving homeowners associations. President Pomnichowski mentioned she liked the proposed commercial center as the community center. She also asked what the applicant had done to provide for bicyclists. Mr. Ravnaas noted bicycle lanes or paths were provided for in almost all occurrences. He noted the applicant had met with GVLT and the bicycle connectivity is good. Mr. Saunders noted the City only has standards relating to collectors and arterials regarding bicycle lanes. President Pomnichowski noted she is interested to see how the proposed creation of a TIF district will affect affordable housing. She also commended the applicant on their pursuit of LEED certification for the proposal. She mentioned her concern about storm water run off with the streets running next to the wetlands and watercourse. She believes it is a brave and innovative project, she thinks it will be pretty impressive. Mr. Carpenter stated this is the best project he has ever seen. The applicant has achieved 28 units to the acre. He felt the applicant created an extremely livable neighborhood with great ecological protection. He noted Bozeman needed models like this and is eager to see the project completed. Mr. Carpenter also commended Planner Saunders on his work, he feels the conditions are well thought through and protect the health, safety and fiscal health of the community. He agrees with all of the conditions especially the conditions protecting the wetlands. Mr. Caldwell noted the work done by the Planning Department was exemplary. He stated the conditions had been well thought through and a lot of deliberation went into them. He noted condition 3 which requires all the easements be dedicated with Phase 1 is very responsible. He noted the applicant’s commitment to the wetlands and watercourse setbacks and the areas which had been misused in the past could be restored and saved in perpetuity. He would like to see all 69 conditions incorporated in a motion for approval. Motion and Vote It was moved by Mr. Sypinski, seconded by Mr. Carpenter, to recommend approval to the City Commission of the Story Mill Neighborhood Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Phases 1 through 10 Application #P-07032 with the 69 recommended conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report. Those voting aye being President Pomnichowski, Ms. Roberty, Mr. Henyon, Ms. Jacobson, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Roset, and Mr. Quinn. Those voting no being none. The motion carried 9-0. President Pomnichowski noted that application would be presented before the City Commission on December 3, 2007. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Seeing there was no new business, President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there were no further issues before the board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman