HomeMy WebLinkAbout031709 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:19 p.m. in the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed
the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning
Cathy Costakis David Skelton, Senior Planner
Bill Quinn Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Donna Swarthout
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell
Chris Mehl
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Erik Henyon Shaowei Wang
Dawn Smith Ted Lang
Matt Cotterman
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 no public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2009
Mr. Sypinski stated he was not the Vice President of the Planning Board and the minutes would need corrected throughout. He added that he was not in attendance for the vote on the final
motion so should not have been included.
Ms. Costakis stated on page 5 in the 2nd paragraph the word “ever” should be stricken from the first sentence and in her next sentence the word “not” should be stricken and the language
“included as an implementation policy” should be added.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of February 18, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr.
Becker, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. CONSENT ITEM
1. Bozeman Community Plan Resolution #P-07006
Mr. Becker stated the last page indicated the year 2008 and should say 2009. Mr. Mehl added that the “whereas” occurred on the page prior. Assistant Director Saunders responded the
“whereas” were both needed due to the mechanics of Planning Board review and then the outcome of Planning Board review.
President Caldwell stated he looked forward to promoting the ideas in the Community Plan and the end result would be worth the effort; implementing the plan would be more rewarding.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Swarthout seconded, to approve Bozeman Community Plan Planning Board Resolution #P-07006 with date corrections. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting
aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REIVEW
1. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-07051 (Laurel Glen MaSub Phases III & IV) - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of the owner, Hinesley Development
Company, LLC, and the representative, C&H Engineering & Surveying, to allow the subdivision of 68.9107 acres and the creation of 115 residential lots. The property is legally described
as Remainder Lot 2 and Lot 3, MiSub No. 201, SE ¼, Sec. 4, T2S, R5E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton)
Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting he had asked the Recording Secretary to distribute exhibits. He stated the powerpoint presentation was fairly long as
most of the Board was not in attendance for review of the original phases of the Laurel Glen Subdivision. He noted the application consisted of 68.9 acres that had originally been annexed
in 2001 and added that there was eight years of history on the property. He noted the inclusion of PLI zoning within the subdivision and noted it was one of the first major subdivisions
that had included key goals from the 2020 Community Plan. He noted to the north of the subdivision was still County jurisdiction and listed those developments to the south, east, and
west. He noted the preliminary plat was reviewed in 2002 and granted conditional approval that included an expiration date of November 2006; he added a second one-year extension had
not been granted and the applicant had been required to resubmit under the new zoning regulations (U.D.O.). He stated the application had been reviewed and general comments had been
provided to address parkland, trails, wetlands, accesses, etc. He noted after the recommendations had been considered, substantial changes had been made that had addressed some of the
issues, but not all of them. He noted the original preliminary plat submittal included a number of variance requests; block length, ZMA to mirror land use designations, etc. He stated
the ZMA would not been considered until City Commission approval of the preliminary plat but a condition of approval had been included to require a formal ZMA be submitted within a year
of City Commission approval. He
noted the one historical feature was the existing farmstead on the site and that location also contained mature vegetation and associated wetlands with a watercourse. He noted they were
significant wetlands along the Baxter Creek corridor that advisory boards had recommended be maintained.
President Caldwell noted the specific proposal should be discussed without background information as it was not pertinent to the application under review. Planner Skelton concurred
and noted the WRB and Park & Recreation Advisory Board were not supportive of the requested wetland variances and the applicant had been required to re-delineate the designated wetlands
for the site. He noted the parkland requirements at the time of preliminary plat approval allowed the subdivision to create their parkland in later phases of the development and noted
the balance of 3.4281 acres of parkland development in Laurel Glen phases 1 & 2 had not yet been completed; adding that the applicant would be responsible for a total of 8.9383 acres
with this application. He noted with the original application there was a need to eliminate the number of variances requested for access on Durston Road and the wetlands had been addressed
without the need for encroachments. He noted the aggregation of parklands had been achieved and the ingress/egress on Durston Road had been eliminated and double frontage lots had been
included along Durston Road. He noted there were watercourses on the site, but the site was within a 100-year or even a 500 year floodplain though Staff would encourage people who wanted
to install basements to retain a professional engineer to evaluate the water table level prior to construction. He noted the culverts would need to be upgraded and the riparian vegetation
would need to be maintained, though there was no determined wildlife habitat on the site. He noted the Staff condition with regard to noxious weed control is uncommon for most proposals,
but is necessary and must be secured with a financial guarantee. Mr. Mehl asked the amount of the bond. Planner Skelton responded an estimate by a certified applicator multiplied by
150% would be required based on the subdivision’s physical features; he noted the management of noxious weeds was not working with just a Memoranda of Understanding with the County weed
control office.
President Caldwell asked if Staff had established a passing/failing grade for noxious weed control. Planner Skelton responded the noxious weed office clearly defined the types and amounts
of noxious weeds to be controlled in the MOU; he added the County Weed Control Office concerns are echoed by the City’s weed control office.
Planner Skelton noted the streets would be City standard and include all public infrastructures and noted Oak Street would be improved to half a minor arterial street. He noted Engineering
conditions of approval were standard. He noted much of the modifications of the proposal had been with regard to the parkland and those park areas being aggregated. He noted the trail
systems and the importance of the system along the Baxter Creek corridor, north along I-90. He noted the trails that would be included would be Class 2 trails and a six foot boulevard
sidewalk would be required around the park. He stated the aggregated parkland had been addressed and included the condition that a park master plan would need to be submitted and approved
within three months of preliminary plat approval; he noted if the parkland improvements were completed this year, the proposal would be eligible for the full three year approval.
Mr. Sypinski asked about the crossing of the trail on Annie Street. Planner Skelton responded some mid-block crossing in the interior might be necessary. Mr. Sypinski asked where exactly
the B-1 Commercial development would be located. Planner Skelton responded there would be two B-1 lots and noted those locations to the west of the public park.. Mr. Sypinski asked
if the initial commercial site was south of Annie Street. Planner Skelton responded the master plan for the property had been required and the commercial node had been located generally
just north of Annie Street; he directed the Board to that location.
Planner Skelton stated Staff hoped to include the residents of the subdivision with regard to the design of the parkland and noted that within one year the applicant would need to have
the parkland improvements for phases 1 & 2 completed which would make them eligible for the full three year approval time on the preliminary plat. He noted the locations of two pedestrian
pathways with a 25 foot wide public access easement, in-lieu of dedicated parkland. He noted workforce housing requirements had been met with twelve dwelling units being provided.
He stated Staff felt the extension of Christian Way, southward would be necessary to break up the long blocks. He noted which variances were being requested for block length and added
that Staff was supportive of those requests with the exception of Block 21 and 22. He stated Staff recommended Christian Way be continued to a T intersection at Glendirk. He noted
the City did not enforce HOA documents unless there were specific conditions of approval that were being ignored. He stated Staff was supportive of the requested Variances with Staff
conditions with the exceptions of Lots 21 & 22.
Matt Cotterman, C&H Engineering, stated the owner had gone through a number of renditions on the proposal. He stated they felt they had addressed most of the advisory bodies concerns
and that it was a better plan than what they had begun with. He stated he hoped the treatment of double frontage lots would be consistent and noted an open space had been provided along
Durston Road. He stated the block length variance had been requested, but it would not be a big deal to continue the north/south road through blocks 21 and 22, though if the road was
included a variance would be needed for less than the minimum block length instead of greater than the minimum and the owner’s preference would not be to include the street. He noted
the remaining parkland required with phases 1 & 2 did not yet exist and the owner had already started grading and installing irrigation for the site; the owner had also volunteered to
install a playground on the site. He clarified that the reason the park land had not been installed in phases 1 & 2 was due to the City Commission not granting the extension of the
original approval. Mr. Becker asked where the double frontage lots would be located. Mr. Cotterman noted those locations along Durston Road. Mr. Becker asked Mr. Cotterman’s idea
of double frontage. Mr. Cotterman responded the appearance of the front of a structure would be maintained for both sides of the structures.
President Caldwell opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Shaowei Wang stated he lived in Laurel Glen Phase 1 and he had received a certified letter regarding the evening’s meeting. He noted he had expected there would be a playground located
within the subdivision and the homeowners would like to see a plan for the park land before the subdivision was approved. He stated the zoning designation had been changed from R-1
to R-2
zoning which would depreciate the value of his home; he stated he was not supportive of the change from R-1 to R-2 zoning. He stated the design of the proposed blocks would direct traffic
right in front of his house and cause traffic issues as there was no way out on the south side of the development.
Ted Lang, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, stated that Baxter Creek presented an opportunity to achieve a continuous greenway as things are built out over the coming decades to create what
might be the best green way in the City. He clarified that Block 31, Lots 1 & 2, caused concerns as the UDO required a fence along the greenway and the buildable area of the lots would
not be affected if the fence were located further to the east. He noted Gallatin Valley Land Trust was supportive of the revised proposal with regard to trail crossings mid-block and
Bob Murray of the City Engineering Department had schematics for the safe design of the crossing. He noted that when/if the land to the north was developed there might be a mid-block
crossing but that would be decided in the future and there would need to be a mechanism in place to provide for a crossing over Durston Road to the south to Valley West Subdivision,
but it would require more study.
Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed.
Planner Skelton responded to Mr. Wang regarding the zoning designation of R-2 on the site and that the size of the lots limited density to single family lots regardless of the zoning
designation. He stated Laurel Parkway was meant to maintain connectivity to Durston Road and would assist in breaking the subdivision into four quadrants; the majority of the traffic
would be on Laurel Parkway until the connection to Oak Street had been completed. Mr. Wang responded there was no way for those residents to get out of the subdivision without going
through the earlier phases of the development (in front of his house).
Mr. Mehl asked if assurances to the developer were given that smaller blocks would be allowed given that Christian Way would go through. Planner Skelton responded Staff felt that the
extension of Christian Way would provide better circulation through the site. Mr. Mehl asked how many residential lots would be lost if Christian Way were put through. Planner Skelton
responded roughly four lots would be lost and that the Board could find that, in lieu of a street, smaller lots or pathways could be included instead.
Mr. Quinn asked if Glenwood Drive would go through to Rosa Subdivision. Planner Skelton responded it would continue through. Mr. Quinn responded the longer blocks could be accessed
from Rosa Subdivision on Glenwood Drive and noted the requested block length was consistent with what existed adjacent to the site to the west in phase 1 of the subdivision.
Mr. Sypinski asked Planner Skelton if there would be improvements at the Annie Street intersection of Laurel Parkway. Planner Skelton responded the roundabout would not change. Mr.
Sypinski asked for clarification of the Engineering conditions for the proposal, as well as how the deviations are allowed. Planner Skelton responded that if the applicant met the criteria
for consideration, there were alternatives in lieu of full access; such as right in, right out. He
stated one of the Deviations requested had been invariantly listed as a Variance. Mr. Sypinski asked if the Board chose to support Staff’s conditions then would the Deviations be included.
Planner Skelton suggested that the Board discuss the requested Variances first and determine those that could, or could not be supported. The requested Deviations are at the discretion
of the City Engineer’s Office based on supplemental information that must still be submitted by the applicant. If the Staff conditions were approved, it would be approved with the requested
Variances except for the block length for Block 21 and 22, as outlined by Staff.
President Caldwell asked for clarification between Variances and Deviations. Planner Skelton explained.
Ms. Swarthout stated Mr. Skelton had done a good job with his presentation and Staff Report. She noted the school system indicated they had did not have the capacity to support the
children that would be living within the subdivision and asked if the City tracked school’s capacities. Planner Skelton responded the school district was notified when a subdivision
was proposed.
Mr. Becker stated that on page 3 (i.e., pre-application plan), Glenkirk Lane was depicted as going through but was now called Christian Way and asked if that is what the Board would
be approving if so moved with Staff conditions. Planner Skelton responded that with the recommended conditions and denial of the block length for Block 21 and 22 that Christian Way
would extend southward to “T” with Glenkirk Drive as depicted on the preliminary plat application. Mr. Becker suggested it did not seem to be a threat to have ingress/egress off of
Durston Road. Planner Skelton responded Staff saw no hardship that would make it necessary to provide access onto the arterial, Durston Road. President Caldwell asked for clarification
of Mr. Becker’s inquiries. Mr. Becker explained and added that the playground was coming and the property had always been R-2; he added the issue of non-safe conditions for mid-block
crossings would need to be resolved. Planner Skelton responded that the Commission was no longer supportive of mid-block crossings and prefers smaller lots with a reasonable grid of
local streets that achieve a higher level on vehicular circulation that avoids conflicts with pedestrian movement. Mr. Cotterman added the mid-block crossings along the east side connected
to an existing trail system and park in the Rosa Subdivision.
Ms. Costakis asked if continuing if there was a traffic reason for the connection of Christian Way. Planner Skelton responded it would improve the circulation and connectivity of those
two blocks and enhance the pedestrian connectivity as well. Ms. Costakis asked if Immanual Way was not extended, could there be a pedestrian connection. Planner Skelton responded there
would be a public trail in the Baxter Creek corridor in close proximity to that location; however, an access easement could be extended. Mr. Sypinski suggested the existing farmstead
would be disturbed if Immanual Way were extended through. Ms. Costakis asked how one would get to Durston from one location. Planner Skelton responded there could be a pedestrian pathway
between the farmstead lot and the lot next to it if deemed necessary. President Caldwell stated pedestrian movement could be along Glenkirk; he noted the pre-application exhibit presented
was not adequate as it did not depict the accurate street names and block numbers and suggested the City Commission receive less convoluted information.
Mr. Sypinski stated he was concerned with the safety of families going to the park if a paved street were included in that location. Ms. Swarthout disagreed that the street should be
removed. President Caldwell asked for Board opinions on Christian Way. Ms. Costakis suggested an easement if Christian Way were not taken through.
President Caldwell noted that the Christian Way extension through blocks 21 & 22 (condition #6) was an object of discussion and asked if the Board would be interested in modifying any
other conditions of approval. Mr. Quinn asked if Staff thought the conditions of approval were adequate due to the failure of the subdivision to follow up on any of the weed control
(condition #3) and asked if the restrictions would be adequate to implement weed control and get compliance. Planner Skelton responded he thought there was now enough teeth as provided
in the condition to demand compliance with weed control requirements and Staff was entertaining a new regulatory standard that would be policy with regard to future subdivisions; he
noted the new system was far better than what was now in place. President Caldwell asked if there was a certain amount of weeds on the premises that would be acceptable or not. Planner
Skelton responded site visits would be conducted by the County and City weed control offices and the decision would be made based on the expertise of those Staffs. Mr. Quinn stated
condition #3 would be one part of dealing with noncompliance addressing the public comment from concerned residents of the subdivision.
Ms. Costakis stated she thought there was a lighting issue that wasn’t specified well enough (condition #9). Planner Skelton responded specific code provisions for lighting along the
trail are required but were not clearly addressed in the application for trails intersecting with streets. Ms. Costakis asked how the Board would proceed since they had different ideas
regarding Christian Way and suggested the Board discuss the item first. President Caldwell noted Ms. Swarthout had suggested a 20 foot pedestrian pathway connection along the common
boundary between lots 7 & 8 in Block 20. Ms. Costakis asked if the grading & drainage Variance request to discharge into a ditch had been allowed by the City Engineering Department
and if they would be dealing with that issue. President Caldwell responded that as part of the Community Plan, the respective rights of the ditch company had been brought to their attention
and the ditch company would discourage that arrangement; he suggested the issue be cleared up prior to City Commission review. Mr. Mehl clarified that if the applicant thought they
needed a Variance and Staff thought not, then the applicant did not need one. Ms. Costakis asked why a vehicle would have to go right off of Glenkirk Drive. Planner Skelton responded
it was due to a median in that location along Laurel Parkway. Mr. Cotterman added that a full access must be at least 150 feet away from a controlled intersection.
President Caldwell asked for a feeling from the membership of the Board regarding Christian Way; he noted the trail access on block 20 between lots 7 & 8 to provide pedestrian access
and a condition regarding resolving the storm water discharge with the ditch company should also be discussed.
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Laurel Glen MaSub Phases III & IV with Staff conditions.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to direct the applicant to resolve the storm water discharge with the ditch company prior to the City Commission hearing and to direct
Staff to pursue a legal opinion from City Attorney regarding the Home Owners Association. The amendment carried 7-0. The amendment carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell,
Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
AMENDMENT: Ms. Swarthout moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to add a condition to provide trail access for Block 20 between Lots 7 & 8 to provide pedestrian access. Mr. Becker stated he agreed
with the first two points but he did not support the pedestrian access between lots 7 & 8.
Mr. Sypinski stated he did not agree with condition #6 for the extension of Christian Way and therefore, would not support the motion or the amendment. Ms. Swarthout asked if Ms. Costakis
would support the suggested trail, as Ms. Swarthout had previously suggested, in the event that Christian Way was not extended. Ms. Costakis suggested she was concerned that there was
not enough access. Mr. Mehl suggested there were accesses on either end and he thought two access points per block would be sufficient. Mr. Cotterman stated a 25 foot access in that
location would remove two lots in every block, but it could probably be squeezed in to Block 20. Planner Skelton added that four lots would be lost anyway if Christian Way were extended.
Ms. Swarthout withdrew the amendment.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to eliminate Staff condition of approval #6. The amendment failed 3-4. Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Mehl.
Those voting nay being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, Ms. Swarthout, and Ms. Costakis.
Ms. Swarthout stated that as children grow they are allowed to first ride their bike to the neighbor’s, then down the block, and finally around the block; she added that as a parent
she would feel much more comfortable keeping Staff condition #6. Mr. Becker concurred with Ms. Swarthout. Mr. Mehl stated he was supportive of the removal of condition #6 but he saw
no evidence that adding cars would increase the safety in the subdivision; he noted the requested block lengths were not much more than the ideal length. Mr. Sypinski stated other applications
that had been proposed had been up to about 600 feet and this proposal was only slightly beyond that. President Caldwell stated he agreed with Mr. Sypinski that there were no demonstrated
physical constraints on the site so he was supportive of the requested block length.
Ms. Costakis asked how the mid-block crossing would be handled. Planner Skelton responded bulb outs might be required. Mr. Cotterman added that signage and striped/scored concrete
would be required. President Caldwell responded the standards of the Transportation Plan would be the governing authority.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to modify Staff condition #6 to require that Christian Way be extended as a type 2 pedestrian path instead of a street to Glenkirk.
The amendment carried 4-3. Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Costakis, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, and Ms. Swarthout.
AMENDMENT: Ms. Costakis moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to extend the type II pedestrian path in place of Christian Way to Durston Road. Ayes Caldwell, Costakis. The amendment failed
2-5. Those voting aye being President Caldwell and Ms. Costakis. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Becker, and Ms. Swarthout.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Laurel Glen MaSub Phases III & IV with Staff conditions including
recommendations for requested variances to the UDO, to direct the applicant to resolve the storm water discharge with the ditch company prior to the City Commission hearing, to direct
Staff to pursue a legal opinion from City Attorney regarding the Home Owners Association, and to modify Staff condition #6 to require that Christian Way be extended as a type 2 pedestrian
path instead of a street to Glenkirk. The motion carried 6-1. Those voting aye being Mr. Quinn, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, and Ms. Swarthout. Those voting
nay being Mr. Sypinski.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
President Caldwell stated the joint meeting between Planning Board and City Commission would be held on the first meeting in May to discuss implementation policies for the Community
Plan. Mr. Sypinski suggested the Board take the lead on asking other advisory board members to comment on the Growth Policy at City Commission. Mr. Mehl asked President Caldwell’s
plan regarding the implementation of the Growth Policy. President Caldwell responded the support of the Board was his intention. Ms. Swarthout stated she agreed with President Caldwell,
but she did not feel super excited about the plan enough to go out and be a cheerleader, but someone would need to be available to answer questions. Mr. Mehl stated he did not expect
there to be a large number of comments that had not already been made and it could not be implemented until it was passed and things must be done in order. Mr. Becker responded it seemed
the most contentious issue was the Future Urban Land Use designation.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman