Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072109 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Pro Tem Sypinski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:01 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: Ed Sypinski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Chris Mehl Doug Riley, Associate Planner Bill Quinn Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Donna Swarthout Andrew Epple, Planning Director Dawn Smith Sean Becker Members Absent: Guests Present: Cathy Costakis Doug Riley Erik Henyon, Vice President Dustin Johnson Brian Caldwell, President Brian Heaston John Van Delinder Greg Poncelot 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 Pro Tem Sypinski closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 7, 2009 President Pro Tem Sypinski stated his name was transposed throughout the minutes and on page 2 the 3rd paragraph should include Earl Mathers instead of Mr. White. He stated that in the following paragraph should state “advisory boards” instead of “agencies” and that on page 3 the first paragraph should include the language “the planning work group process would be slow, indulgent to forming particular interests for review.” MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of July 7, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Becker joined the Planning Board. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-09004 (City Lower Yards/HRDC MiSub) - A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application for a first minor subdivision from a Tract of Record on behalf of the owner, City of Bozeman, and the representative, City of Bozeman, with seven requested subdivision Variances to allow the land subdivision created by rent or lease of 7.47 acres into two parcels for M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) development. The property is located at 1812 North Rouse Avenue and is legally described as a tract of land described upon Record of Deeds, Vol. 97, pages 626-627 filed at the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County, located in the NE¼ of Section 6, T2S, R6E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger) Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the Board was in attendance to review a Preliminary Plat Application in the northeast quadrant of the City. He noted the property was a City owned parcel ~7.5 acres in size used for City operations maintenance and storage. He stated the Plat had been requested to create a parcel for rent or lease. He stated the only difference would be the method of filing and would be different than that of a usual Plat that could not be transferred in the future. He stated the parcel was zoned M-1 and noted the uses in the vicinity, such as; fuel sales, storage buildings, and Northwestern Energy utility parcels. He directed the Board to the aerial photo of the site and explained each feature. He stated there was an error in the Staff Report that had designated the Land Use of the parcel as Industrial but the parcel actually had a Public Institutions Land Use Designation. He directed the Board to the existing conditions on the site and the proposed locations of accesses, utilities, etc. He noted the Site Plan for a City maintenance facility and a bus barn for the Streamline Transit Facility had been approved and the depicted footprint had been taken from that proposal. He stated there would be three accesses to the property and noted that Staff had found the proposal in general conformance with the ordinance with the exception of the requested Variances. Planner Krueger explained the first two Variance requests were for a waiver for frontage improvements along Rouse Avenue and East Griffin Drive; curb and gutter, sidewalks, boulevard plantings and street lighting. He stated the existing conditions of N. Rouse Ave. and Griffin Dr. were rural conditions. He stated Variance request 3 was to allow the storm water retention pond to remain on an individual lot which would serve both lots; the larger remainder parcel would hold the water retention pond. He stated the 4th Variance request was to allow the subdivision without physical access to the lease parcel. The code requires both legal and physical access to each parcel. Legal access to the site would be provided through a public access easement granted by the City. He stated the 5th Variance request was to waive the necessity of two separate municipal services to the site and instead provide a single service. He stated the 6th Variance request was to waive the requirement to provide a utility easement on Rouse Avenue due to improvements to Rouse Avenue in the future. He stated Variance request #7 was to was to not provide an extension of municipal services to the adjacent undeveloped lot to the east of the subject property along East Griffin Drive. He noted the proposal had been publicly noticed and to date, no public or agency comments had been received. He stated Staff was supportive of Variance requests 3-6 with Staff conditions and code provisions; not supportive of requests 1, 2, or 7. He stated he would recommend the Board move to approve the application and Variances in the affirmative just as the Commission did; he suggested the Board move to approve each Variance individually. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions and had Engineering Staff available as well. Mr. Becker asked which improvements with Variance requests would be included in the North Rouse Improvement project. Planner Krueger responded the curb, gutter, boulevard improvements, etc. would be completed with the Rouse project. Mr. Becker asked if that were the case why Staff was not supportive of Variance request #2. Planner Krueger responded that those improvements were not guaranteed to be completed in a firm timeframe and public safety was Planning Staff’s main concern. Mr. Mehl asked for examples of when Variances were granted by the Planning Department regarding improvements to the roadway. Director Epple added that the Northside PUD at Rouse Avenue and Oak Street a Variance had been granted for North Rouse improvements. Mr. Mehl asked if the requested Variances had ever been rejected by the Commission. Planner Krueger responded he was unsure, but the proposal was a different situation where the lots were not being created for sale. He added Staff did not see this type of proposal as it would be created for lease and not for sale; he added many of the Variances were unique to this type of proposal. Mr. Mehl stated he had read that it won’t increase the public’s cost as they would have to pay later anyway. Planner Krueger responded the site was unique as the City tax payer would ultimately pay for the site anyway. Mr. Mehl stated the improvements would be coming to Rouse Avenue, but why would Variance 6 be acceptable when Variance 1 would not be allowed. Planner Krueger responded there would need to be a certain level of improvements in that location and utilities were more flexible. Mr. Mehl asked the cost of the requested Variances #1 and #2. Engineer Dustin Johnson stated he was not part of the application and had no estimates on the cost associated with the Variances. Mr. Mehl asked if extra lighting would be sufficient for improvements to Rouse to provide for public safety. Planner Krueger responded it would provide higher visibility, but would not provide for the current standards and would not alleviate concerns for public health and safety. Mr. Mehl asked how high a priority Rouse Avenue was to the State. Engineer Johnson responded that the year 2012 had been indicated but no money had currently been budgeted for the improvements. Ms. Swarthout asked if the State had been asked to put in writing their intentions to improve North Rouse Avenue. Planner Krueger suggested this question would be more appropriate for the applicant. Ms. Smith asked Planner Krueger if the lease parcel would be for the Streamline Bus storage facility and asked how many trips would go in and out of the site daily. Planner Krueger responded it would be for the bus storage facility and there was no trip data as a traffic study had not been required for the proposal. He added many trips would happen before the a.m. peak hour with the buses out all day and returning later than 5:00 p.m. Ms. Smith stated she had requested the information due to the large amount of trucks using that area; she noted the train with left turns would create an enormous amount of stacking on some occasions. Planner Krueger responded a separate Site Plan Application had been approved and those items had been addressed with that review. President Pro Tem Sypnski asked if it would be mutually exclusive or could the City begin the improvements to Rouse and the State could make their improvements later. Planner Krueger responded the MDOT project had done environmental assessments and had some design criteria; he stated there was a potential that the City could install improvements that would be partially or wholly removed to provide for State improvements. President Pro Tem Sypinski asked if easements would be included for all three accesses to the site. Planner Krueger responded the public access easement would be recorded for the entire access area for the drive isle. President Pro Tem Sypinski asked Planner Krueger to walk the Board through the Staff conditions that would be pertinent to the Variance requests. Planner Krueger responded that since four of the seven conditions were supportable, they would not have conditions of approval; he explained which conditions were pertinent to the Variance requests. President Sypinski asked how the Entryway Overlay District requirements had been met. Planner Krueger responded the Entryway requirements had been addressed during the site plan review of the zoning application. Director Epple added that certain aspects of the site had been approved with the Site Plan review and had been endorsed by the DRB. Associate Planner Doug Riley, applicant, stated he and Engineer Brian Heaston had assisted the public works department in preparing the application and submittal materials. He emphasized the uniqueness of the application and the type of subdivision that was being requested for a lease parcel. He stated the 99 year lease must be acquired prior to the funds being available for the development of the site. He stated the City had operations on that location for many years and the existing infrastructure had created constraints for use of the site. He noted Streamline, HRDC, and the City were just entities trying to create the wisest use of the available resources. He stated the improvements to Rouse should be in coordination with the State as it would be less efficient than improving Rouse to a standard that would not be acceptable to MDOT. He stated his information is that Streamline’s plan is to have six in and out trips per day with two additional trips on the weekends; he added the buses would go out to Griffin Drive. He stated the primary points of ingress and egress to the site would remain. He stated the extension of municipal facilities to the east boundary variance had been requested due to the additional costs for the utility upgrades. He suggested the Variances had been requested to provide the wisest use of the available resources. Mr. Becker asked if Staff was suggesting that if Variance #7 were not granted than the Board should not grant Variance request #2. Planner Riley responded the requests were tied together and one or the other would incur costs. Mr. Mehl stated that the Variance request implied that the cost would be shifted to any future purchaser of the site for the development. Planner Riley responded he would let the Engineering Department answer that question. Engineer Johnson responded that if the Variance were granted and a waiver of right to protest the creation of an SID were given to the City it would also be enforced by the City. Director Epple responded the City could commit to those extensions using another method. Mr. Becker asked how the City would enforce the SID if the property was sold. Engineer Johnson stated a waiver had not been required as the City would obviously participate in the SID. Director Epple responded an agreement could be in place that would hold the property to participation in the SID and the Board could address that as a condition of approval. Ms. Smith stated it seemed bizarre that a Site Plan would be approved prior to knowing what would actually occur on the site. Director Epple responded that infrastructure improvements were subdivision related matters and the application was unique; the logic was that the subdivision issues were presented in the subdivision and the zoning issues had been taken care of with Site Plan review. Public comment was opened. Greg Poncelot stated he owned the two residences to the east of the property. He stated the easiest way to end the problem was to make the City quit doing the two step and do a legal subdivision with the extension of the utilities to the property. He suggested it would be logical to bring the utilities in on the north end of the property. He stated there would be nothing in writing to provide for the City to participate in the SID. He stated it did not make sense to make improvements to Rouse when the State had a very clear design of the improvements. He stated every lease parcel at his Albertson’s site in Belgrade was very clearly depicted and contained easements for each separation. He stated the property contained a culvert that would drain onto his property and the City had told him the historic sub-irrigation water would not be dealt with properly. He stated the lack of utilities for the site would strangle the utilities further down the line. He stated he had heard only contradictions with regard to the wisest use of the property. He suggested he wanted to see an easement across the property and thought the City should be required to follow its own rules. The public comment portion of the meeting was closed. John VanDelinder, Street Superintendent, stated a culvert would be run under the road as there was an existing one on the site already. He stated the only utility would be a sewer service and no sewer main would be extended through the site. He stated the water main would run to the site, but could not be located along Griffin Drive. He stated utilities could not be located over a gas line in that location either. Mr. Becker asked if the granting of Variance request #7 were denied, where the water and sewer would originate on the site. Engineer Brian Heaston responded it would have to go across the property 450 -500 feet across the site if the Variance were not granted. Mr. Becker asked if the water/sewer would need to be redone if the Rouse improvements were commenced. Engineer Heaston responded he did not think the water/sewer would be disturbed with Rouse Avenue improvements. Mr. Becker asked if Norton had been approved to extend the utilities half way through the subdivision. Director Epple responded the Norton property had proposed that method, but the Commission had never acted on the proposal. President Pro Tem Sypinski suggested the Board hold the City, as the applicant, to the regulations adopted by the City and to show fairness to other applicants. He stated he understood the uniqueness of the proposal, but thought the standards and requirements of the City should be upheld by the City. MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Ms. Swarthout seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Variances 3, 4, 5, and 6 for Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-09004. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Becker. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Variance 1. Mr. Mehl suggested the buses going through the light would alleviate some public safety concerns and the buses would only be making 6 trips per day. He suggested holding off on improvements for the site so the Rouse improvements would be paid for by the State; he recommended approval of Variance request 1. President Pro Tem Sypinski responded the date for State improvements to Rouse was uncertain and stated he disagreed that the Variance should be approved; he suggested that if the City make improvements, the State might follow suit. Ms. Smith stated the wording on Variance requests 1 and 2 seemed the same and added she had no issue regarding the lack of street lighting; she added that Rouse could never be built out by the State and the time will have passed so that a complete street would never be possible. She stated incomplete sections of roadway were a struggle for her daily and the situation would worsen with the approval of the requested Variance. President Pro Tem Sypinski stated he agreed with Ms. Smith regarding the Complete Streets program. Mr. Mehl stated that adding improvements in the middle of Rouse would create an island of improved road that might be torn up by the State in the next few years. Ms. Smith stated the improvements to Rouse was an unknown and should not be used to determine whether or not a Variance should be allowed. Mr. Quinn added he would argue granting the Variance on fairness and suggested that since the State improvements were an unknown, he agreed with President Pro Tem Sypinski that the Variance should be denied. President Pro Tem Sypinski stated he concurred with Staff findings that requested Variance 1 should be denied. Mr. Becker stated Rouse was a State priority and the City had a commitment from MDOT who had spent a tremendous amount of time on the improvements; though it may have to be delayed. He stated the highest and best use of tax dollars should be a priority and he could not support the improvements to Rouse when the State would make improvements in the future. Ms. Smith stated she did not think the best use of tax dollars should be the review criteria for Variance requests. Mr. Becker responded he had found that the Variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or well being. The motion failed 2-4. Those voting aye being Mr. Becker and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being President Pro Tem Sypinski, Ms. Smith, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Quinn. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Variance 2. President Sypinski stated that when the Story Mill Neighborhood had been reviewed, road and utility improvements had been required so he was not going to vote in favor of the requested Variance 2. Mr. Becker suggested 10,000 vehicle trips per day should not be compared to six trips per day and noted the road would eventually need to be improved; he added the increase in intensity on the site did not seem to result in a detriment to public health and human safety. President Pro Tem Sypinski asked if property across the street was zoned R-S. Planner Krueger responded there was a small piece of RS zoned property. Director Epple responded the property was an anomaly and part of the Boys & Girls Club parcel. President Pro Tem Sypinski stated he was not supportive of requested Variance 2. Mr. Mehl responded the City allowed for some wiggle room and the impact of six vehicle trips per day seemed minimal and would not impact Rouse at all; he stated the standards should be applied but not in a decimal point type of way. Ms. Swarthout added that the Master Plan Update process had just been completed and thinking that 6 trips a day would not be the anticipated number of trips over the next 99 years. Ms. Smith asked if six trips was the trigger for why the improvements were required or if the requirements were for subdivisions. Planner Krueger responded the requirements were for the code provisions of a subdivision. The motion failed 2-4. Those voting aye being Mr. Becker and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being President Pro Tem Sypinski, Ms. Smith, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Quinn. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Variance 7. The motion failed 0-6. Those voting aye being none. Those voting nay being President Pro Tem Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Mehl. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Ms. Swarthout seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-09004 with Staff conditions and Board recommendations for approval of Variances 3-6 with denial of Variances 1, 2, and 7. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. GROWTH POLICY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION A public meeting to provide opportunity for Planning Board members to discuss implementation of the Growth Policy and Economic Development Plan. President Pro Tem Sypinski asked for updates on progress made by individual Board members. Mr. Mehl responded he had met with Intrinsik Architecture and other knowledgeable entities regarding requested edits to the UDO and they would like to meet with the Board at a later date that can be coordinated with Staff and the Zoning Commission; he suggested the Board review the previously proposed UDO edits once they have been properly noticed. President Sypinski suggested the Board take the lead and seek inconsistencies within the UDO that conflict between intent and application. Mr. Mehl responded any meeting would be noticed to provide encouragement for public comment and education. Ms. Smith stated that the Deputy Clerk of Commission can put PDF’s on the City of Bozeman website to provide for public outreach and education. Mr. Quinn stated he had provided a copy of his letter to Mr. Murdoch for the Board’s review. President Pro Tem Sypinski stated the Commission intended to move forward with three priorities in the Economic Development Plan. Mr. Becker responded the Commission had directed Staff to provide a final draft of the plan. Director Epple responded the Commission had required the fiscal and resource impacts of providing City Staff for the Economic Development Plan. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business forthcoming. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Pro Tem Sypinski adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Ed Sypinski, President Pro Tem Sypinski Andrew Epple, Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman