Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010208 Planning Board MinutesMINUTES CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2008 7:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President Erik Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:34 p.m. and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members present: Members Absent: Erik Henyon JP Pomnichowski, President (excused) William Quinn Kaaren Jacobson (excused) Brian Caldwell Randy Carpenter (unexcused) Edward Sypinski Eric Roset Caren Roberty Staff Present: Guests Present: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Al Lien Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary Marvin Howren Sean Becker, Commissioner Liaison Tom Henesh Ryan Gaser Dan Simeu Lynn Bacon Susan Kozub 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, Vice President Henyon closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-07047 (Norton East Ranch MaSub) - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of the owner, Norton Properties, LLC, and the representative, Big Sky Land Consulting, PLLC, to allow the subdivision of 47.77 acres into 127 lots for R-4 (Residential High Density District) development and one community center lot. The property is legally described as the SE4NW4, SW4NE4, NE4SW4, SE4SW4, NW4SE4, SW4SE4, & 41’ x 1230’ WS of SE4SE4 City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger) Staff Report: Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report for the Norton East Ranch Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat. He noted the current phase is 47.77 acres and the entire project is approximately 240 acres. He noted the plat contained 30 single household lots, 73 attached single household residences, and 15 multi-household lots. He noted the City Commission’s early guidance to provide amenities for the wetlands in order to accept them as parkland. He noted the Recreation and Parks Board recommended the combination of the City Standard sidewalk and the meandering trails in the linear park to ease maintenance requirements. He also noted the condition requiring the provision of a Streamline transit stop along with amenities close to the proposed neighborhood center. He noted the plat did contain multi-household double fronted lots. He noted that Staff is neutral on the issue as long as a provision is made in the covenants for the double fronted design. Planner Krueger noted that currently there is only one east-west road connection that connects to the east property boundary. He noted Staff is currently asking for additional improvements to be made to the property line with the intent of connection with the development of the adjoining property. He further noted conditions forwarded by the Wetland Review Board to mitigate there preservation concerns. He noted the project fell under the workforce housing ordinance and the applicant had provided an additional five units to be “banked.” Planner Krueger noted the applicant still needed to make up .28 acres of parkland as they were only able to offset .46 acres under the Workforce Housing Ordinance. He noted the condition was to mitigate the difference when they came back for final plat approval. He also noted public comment which had come in. Staff is recommending approval with the listed conditions and code provisions in the Staff Report. Applicant Presentation Tom Henesh of Big Sky Land Consulting presented on behalf of Norton Properties LLC. He noted the property would be accessed from the improved Laurel Parkway which will eventually connect at Laurel Glen and Durston. He noted amenities and access points to the wetlands. He also showed slides demonstrating some of the proposed park structures and proposed multifamily houses to be placed on the double fronted lots. He noted the applicant was willing to extend the local streets on the east, and generally concurred with the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Questions for Applicant and Staff Caren Roberty asked Mr. Henesh if he had responded positively to all the Staff’s conditions. Mr. Henesh noted he was concerned about condition 35 which required the build out of Cottonwood Road before construction could commence. He noted Cottonwood is a quarter mile to the West, and he would like to see an SID set up for the improvements. Mr. Quinn agreed with Ms. Roberty and would like to see some cost share for the improvements. Mr. Sypinski sought clarification on Laurel Parkway. Planner Krueger noted the parkway would be a collector street from Durston to Huffine. Edward Sypinski wondered how the applicant was planning for subsequent phases and how the applicant was planning on mitigating the high level water to alleviate the impact on surrounding areas. Mr. Henesh noted he anticipated dams within the drain tiles to mitigate the loss of ground level water. Vice President Henyon asked how the applicant planned on mitigating the building of basements with the high water table since there was no notation in the narrative. Mr. Henesh stated the applicant did not intend to allow basements and adding a notation to the plat would not be a problem. Mr. Caldwell addressed the parkland offsets from the workforce housing. Bill Quinn noted the extra parkland could be made up by crediting for the extra five workforce housing units provided. Mr. Henesh noted that he did not know how he had calculated differently than Staff. Ms. Roberty stated the parkland requirement was to mitigate the placing of the required workforce housing in a particular area within a development by “banking” units for future phases. Mr. Henesh noted that the number of units provided was to show his support of the new ordinance. Mr. Sypinski sought clarification on how wastewater was being mitigated. Planner Krueger noted a lift station was going to be necessary for the current proposal as there was currently capacity for this development. He also noted there would be limitations on future phases in the area until a sewer trunk main was installed. Vice President Henyon sought clarification on the Recreation and Parks Board condition of the combination of sidewalk and the linear park trail. Planner Krueger noted it was for one of the linear parks and that it did meet UDO requirements. Vice President Henyon noted the City Commission denied a similar combination recently. Planner Krueger noted the denied shared use pathway bordered a higher capacity roadway. Mr. Henesh noted Ted Lange from Gallatin Valley Land Trust recommended the same mitigation as the Recreation and Parks Board. Public Comment Vice President Henyon opened public comment. Lynn Bacon representing the Wetlands Review Board noted the mitigation the Board was asking for on the naturalizing of the stormwater basins throughout the property site. She noted the boardwalks are a nice amenity, but that the Board requested to be involved in the preconstruction meetings for the boardwalks. She also noted the Board was pleased with the applicant’s agreement to use the opportunity to educate the public about wetlands. The Board commended the applicant and the owners as they were pleased with the presented package. Lynn Bacon who works at 3810 Suite 4 Valley Commons Drive noted the high ground water levels on the property. She noted the applicant had included storm water basins and she would like to see them utilized as retention ponds. She encouraged the applicant to make sure the control structure is set high enough for the pollutants to fall out before being able to leave the basin. Al Lein resides at 8507 Huffine Lane and represented himself as well as the Happel Conservation Easement. He referenced the letter he had submitted earlier to the Planning Department regarding the project. He noted he would like to see the parks under City jurisdiction rather than that of an HOA. He asked the applicant to share their plan for local water irrigation. He would like to see perimeter fencing especially along the western boundary to mitigate any east wind blown refuse as well as to protect livestock from dogs. He also noted his concern about permanent groundwater dewatering in the area. He noted that Mr. Happel also had certified hay and he was concerned about weed mitigation for the area while it was under construction. He also noted his concern about the inconsistency of the speed limit along Huffine Lane. Vice President Henyon closed public comment. Further Questions for Applicant and Staff Mr. Henesh responded to Mr. Lien and noted his compliance with the UDO and DEQ to meet retention pond requirements. He further noted his understanding of the concern and stated the ponds were not just going to be discharge ponds. He noted that the weed concern would also affect the property owner as the future phases were going to continue in agricultural use through the development of the current phase. He also noted the irrigation ditches would not be affected by this particular phase. He also noted there would be breaks and dams to prevent conduits along the water and sewer lines. Vice President Henyon asked what weed and trash mitigation was planned for the proposal. Mr. Henesh responded there was an approved weed plan for the plat. He noted that through the construction process there would be mitigation in place for storm water management and erosion. Discussion Mr. Quinn stated that to lessen the impact of the Cottonwood improvement for this development the developer should look at a way to share the cost with adjacent developments to the East. He noted he would like to consider the allowance of the full offset of the parkland due to the additional 5 workforce housing units provided. Mr. Caldwell noted the 2020 Plan Land Use Principals addressed integration between the development and undeveloped areas. He stated the overall project could be more mindful of the adjoining undeveloped areas. He stated that the parkland requirement was not unreasonable. He noted he would like to forward the staff report as written to the City Commission. He noted the developer may be eligible for impact fee credits, and he also noted that improvements to existing infrastructure was usually included as an expense of building on the developed boundary. He also noted the condition in the workforce housing ordinance to only allow for the minimum amount of parkland credit was a disincentive to prevent high densities of workforce housing units in a particular phase. Eric Roset agreed with Mr. Quinn on condition four due to the amenities provided. He stated he would like to see impact fees help alleviate the cost for improvements on Cottonwood Road. Ms. Roberty agreed with Mr. Caldwell on the parkland requirement. She noted that since the applicant had donated the land for Cottonwood to begin with she was not in favor of Condition 35. Mr. Sypinski noted his main concern about the proposal was the wetlands and the possible impact on the high ground level water. He agreed with Ms. Roberty and Mr. Caldwell about leaving in condition 4 as he feels even the credit of the wetlands towards parkland requirements is questionable. He noted the burden should be shared on the improvements towards Cottonwood, but further noted he does not have a problem with having the condition in the report. Vice President Henyon noted he liked condition 13 which addressed the connectivity of Hard Luck Street. He stated he agreed with Mr. Roset that condition 35 was a good place to use impact fees rather than an SID. He noted the use of wetlands to fulfill parkland credits was complete and unique. He still is going to recommend the awarding of parkland credits for each proposed unit and the striking of condition 4. Ms. Roberty noted the City Commission might want to consider other incentives for providing more affordable housing units as parkland credits are not always the best option. Motion and Vote It was moved by Ms. Roberty, seconded by Mr. Quinn, to recommend striking condition 35 from the Staff Report with the recommended mitigation to look at a way to share the cost as Cottonwood is not adjacent to the property. Those voting Aye being Mr. Quinn, Ms. Roberty, and Vice President Henyon. Those voting No being Mr. Roset, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Caldwell. The motion failed 3-3. It was moved by Mr. Roset, seconded by Ms. Roberty, to recommend the striking of condition 35 from the Staff Report with the recommended mitigation to fund improvements through impact fees. Those voting Aye being Mr. Roset. Those voting No being Mr. Quinn, Ms. Roberty, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Caldwell. The motion failed 1-5. It was moved by Ms. Roberty, seconded by Mr. Roset, to recommend the striking of condition 35 from the Staff Report. Those voting Aye being Mr. Quinn, Ms. Roberty, Mr. Roset, and Vice President Henyon. Those voting No being Mr. Sypinski and Mr. Caldwell. The motion carried 4-2. It was moved by Vice President Henyon, seconded by Mr. Roset, to recommend striking condition 4 from the Staff Report. Those voting Aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Roset. Those voting No being Ms. Roberty, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Caldwell. The motion failed 3-3. It was moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Mr. Sypinski, to recommend approval of the Norton East Ranch Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-07047 to the City Commission as outlined in the Staff Report and amended by the Planning Board. Those voting Aye being Mr. Quinn, Ms. Roberty, Mr. Roset, Vice President Henyon, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Caldwell. The motion carried 6-0. ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS Planning Board By-Laws The members of the Planning Board discussed various changes they would like to see made to the Planning Board by-laws which they then submitted in writing. ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Board at this time, Vice President Vice President Henyon adjourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m. _________________________________ ___________________________________ Erik Henyon, Vice President Andrew C. Epple, Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman