HomeMy WebLinkAbout070108 Planning Board MinutesMINUTES
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD,
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 2008
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:51 p.m. and directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
JP Pomnichowski, President
Erik Henyon
Brian Caldwell
William Quinn
Donna Swarthout
Chris Mehl
Cathy Costakis
Staff Present:
Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning
Jody Sanford, Senior Planner
Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary
Members Absent:
Sean Becker (excused)
Guests Present:
Joseph Shaw
Mike Delaney
Tony Renslow
Tracy Poole
Susan Kozub
Rob Pertzborn
Tom Hennish
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
MAY 27, 2008
Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated that the minutes from May 27, 2008 would stand as written.
JUNE 17, 2008
Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated that the minutes from June 17, 2008 would stand as written.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-08004 (Village Homesites MaSub
Phases 1 & 2) - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of the owner, The Village Investment Group, and the representative, C&H Engineering, to allow the
subdivision of 16.82 acres into 20 lots for R-4 (Residential High Density District) development in conjunction with a PUD. The property is legally described as Lots 3, 4, and
Common Area #2, Village
Boulevard Minor Subdivision No. 344, located in the Northeast ¼ of Section 7, and Northwest ¼ of Section 8, T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin
County, Montana. (Windemaker)
Staff Report:
Cathy Costakis stated she had a conflict of interest and stepped down from the dais during the project review.
Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner, presented the staff report for the Village Homesites Major Subdivision Phases 1 and 2. She stated this application is for 19 single family lots
and included the already constructed Village Lofts as a multifamily lot. She noted the preliminary plat was in conjunction with a PUD with 12 relaxation requests.
Mr. Mehl asked for acronyms to be explained to benefit those watching on cable and in the audience. Planner Windemaker responded a Planned Unit Development is the process projects go
through in order to receive relaxations in exchange for excellence of design. She noted the Board does not review the PUD, but the preliminary plat is affected by the relaxation requests.
Planner Windemaker noted the applicant had requested the waiver to designate 14 units in the Village Lofts as Restricted Lot Size lots. She noted the Community Affordable Housing Advisory
Board (CAHAB) had recommended the acceptance of those 14 units with an additional two single family lots. Planner Windemaker stated the plat lies within an R-4 zoning district and the
Growth Policy designation is Residential. She noted the two phases within the development and stated the first phase would be nine lots and the park and the second phase would include
the wetlands and the additional 10 lots. She stated the Wetlands Review Board (WRB) had reviewed the application and made recommendations which became conditions two through five in
the Staff report. She noted the most significant relaxation request was to not extend Village Downtown Boulevard to the property line and to not provide for a continuation of Front Street.
She stated Staff are not supporting these relaxations requested due to the number of dwelling units currently under construction and the additional units approved since the granting
of the variance to the Broadway Boulevard Subdivision. Planner Windemaker noted the relaxation request which would allow the Park to be developed without street frontage and trails around
the exterior. She noted the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) supported most of the relaxation requests, but would like to see the cash-in-lieu be applied towards amenities
such as park benches. She also noted the RPAB recommended the HOA maintain the park in perpetuity due to its size.
Questions for Staff:
Donna Swarthout sought clarification on the relaxation requests Staff were not in agreement with. Planner Windemaker noted Staff would like the Village Downtown Boulevard and Front Street
improvements, 20 foot rear yard setbacks, and the provision of cash in lieu for park amenities. She noted Staff were not in support of the affordable housing waiver.
Mr. Henyon sought clarification on the intersection of Broadway and Main Street. Planner Windemaker noted turning left onto Main from Broadway at 5:00 p.m. resulted in an unacceptable
level of service. She stated a warrant analysis had been completed and signalization was not warranted at this time. Mr. Henyon sought clarification on the responsibility of the State
in regard to the intersection. Planner Windemaker noted the State controlled Main Street.
Mr. Mehl sought clarification on condition 2. Planner Windemaker noted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would decide if the boundary for the wetlands needed to be redelineated.
Mr. Mehl sought clarification on what that entailed. Planner Windemaker responded it could affect the size of the wetlands. Ms. Swarthout sought clarification on the 50 foot buffer around
the wetlands with regard to buildings. Planner Windemaker responded the WRB had advised measures to be taken to protect the existing trees within the 50 foot buffer. She noted alleys
and driveways could be placed within the buffer, but garages would not be placed that close to the wetlands.
Mr. Mehl sought clarification on the HOA maintaining the park, mitigation for water runoff, and the existing gravel road for emergency vehicles. Planner Windemaker noted the right of
way exists, and is owned by the City, so it would have to be constructed to the City Standard for curb, gutter, width and sidewalks. She noted that most parks are maintained by HOAs
within the City. She responded the applicant had submitted drainage plans which are reviewed by the Engineering department to mitigate any runoff problems.
President Pomnichowski sought clarification on Lot 3 falling within the floodplain. Planner Windemaker responded none of the buildable lots fell within the floodplain, but if the applicant
was required to build Front Street they would have to obtain the required permit.
Ms. Swarthout sought clarification on the granting of the waiver regarding affordable housing. Planner Windemaker noted CAHAB’s recommendations allowed for a greater variety of restricted
size lot size units in the area.
Applicant Presentation:
Mike Delaney presented the applicants presentation. He noted the project has gone through a number of reiterations. He noted the current proposal was downsized from the original intent
of having upwards of 150 units on the property. He clarified the current application contained 21 lots and the Downtown Lofts with the wetlands and park becoming separate lots. He noted
the traffic and pedestrian study completed after the construction of over 100 units had resulted with a negligible change in traffic. He stated the project would not go forward if the
completion of Front Street was required. He stated the improvements would be a safety hazard for pedestrians due to the industrial traffic in the area. He noted the Fire Department did
not need Front Street constructed to City Standard because of the way it is currently developed. Ms. Swarthout sought clarification on the impacts of single family residences on traffic
versus the impacts by those who reside in the Lofts currently. Mr. Delaney responded roughly 60% of the Lofts were lived in full time and the other 40%
were second residences.
Mr. Delaney noted the 10 foot rear yard setback relaxation request was to preserve the uniformity within the development. He stated the level of service standard at Main and Broadway
should not be an issue due to the lack of impact the Village Downtown had. He noted when a light is warranted the applicant was willing to participate, but would not agree to cover the
entire cost.
Mr. Delaney specifically addressed the waiver request with regard to RSL units. He stated the application met the intent of the code, and if the 14 units were not accepted from the Lofts,
two single family residences would be the only requirement by the UDO. He also noted if the lot had been subdivided into three lots, the applicant would note need to provide any RSL.
He also stated if delineation took place for the wetlands, the size could be reduced, but the applicant did not want to be surprised if the area was increased and asked for the consideration
of the removal of the condition.
Questions for Applicant and Staff:
Mr. Quinn sought clarification on the May 12, 2003 memo from Greg Megaard regarding the 12 foot wide access not meeting the minimum code. Ms. Windemaker responded the current access
did meet the 20 foot code requirements for emergency access.
Public Comment
Seeing no public comment, President Pomnichowski closed this section of the public hearing.
Discussion
Mr. Mehl sought clarification on Front Street and who would be responsible for bringing the street to City Standard. Planner Windemaker stated it currently meets the emergency access
code requirements and the applicant would be responsible for bringing it to code. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification the RSL requirements. Planner Windemaker noted 10% of the lot area
is needed and CAHAB’s calculations made sense. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on the 14 units satisfying the RSL criteria by Staff and CAHAB calculations. Planner Windemaker responded
the 14 units did not meet calculations made by Staff or CAHAB. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on the size impact of the dedicated units. Planner Windemaker noted code requirements
restricted the size of the units, and also added the applicant would be subject to workforce housing requirements if the lot referenced by Mr. Delaney was subdivided. Mr. Delaney responded
they were not required to have 14 units when the net buildable lots and the size of the lots came into play.
Mr. Caldwell sought further clarification on condition 2 if delineation was required by the Corps. Planner Windemaker noted the applicant would need to write a letter to the Corps and
provide either the results of the delineation or a letter stating the Corps was not interested in having the wetlands redilineated.
Mr. Henyon noted he would like to address the waiver for affordable housing as he is satisfied the application met the intent of the UDO and did not feel the applicant should provide
the
additional dwelling units recommended by CAHAB.
Motion and Vote
It was moved by Mr. Henyon, seconded by Mr. Caldwell, to amend condition 1 to read: “The request for a waiver under Section 18.42.180.C.5, Provision of Affordable Housing, to designate
14 units in the Village Lofts multifamily development as Restricted Size Dwelling Units in an affordable housing complex is approved. subject to the following conditions.
Given the net buildable area of the Village Homesites Subdivision Phases 1 and 2, including Lot 3A, is ~ 216,456 square feet; a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the net buildable area
is ~ 21,647 square feet.
Given the net buildable area of Lot 3A (Village Lofts) is ~ 112,325 square feet, and the 84 dwelling units constructed in the Village Lofts on Lot 3A was based on the net buildable area
of Lot 3A.
Given that 21,647 square feet is 19.28% of the net buildable area of Lot 3A (Village Lofts), and 19.28% of the 84 units are 17 units. Therefore, the 14 units offered do not fulfill the
requirement of the BMC.
In addition to the designation of the 14 units in the Village Lofts on Lot 3A as Restricted Size Units, two (2) single-household lots in Village Homesites Subdivision Phases 1 and 2
shall be designated as Restricted Size Lots.
All lots /units so designated shall be subject to the total floor area ratio of Restricted Size Units under Section 18.16.030. A note on the final plat/PUD plan shall indicate which
lots / units are reserved to meet the RSL requirement and subject to the RSU restrictions. The RSL / RSU designation shall be recorded on the individual lots / units in a manner that
will appear on a title search and include reference to the sunset provisions of Section 18.42.180.”
Mr. Caldwell stated the intent of the RSL is to create affordable housing. He stated the recommendation sounded punitive from CAHAB, and he did not feel a 1500 square foot house in the
subdivision would be affordable.
Those voting Aye being Mr. Henyon, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Quinn. Those voting No being Ms. Swarthout and President Pomnichowski. The motion carried 4-2.
Mr. Henyon stated he would also like to address the condition requiring a 20 foot rear yard setback. He stated the applicant had a compelling reason to request the relaxation to preserve
the continuity of the area with the 10 foot rear yard setbacks, and reconfiguration would come heavily into play. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on having public access on the alley
to provide a shorter rear yard setback which would not allow for any parking behind garages. Planner Windemaker noted the alley is a dedicated right of way. President Pomnichowski noted
there was not a condition addressing the setbacks with the preliminary plat application. Mr. Mehl noted it was a concern at this point, but not a condition.
Mr. Henyon noted he was concerned about the continuation of Front Street in light of the public safety concerns. He stated he was not sure of the legality of prohibiting truck traffic
on residential
streets. He stated the City should be able to block truck traffic with signage since it was a City street. Mr. Quinn stated the ingress and egress for emergency vehicles was a safety
concern, and he would like to be satisfied in approaches other than solely having access on Broadway. Mr. Caldwell stated there is currently a business operating within the right of
way for Front Street, and if the City is desirous of improving Front Street, action to make Front Street functional from Oak Street to Village Downtown Boulevard needs to be taken. Mr.
Mehl sought clarification from Staff on designating which streets trucks can and cannot utilize. Planner Windemaker stated there is a process to request studies in order to eliminate
adverse impacts of traffic. Mr. Mehl sought clarification if the study could be done prior to suffering the effects. Planner Windemaker noted truck traffic might not be a problem due
to the street layout in the area.
It was moved by Mr. Henyon, seconded by Mr. Caldwell, to strike condition 18 from staff conditions. Those voting Aye being Mr. Henyon and Mr. Caldwell. Those voting No being Mr. Quinn,
Mr. Mehl, Ms. Swarthout, and President Pomnichowski. The motion failed 2-4.
Mr. Mehl noted he would like to see the condition amended to include working with the applicant in order to restrict traffic to typical residential traffic only. President Pomnichowski
responded it may be better to recommend an effort be made to restrict traffic to typical residential traffic and local (non business).
Mr. Quinn stated he would be more restrictive and amend the condition to allow for satisfactory emergency ingress and egress onto Front Street from the property for the applicant to
show due concern for public safety. Mr. Caldwell agreed with Mr. Quinn.
It was moved by Mr. Caldwell, seconded by Mr. Quinn, to amend condition 18 to read “Village Downtown Boulevard from the current terminus to Front Street, and Front Street from the extended
Village Downtown Boulevard to Broadway shall be constructed to city standard local streets. The streets shall be constructed or financially guaranteed prior to final plat approval.
They shall be constructed and installed prior to issuance of any building permits an emergency access standard.” Those voting Aye being Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Henyon.
Those voting No being Ms. Swarthout and President Pomnichowski. The motion carried 4-2.
It was moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Mr. Henyon, to recommend conditional approval to the City Commission of the Village Homesites Major Subdivision Phases 1 and 2 Preliminary Plat
#P-08004 with the conditions as amended. Those voting Aye being Mr. Quinn, Mr. Henyon, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Mehl, and President Pomnichowski. Those voting No being Ms. Swarthout. The motion
carried 5-1.
ITEM 5. BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE
Review and discussion of the analysis and the issues with the current/new chapters of the Bozeman Community Plan as related to Land Use.
Dr. Joseph Shaw, Director of the Optical Technology Center of the department of electrical and computer engineering at MSU, presented a PowerPoint on the impacts of lighting and light
pollution. He noted the dramatic difference between planned communities and communities without regulations. He stated it is important to consider the issue of lighting as Bozeman plans.
He stated preserving the unique character of Bozeman’s night sky has many impacts including a competitive edge for MSU research, economic benefits, safety, and lighting effectiveness.
He stated light pollution is scattered light that obscures the natural sky.
Mr. Shaw stated there are four basic principles to keep in mind with regard to a lighting ordinance: the use of shielded fixtures, turning lights off when not needed, the use of narrow-spectrum
(long wavelength) bulbs, and adequate but not excessive brightness. He presented visual affects of using unshielded light fixtures versus shielded fixtures. He also noted snow is an
important factor because the amount of light snow reflects and lower limits for maximum luminance would mitigate reflective lights. He stated being proactive is key. He would also like
to see a stricter and more specific control of sports lighting. He would like to see enforcement and an improved definition of “non-security lighting”. He thanked the Board for their
willingness to work with him within the land use part of the 2020 Plan.
Mr. Henyon sought clarification on the upfront costs of replacing wide spectrum lights with narrow spectrum lights. Mr. Shaw did not have exact answers, but noted the cost was negligible
unless everything was replaced at once.
Tom Henesh stated he was here in behalf of his property on West Main. He noted the property was approved for a dealership but did not get completed as a subdivision. He noted the property
is designated on the growth policy map as Business Park, and it has been on the market without any takers for a number of years. He would like to see the B-P designation changed to allow
for more relaxations.
President Pomnichowski sought clarification from Mr. Henesh on specific or general changes he would like to see changed within the district. Mr. Henesh responded he did not. President
Pomnichowski encouraged him to email any ideas at any time during the process.
Susan Kozub of Intrinsik Architecture shared a potential project developed with Rob Pertzborn and Tracy Poole. She shared the collective perceptions of what the Board has been discussing,
what is actually taking place, and the project they are working on. She noted the Board has talked about wanting to see more vibrant housing, more density in appropriate locations, more
compact neighborhoods, and exploration of form based zoning. She noted these are great concepts, but noted the promotion of those types of projects needs to happen as well. She noted
the excitement of implementing the urban mixed use zoning designation, but it can still be prohibitive. She noted the City needs to be able to approve the UMU zoning district without
fearing B-2 type developments.
Ms. Kozub shared sketches and photos of the proposed project with Planning Board members. She noted the proposed project is located at the intersection of Stucky Road and South 19th
Avenue. She noted the proposal has the buildings pushed up to Stucky Road, contains office and commercial centers to serve the existing residences in the Southwest quadrant of Bozeman.
She noted it could create a central hub for MSU which would create a distinct neighborhood which
would mix well within the overall Bozeman community. She shared the student housing components, mixed with the lofts above retail space and smaller cottages. She emphasized creating
a sense of place with quality student housing near MSU was important as well as incorporating the development into the larger community. She noted the project was enhanced by a connected
trail system as well as parkland. She shared options their group had considered in order to develop the project and move forward.
Ms. Swarthout thanked Ms. Kozub for her presentation and noted she liked the sounds of the project. She stated the Board is trying to move mixed use, density and infill issues forward
through the update of the Land Use Chapter. She encouraged suggestions and modifications on specifics in order to move projects similar to the presentation forwards. She noted the Board
consensus had been to make modifications which encouraged and allowed similar projects. Ms. Kozub noted the appendix for the Land Use chapter is key to the Boards discussion.
Mr. Mehl thanked Ms. Kozub for continuing to move forward. He sought clarification on the arbitrariness of the form based zoning question and maintaining consistency within the model.
Ms. Kozub responded there are allowances for different uses, but mitigating factors can be included as well as percentages of uses in specific areas. She noted her earlier proposal would
be a great way to utilize the UMU zoning district as a trial run for form based zoning. Mr. Caldwell responded a PUD could create an opportunity for form based zoning developments if
the process was different, as PUD applications cannot be brought forward unless they meet the underlying growth policy designation. He noted PUDs still need to be utilized, and could
provide some safety to moving forward without having to reinvent the designations on the 2020 Land Use map. President Pomnichowski responded it was an interesting take, but mentioned
predictability was established through the current 2020 and zoning maps. She noted having a sense of predictability within the Land Use chapter needs to be kept. She noted the character
change on Babcock to College Street and Willson to 8th Avenue when accessory dwelling units were permitted. She stated the Board cannot add uses and density and tell land owners they
live in the same neighborhood. She thanked Ms. Kozub for the example.
Seeing no further public comment, President Pomnichowski closed public comment.
Mr. Caldwell stated Senate Bill 201 had been passed which provided for cooperation with the County and its efforts to establish the Transferable Density Credits. He would like to forward
a recommendation to adopt an ordinance formalizing the interlocal agreement between the City and the County. He stated the City has already met the requirements to move forward with
the agreement. Planner Saunders responded the City Commission is reviewing the options on July 21 and the County on July 28th with the hope that the Belgrade, Bozeman, and the County
could move through the process at the same time.
Planner Saunders sought clarification from the Board regarding the Land Use map interaction with density chips. Mr. Caldwell sought clarification on the front end assumptions made during
the chip exercise. He stated the Board needed to be critical of the front end assumptions and the guidelines for the commercial districts.
Planner Saunders presented a short update with the Board. He showed a map provided by the school district revealing current schools and property under school ownership. He shared the
district boundaries with regard to the Bozeman planning boundary. Mr. Saunders noted that roughly 30,000 people generated a new high school.
Planner Saunders sought guidance from the Board on the assumptions being made for the Land Use Mapping exercise for the next regular meeting. The Board consensus was for Planning Staff
to utilize projections with alternative scenario number two.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
Seeing there was no new business, President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there were no further issues before the Board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman