Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100708 Planning Board Minutes MINTUES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: JP Pomnichowski, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Erik Henyon Allyson Bristor, Historic Preservation Officer Cathy Costakis David Skelton, Senior Planner Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Sean Becker Guests Present: Members Absent: Catherine Koenen Bill Quinn (excused) Dennis Foreman Chris Mehl (excused) Bruce Bradford Brian Caldwell (excused) David Peck Donna Swarthout (excused) 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.} There was no public comment forthcoming. The public comment period was closed. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 Seeing there were no changes, additions or corrections to the minutes, President Pomnichowski stated that the minutes from September 16, 2008 would stand as written. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-08007 (Fellowship Baptist Church MiSub) - A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of the property owner and applicant, Fellowship Baptist Church, and the representative, Gaston Engineering and Surveying, to allow the subdivision of 10.99 acres into two lots for R-3 (Residential medium Density District) and R-4 (Residential High Density District) development. The property is legally described as Amended Plat of Annie Subdivision Phase 2, Lot 5, NE ¼, SE ¼, Sec. 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton) Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the Planning Board members had received an e-mail from him earlier that day with comments from Bob Murray and Debbie Arkell regarding the need to improve North 25th Avenue with this subdivision. He explained the zoning designation of the site was R-3 and noted it would be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. He noted the surrounding developments and directed the Planning Board’s attention to photographs from the site in each direction. He stated the Zoning Commission had approved the zoning of R-4 for property to the north one-third of the site and there was a condition in the ZMA that the subdivision be approved prior to development of the site. He stated there would be no additional parkland required for the proposal and parkland had been provided with the original subdivision review and development of Annie Subdivision. He stated the requested R-4 zoning designation would allow 18 dwellings per acre and the site could contain ~45 dwelling units. He stated Tschache Lane would need to be completed and no direct access would be allowed onto Oak Street (Arterial Street). He stated the pedestrian/bicycle circulation along Tschache Lane would need to be carried through the site and provide connection to adjacent sites. He stated cash-in-lieu or other RSL mitigations would need to be provided and noted any development would be required to mitigate their impact on the community. He stated the key to the proposal would be good connectivity and keeping the grid system alive to share the traffic load in the area. He stated the threshold of improvements to the developer would be local streets and noted that North 27th Avenue was eligible to be in the CIP so the issue was that the developer was ahead of the approval of the CIP. He stated the plan was to continue the local street through the site as had been recommended by the City Commission and that developers complete the connection in subsequent applications. He stated it would be crucial to implement the improvement of the local street as past experience had shown that half-streets did not work. He stated Staff and the DRC was not supportive of the requested Variance. He stated public comment had been received with regard to concerns that the existing traffic signal would not support the traffic generated by the proposed development. He stated Staff recommended approval of the two-lot Minor Subdivision, but recommended denial of the requested Variance. Vice President Henyon asked if adjacent landowners had been required to develop their portion of the street given that the City owned property in that location. Planner Skelton responded the City had split the right-of-way for road to the center line between the subject property and Rose Park. The City would participate by installing the sidewalks on the east side. President Pomnichowski responded that previous approval of the larger subdivision had included the condition that the improvements be made to the street; she noted the second subdivision of the property did not negate the original conditions of approval. Vice President Henyon asked if the property north of the site had been platted. Planner Skelton responded that public access easements for North 25th were depicted on the site plan shown on the aerial photo for the extension of North 25th to the north. Ms. Smith asked if there would be any land gained on the south end of the property to provide for the widening of Oak Street. Planner Skelton responded that with this application additional right of way is required for public access. Ms. Smith asked if there would be a wider road along the south boundary of Rose Park. Planner Skelton responded that this section of road was already developed based on the existing median in Oak Street. Ms. Smith asked if any width could be gained for 25th Avenue along Rose Park. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City owned the land and could do with it whatever would be needed; he added the intersection required a non-standard cross-section due to the presence of power lines in that location. Ms. Costakis asked if Streamline delivered to the site. Planner Skelton responded he wasn’t sure where they would deliver near the site as bus stops would be based on demand and they currently deliver along the two street frontages of Stoneridge PUD. Ms. Costakis asked if arrangements would be made to allow for bus routes to that location. Planner Skelton responded they did not see a need to provide a bus stop in that location due to its proximity to existing stops. Ms. Costakis asked if and when it became a bus stop, would it be the City’s responsibility or the applicant’s. Assistant Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be Streamlines responsibility to install any bus stop. Ms. Costakis asked if Emily Dickinson School was near the site down 25th Avenue. Planner Skelton responded it was. Ms. Costakis asked if children would have to walk to school from the development and if Staff thought the children would really go out of their way to get to school. Planner Skelton responded he thought they would go to the intersection where there would be some kind of traffic calming device, as well as signalization in the future, that would make for a safer crossing. Ms. Costakis suggested the pedestrian connection be provided across the arterial street where the kids would likely cross; she noted the same issue had come up with regard to Durston Road and 25th Avenue. Assistant Director Saunders responded part of the issue would be identifying the routes so that parents could teach the children how to identify safe routes to school and home. Catherine Koenen, Gaston Engineering, stated the applicant agreed with Staff conditions of approval and would be willing to comply with all of them with the exception of the denial of the requested Variance. She stated impact fee credits would not be applicable for the proposal and suggested the City should participate in the construction of the full width of the road; she noted no paybacks would be given to the applicant by the adjacent landowner (the City) and the improvements to the road would be a financial burden and hardship. The item was opened for public comment. There being no public comment forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. Vice President Henyon asked why North 25th Avenue wasn’t constructed at the time of the original approval. Planner Skelton responded the original intent was for the area to be parkland. Vice President Henyon asked how often a builder had to construct the street. Planner Skelton responded it would be dependent on the type and location of the development and how it would be developed. Dennis Foreman, Gaston Engineering, stated the Informal review of the proposal lead the applicant to believe that the City would participate in half of the construction costs of the street. President Pomnichowski stated that for the sake of the subsequent minor subdivision the conditions of approval from Staff were usual. She stated the UDO outlined four criteria that must be met to grant a Variance request and financial hardship did not constitute grounds for granting the request. Vice President Henyon noted that in the minutes of the City Commission meeting for the approval of the original subdivision that connectivity for the site was very important. He stated he agreed that financial hardship would not be grounds for granting the Variance. MOTION: Vice President Henyon moved, Ms. Smith seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-08007 with Staff conditions and the recommended denial of the requested Variance. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, and President Pomnichowski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE 1. Review and discussion of Chapter 4: Historic Preservation – (Bristor) Historic Preservation Officer Allyson Bristor presented the chapter draft noting it reflected the Board’s suggestions from their meeting two weeks prior. She noted facts had been included about the Conservation Overlay District and National Historic Register in the side margins. Ms. Smith stated page 4-4, objective 1.3 and 4.7 were connected and asked if there something in place to prevent the deterioration of structures. Planner Bristor responded the only regulations in place were relative to City Building Codes and primarily restricted structures from becoming a public nuisance. Assistant Director Saunders responded the issue had been discussed at the City Commission level. President Pomnichowski asked if there would be a City fund that would assist with the matter. Planner Bristor responded the City wanted to provide incentives for the property owner to provide adequate maintenance of the structure, but no incentives were in place at this time. President Pomnichowski stated there were different standards for adequate maintenance/upkeep of a structure and the language should be sensitive to those circumstances; she state she was supportive of language promoting structural integrity and incentives before maintenance requirements. Ms. Smith asked if there was regulatory power available through the National Register designation. Planner Bristor responded the City regulates structures in the Conservation Overlay District. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City would like to be in a position to address those structures outside of the Overlay Districts. Ms. Smith stated everyone would want incentive to maintain the integrity of their property. Vice President Henyon added that waiving the fee for the COA application could be a financial incentive, but he did not think the City would need to provide other incentives as increasing the property value should be the a good enough incentive. Assistant Director Saunders stated the intent of Staff was to review and consider whether or not there would be fairness issues, abatement eligibility, revolving loan funds, etc. and the final decision would need to be reviewed by the City Commission. Vice President Henyon suggested he did not want to see the City funding financial incentives to maintain properties. President Pomnichowski stated on page 4-2 the language insinuated that the Conservation Overlay was where the City would care about maintenance and there was later recognition that properties would be aging outside of the Conservation Overlay; she suggested the language should recognize a larger area while still referencing the historic core of Bozeman. She asked what would happen with those properties that the community did not care about or want to keep. Assistant Director Saunders responded the historic context of the home could have been lost and a new design preferable to what was there would be approved. President Pomnichowski stated that not everything was precious or historic even if it is old and it would be crucial to differentiate between those types of properties. Assistant Director Saunders stated there would be different levels of intensity that would be applied based on the historic features of the property and differentiation between those properties. Planner Bristor stated they wanted to allow change and growth, but it was a constant balancing act. Ms. Costakis stated she agreed with President Pomnichowski and noted that because of the location in the Conservation Overlay, incentives could be given. Ms. Smith stated she would like to see a goal that spoke specifically to commercial historic redevelopment; she noted the HMU was a good example of where that goal would be pertinent. She suggested clarifying how it is determined what uses would be allowed in the redevelopment of historic structures. Assistant Director Saunders responded Site Plan review had been instituted so that the issue of use can be addressed. Ms. Smith suggested commercial development be included in the document as it seemed to only address residential development. President Pomnichowski stated the document looked much better. Vice President Henyon suggested color coding the Historic Districts map/list in the side margin so that people would be able to more easily identify the Districts. Ms. Costakis asked who would be responsible for updating the Historic Inventory. Planner Bristor responded the scoping study had been completed and a three year phasing had been suggested. She stated working with the University would also be an option and grants were being investigated. 2. Review and discussion of Chapter 13: Disaster and Emergency Preparedness and Response - (Saunders) Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting this was the first time this particular chapter had been done. He stated other City agencies (police, fire) were pleased with the draft. He stated the draft pertained to both chronic and acute issues. He stated they had tried to encourage and recognize that personal decisions have an impact and encourage personal responsibility. He stated the facility plan for disasters was included in the draft and the County had identified the major hazards and the resources that would be needed to handle those hazards. Vice President Henyon suggested page 13-2 should split the sentence “civil unrest and terrorism” and natural hazards should include a management plan with Fish, Wildlife, and Parks with regard to wildlife or pestilence in town. Assistant Director Saunders responded some of those issues would fall under communicable diseases and wildlife could be included. Ms. Costakis asked if the Gallatin County Health Department had contributed to the draft. Assistant Director Saunders responded their information would be included in Public Services and Facilities as they had not yet responded to the request at this time. President Pomnichowski suggested Bozeman Deaconess be included as a local contact. Ms. Costakis suggested the inclusion of health in the empty box on the graph as it was relative. She asked if agency included businesses or for profit businesses. Assistant Director Saunders responded the wording would be reviewed. Assistant Director Saunders responded business continuity plans should also be included. Ms. Costakis asked if emissions and gas travel were included in objective D.3.1. President Pomnichowski stated the D.3.1. etc. should really be D.2.1. etc. 3. Review and discussion of the Land Use Appendix - (Saunders) Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the draft noting the land use appendix had been translated from the past plan as well as including some of the significant presentations from the earlier portions of the process. He stated additional material had been added and further evaluation of land uses outside the City of Bozeman control area. He stated Land Use has a significant long term affect on Bozeman’s job base and there would be potential for significant changes. He stated the research regarding floor area ratios had been included from the discussion of Land Use Goals and Objectives. Vice President Henyon commended Assistant Director Saunders on his presentation of current 2007 and 2008 data. He stated he did not see a figure six in the document even though it had been referenced. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had not yet decided how the map would be referenced in the document and it had not come through legibly at small scale. Vice President Henyon asked for clarification with regard to the language included in the document referencing the Planning Board requiring neighborhood plans. Assistant Director Saunders responded neighborhood plans did not come up very often; he cited the Bozeman Deaconess Subarea Plan. President Pomnichowski stated she did not want to see the Planning Board require neighborhood plans, but would like to see the option available. Vice President Henyon suggested the owner and the neighborhood should be charged with those plans. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the Planning Board could encourage public participation. David Peck stated he was interested in the process and he was attempting to learn; he stated he had an 80 acre parcel on South 19th Avenue and Patterson Road. Ms. Costakis asked if the UMU Zoning District appeared on the chart. Assistant Director Saunders responded that the 2008 chart would show the UMU, but it may not be included if there was no available data. President Pomnichowski stated she would like to see the Growth Policy (sections x-8, x-13, x-14) address or make reference to the situation in 2008 as in a year the information would not be accurate. Assistant Director Saunders responded the document appendices were in large part documenting existing conditions, but an attempt would be made to reference 2008. President Pomnichowski stated the document seemed very time specific. Assistant Director Saunders responded that in the same appendix, forecast elements were instituted with regard to population and housing. President Pomnichowski suggested the language “from the years X to X” be included in the document. Vice President Henyon stated he had gotten a different feeling from the document and that it was being projected out to the year 2025 in the forecast elements. Ms. Costakis stated the last sentence in 2nd paragraph of x-3 the language “shared or structured parking” should be included. 4. Review and discussion of the Public Facilities and Services Appendix–(Saunders) Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the operational considerations had been included in the draft; including schools and school districts. He stated other services (such as City Manager and City Finance) that were not bricks and mortar were also addressed as they helped make the City work. He stated the City Commission had adopted the resolution supporting coordination of the City Planning and County Planning. Vice President Henyon stated that on page x-13, the organizational chart did not need to include people’s names due to turnover in those positions. He stated on page x-12, the discussion with regard to the mayor should state the mayor is an elected official who runs for the position. President Pomnichowski asked what a Cohort Survival Method was and suggested a description of it be included in the document. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was a way to keep track of the population where sections of people are taken and monitored at the same age ranges for birth, death, etc. President Pomnichowski stated the document looked good and was shaping up nicely. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff was attempting to get the remaining four chapters to the Planning Board at the next meeting. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Vice President Henyon suggested the Planning Department and Streamline monitor where the bus stops should go and how curb-ins could be designed to provide for bus stops. Ms. Smith stated the routes were based on demand and could not be predicted unless there were areas of known large populations. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a draft document from Streamline in process to provide for design and location of bus stops and routes. Ms. Costakis stated she agreed with Vice President Henyon as Streamline would be an integral part of the community. President Pomnichowski noted the Transportation Plan would address those items specifically and the ball would be in Streamlines court until they began driving a certain route. Ms. Costakis stated she had conversations with the Gallatin County Planning Board regarding equestrian trails. President Pomnichowski responded equestrian trails had been addressed in the Transportation Plan. President Pomnichowski suggested the PB attend the County PB meeting to explain the updating process for the Growth Policy. Vice President Henyon stated the Drinking Horse trail had been opened and he commended GVLT on their fundraising. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman