Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-06 Planning Board Minutes.doc MINUTES THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006 7:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Planning Board President JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and directed the recording secretary to note attendance. Board Members Present Staff Present Visitors Registered JP Pomnichowski, President Andrew Epple, Director of Planning Ken Smith Dave Jarrett Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Cecilia Vaniman Caren Roberty Chris Saunders, Asst. Director Marcia Youngman Ed Sypinski Margot Barg Mike Hope Sean Becker Brian Caldwell 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. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 16th, 2006 Planning Director Epple stated the minutes of the May 16, 2006 meeting were not available at this time, but would be distributed in the next packet. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-06021 (Cattail Lake). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by applicant and property owners, Crestview lake LLC, to allow the subdivision of 42 acres into 38 single-household and 4 multi-household lots, roads, alleys, park and open space areas on property legally described as Lot 3 of Minor Subdivision #221, located in the SW ¼ of Section 26, T1S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the staff report. She stated the proposal includes two proposed waivers to the park land requirements: that the area of the lake itself count toward the park land dedication requirement, and that not all of the park land be fronted by public streets. She noted there are 42 recommended conditions, and highlighted conditions one through nine for the benefit of the Board. Brian Caldwell asked how much the proposed sidewalk could meander. Lanette Windemaker stated that the meandering may not exceed engineering standards for safety, and referred Mr. Caldwell to Condition No. 42 for further clarification. Mr. Caldwell asked what would be placed in the emergency building near the lake. Ms. Windemaker responded that a boat, blankets, and other rescue equipment would be housed in the building. Dave Jarrett inquired about water quality testing: Who would do it, and what standards would apply. Ms. Windemaker responded that Parks Superintendent Ron Dingman will establish those procedures and standards before the City accepts the Lake as parkland. Mr. Jarrett expressed concern about nitrate levels, and commented that this will be a new area for parks personnel to work in. In response to a question from JP Pomnichowski, Ms. Windemaker commented that Condition 15 addressed high groundwater concerns. Ms. Pomnichowski asked about the status of Farmers’ Canal and area wetlands. Ms. Windemaker replied that Farmers’ Canal is not a watercourse, and therefore not subject to 310 Permitting requirements or watercourse setbacks. She noted that the wetlands are jurisdictional and subject to Army Corps 404 permitting. Ms. Pomnichowski questioned why the park land frontage waiver was not called out as a variance. Ms. Windemaker responded that that requirement can be modified by the Commission without meeting the criteria for the granting of a variance, per Code. Mr. Ken Smith of Process Architecture, representing Scott Hacker and Cattail Lake LLC addressed the Board. He noted that they have redistributed some of the housing types to address concerns expressed during previous informal and pre-application reviews. He stated they are fine with all of the conditions except two: 1) They would like consideration for the excess parkland they are providing; and 2) They wish not to be burdened with the cost of constructing the rescue building. Mr. Scott Hacker stated they are waiting for a definitive response from the fire department on whether or not they actually need to construct a rescue building, and indicated they feel it is an extraordinary requirement to have to do so. Mr. Dave Jarrett asked how they would like to amend Conditions 8 and 9. Mr. Ken Smith stated they would like the conditions eliminated, or amended to give them credits, like impact fee credits, for the rescue building and extra parkland. Mr. Brian Caldwell asked if they have a cost estimate for the building. Mr. Smith and Mr. Hacker stated they do not because they haven’t gotten any feedback from the fire department yet. JP Pomnichowski asked if this development will be protected by the City of Bozeman or RAE volunteer fire department. Ms. Windemaker said the City of Bozeman will provide fire and emergency protection, but RAE fire department will have an access easement to draw water from the lake. President JP Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Ms. Cecelia Vaniman, 1520 Westlake road, stated she lives just north of the property. She is concerned about density and impacts on Davis Lane. She stated that with all the construction activity in the area there are over 400 gravel trucks a week on Davis Lane, creating severe dust conditions. She asked the extent to which Davis Lane would be paved, and how much this developer would be required to do. Seeing no more members of the public wishing to speak, President Pomnichowski CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. In response to Ms. Vaniman’s question, a representative of TDH Engineering in Belgrade stated that Davis Lane will be paved to the north end of the property in conjunction with Phase I of the development, extending perhaps 300 feet beyond the Vaniman’s property line. He noted it will be a two land paved city standard street adjacent to this property. Brian Caldwell stated that the cost of the boathouse should be linked to impact fee credits of some sort. Dave Jarrett stated he felt the requirement should just be eliminated because the City has provided no specific standards or need. Ed Sypinski stated he felt the boathouse was needed for public safety. Caren Roberty stated she didn’t feel the conditions should be stricken, but modified. She noted that much of the parkland that is being dedicated is not developable. Brian Caldwell indicated he supports giving parkland credit for the lake. Mike Hope stated that dedicating parkland adds to the cost of housing, so he favors granting credit elsewhere for excess parkland. With regard to density, Mr. Hope stated he feels the market should determine how dense a development should be. He stated his support for keeping Condition 8, because emergency access is important, but eliminating Condition 9 because there are no specific reasons for keeping it. JP Pomnichowski stated that she is a firefighter, and believes a building is necessary to house equipment that cannot be easily transported to the site. She feels it is an important condition that should be kept, but that a credit should be considered. She stated the parkland is a nice amenity for the subdivision. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she likes how this project has evolved. She noted that she feels the density is O.K. because of the amount of parkland, and that the street layout is good. Dave Jarrett questioned whether the emergency parking area should be available for parking to the public, and suggested maybe a dock would be helpful in aiding rescues. Ms. Windemaker commented that there is parking along both sides of the streets adjacent to the lake, which will provide access. MOTION: Brian Caldwell moved to amend Condition 9 by adding the following to the end of the condition: “The cost of the emergency rescue building and its related equipment shall be compensated with an equal amount of fire impact fee credits and/or park land fee or park land dedication credits.” Dave Jarrett seconded the motion. The motion to amend Condition 9 passed unanimously (6 in favor, none opposed). MOTION: Mike Hope moved to apply the same language as just added to Condition 9 to Condition 8. Dave Jarrett seconded the motion. Caren Roberty commented that the need for the gravel access and parking area is not the same as the need for a building. The motion to amend Condition 8 failed with 3 votes in favor (Hope, Jarrett, Caldwell) and three votes opposed (Roberty, Sypinski, Pomnichowski). MOTION: Mike Hope moved to recommend approval of Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-06021 (Cattail Lake) as recommended by staff, with Condition 9 as modified by the Board. Motion seconded by Ed Sypinski. Motion passed unanimously (6 in favor, none opposed). Continued from May 16, 2006: Delaney Neighborhood Mixed Use District UDO Text Amendment, #Z-06049. The Proposed District proposes to create a “Neighborhood Mixed Use Zoning District”. The district would establish the intent of the district, the allowed principal and conditional uses, required yard setbacks, required lot area and width, maximum building heights, and maximum lot coverage. The proposal includes the development and adoption of special development standards and design criteria to apply within the new district. The standards and design criteria includes items such as landscaping, building design, compact development requirements, encouragement for multi-story building, vertical mixed use, pedestrian access, street connections, crime prevention, parking and public spaces. (Saunders) Board President JP Pomnichowski noted that this item had been continued from the Board’s May 16, 2006 meeting, and commented that it would be heard and acted upon jointly by the Planning Board and Zoning Commission. (The Zoning Commission subsequently convened its meeting.) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated he had reviewed the staff report in detail at the last meeting and would not do so again this evening, but indicated he was available to answer any questions. He distributed a letter in opposition to the proposed Zone Text Amendment, due to height concerns, and two reference documents. Mr. Saunders proceeded to review the “Unanswered Questions” memo that the applicant’s representative, Ms. Marcia Youngman, had prepared in consultation with staff. Caren Roberty asked if the City can approve the same sort of mixed use development this amendment would encourage through the existing PUD review process. Mr. Saunders said yes, up to a point, and commented that uses in a PUD must comply with the underlying land use designation in the adopted Growth Policy. Ms. Roberty asked if there are examples of other communities doing this, noting that it would seem 10,000 residents in the immediate area are needed to support this kind of activity. Chris Saunders commented that this proposal recognizes that Bozeman is growing to a City of over 50,000 residents. Mike Hope commented that this proposal will create additional regional shopping districts around Bozeman and will pose a threat to the health and vitality of downtown. He noted that the 2020 Plan considers downtown Bozeman the heart and soul of the community, and that mixed use is a concept that could be applied to infill areas like North 7th Avenue. Mr. Saunders commented there are a number of mixed use infill developments which have been built or are currently proposed under current codes.. Brian Caldwell and Chris Saunders engaged in a discussion regarding residential parkland dedication and open space requirements. Mr. Mike Delaney, applicant, stated that they are prepared to offer some changes to their proposal, to address concerns expressed at the previous hearing. Specifically, Mr. Delaney indicated that a 55’ height limit would be acceptable, and that mixed use zoning districts should only be allowed in planned Business Park areas (as depicted in the 2020 Plan), on a major arterial street, and at a signalized intersection. Mr. Delaney commented on the restrictive nature of Business Park zoning regulations, and asked the Board to focus on the concept of quality, not quantity. He praised the merits of vertical mixed use and suggested that few quality buildings have been built in Bozeman in the past few years. In response to a question from Mike Hope, Mr. Delaney stated he annexed the property to the City approximately 6 years ago, with BP zoning, but on the basis that BP zoning was more flexible than it is now under the 2020 Plan. Peter Harned stated that he sees the vision of this concept in the long term, but is worried about downtown Bozeman. He questioned where is the best place to do this. Mike Delaney responded his property on Huffine Lane would be a good place to do this, as would MSU property and the hospital property. But there are not many places this could work, he stated. Mike Hope commented that three stories is not very vertical, to which Mr. Delaney responded three to five stories would be ideal. Zoning Commissioner Nicholas Lieb asked Mr. Delaney to describe his vision for his property. Mike Delaney responded that his vision is a little village around a square, another place to go in addition to downtown. He commented that 80% of area residents never go downtown. Mr. Lieb asked why Mr. Delaney doesn’t just seek a rezoning to B-2. Mr. Delaney replied he has tried that numerous times and been denied, adding that he believes Mixed Use is more appropriate. Planning Board President and Zoning Commission Chairperson JP Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Marcia Youngman, 1214 West Koch, suggested that if Board and Commission members worked through the questions posed in the Unanswered Questions memo, all of these issues would be addressed. Ms. Youngman commented that property tax abatement could be a component of mixed use development, and that adoption of the mixed use ordinance would make a better fit with the 2020 Plan. She stated there is an opportunity to customize the mixed use concept for Bozeman. Seeing no more members of the public wishing to speak, Board President and Commission Chairperson JP Pomnichowski CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. JP Pomnichowski asked if Planning Board and Zoning Commission members wanted to go through the Unanswered Questions memo item by item. Caren Roberty indicated she is in favor of the concept, but there are so many unanswered questions. She feels a general discussion is needed before the details are worked out. She noted that, based on the handout provided at the beginning of the meeting, Colorado Springs has three types of mixed zoning, allowed in only five areas. Ms. Roberty stated she feels this proposal is a bit premature. Brain Caldwell stated there are questions beyond the scope of the Unanswered Questions memo. He would favor this kind of regulation, especially with a minimum height requirement. He would like to know if there is consensus on mixed use in the City at this time. Ed Sypinski commented that asking for this new ordinance at this time is too much, too soon. Mike Hope stated he does not believe this proposal should be ahead of the main body of UDO edits. He suggested this proposal should be considered in conjunction with the 2020 Plan update. Mr. Hope commented that this proposal is too much change to be considered outside of the context of the community’s Growth Policy. Zoning Commissioner Peter Harned stated this is an awfully big proposal, and one that would only be used infrequently. He suggested this is a road to be traveled down very carefully, and that this proposal should be considered as part of the 2020 Plan update. JP Pomnichowski commented that this is a bigger issue than a single application, and would be better for review with the 2020 Plan update. She stated that the 12 criteria for zone code amendments cannot be met, and doesn’t want BP zoning districts to expand into full commercial districts. MOTION: Mike Hope moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Commission that this application be tabled. Motion seconded. Brian Caldwell commented that the idea is sound, but the process is wrong. The motion to recommend tabling the application passed unanimously, with six votes in favor and none opposed. ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS JP Pomnichowski stated that planning area base maps for the City and surrounding areas have been provided to the joint City-County Planning Committee for reference documents as coordinated planning policies are developed. Brian Caldwell thanked JP for her efforts to bring City and County Planning Board members together. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Appointment of Board Members to Serve on the Joint City-County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Committee. Ed Sypinsky moved, Dave Jarrett seconded, to appoint JP Pomnichowski and Randy Carpenter to represent the City Planning Board on the City-County Intergovernmental Agreement Committee. Motion passed unanimously. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Bozeman City Planning Board, President JP Pomnichowski declared the meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Approved: ____________________________________________ __________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director of Planning JP Pomnichowski, Chairwoman City of Bozeman Planning Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a special need or disability, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).