HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-06 Planning Board Minutes.doc** MINUTES **
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 15, 2006
0:04:29 [21:10:16] ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President and Chair, JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:47p.m. She noted the excused absences of Commissioner Kirchhoff and Planning Board Vice President Dave Jarrett.
She then directed the secretary to record attendance.
Board Members Present: Staff Members Present:
JP Pomnichowski, Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director of Planning &
Erik Henyon Community Development
Randy Carpenter Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Brian Caldwell Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Edward Sypinski Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary
Caren Roberty
Visitors Present:
Clint Litle, HKM Engineering
Jesse Sobrapena, JDS Architects
Leonard J. Baluski
Bart & Burt Manion
Jim Pepper
G.K. Reiser
Frank Munshower
JP Collins
Ritchi & Karin Boyd
Essie Etchingham
Nancy Etchingham
Jimmy Doolan
KC Cassidy
William Halpin
Rich & Carleigh Searle
Lori Keyshae
Ted Lange, GVLT
Michael & LaDonna Ivie
0:04:41 [19:42:36] ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
Seeing there was no public comment, Chair Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting.
0:05:09 [19:47:08] ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 1ST, 2006
Seeing there were no changes or additions to the minutes, Chair Pomnichowski noted the minutes will stand as written.
0:05:27 [19:47:13] ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
0:05:30 [19:47:51] 1. Growth Policy Amendment Application, #P-06045 (Kraft). A Growth Policy Amendment Application requested by applicant, Land Equity Partners, representative,
C & H Engineering, and property owners, Ray and Karleen Kraft Testamentary Trust, to change future land use designation of 138.67 acres of land from Future Urban to Residential on property
legally described as Tract 2, Certificate of Survey No. 2177, and being a portion of NE ¼ of Section 26, T2S, R5E of PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger)
0:05:41 [19:47:56] Staff Presentation
Brian Krueger, associate planner, presented this growth policy amendment application and noted the 138 acres of property is currently zoned Agricultural Suburban, is not annexed, and
under County Jurisdiction. It includes a stream and ditches. Planner Krueger is recommending to change its designation from future urban to residential. He noted the surrounding land
use is mainly agricultural. Mr. Krueger stated the future urban designation was given in lieu of future municipal services coming into the area. The Meadow Creek development is directly
north from the applicant's property and prior to it's annexation, it received approval for a growth policy amendment from future urban to residential. Mr. Krueger noted to board members
that the Planning Department does see future growth in this area and is part of the 2020 plan. If this project is approved, the applicant will proceed with an annexation and zone map
amendment proposal. Planning Staff recommends the GPA be approved and will be presented to the City Commission on September 5th.
If approved, they will come back with a Annex & ZMA
0:12:30 [19:48:17] Applicant Response
Mike Stewart is representing Land Equity Partners, 1777 Sunpeak Drive, Park City, Utah. Mr. Stewart agrees with staff's findings and recommendations. He noted the applicant has a legitimate
proposal and does have the ability to develop this property since the Meadow Creek Subdivision is brining City services to their property. Mr. Stewart supports the Planning department's
endorsement to recommend approval of this application.
0:13:19 [19:48:18] Public Comment
Bill Quinn, 5100 S. 19th: Mr. Quinn addressed the board and noted they've lived at that location since 1984. He stated that one of the great advantages of living in the Gallatin Valley
is the open space. Historically, his home is the original Patterson Homestead, which was homesteaded in the 1870's by J.L. Patterson and he farmed 880 acres of land with horses
at one point in time. What is planned is to put a residential designation on prime, agricultural land. Mr. Quinn noted that growth and development is inevitable, but sprawl is not. He
stated the approval of this growth policy would constitute sprawl. He urged the Planning Board to not further develop this land and prevent sprawl.
0:15:17 [19:48:28] Public Comment
Jane Quinn, Bill Quinn's wife at 5100 South 19th. Mrs. Quinn will be reading a letter from B. Derek Strahn (copy included in hard copy minutes), Historic Preservation Consultant: Letter
read opposes the Kraft GPA. Approval of this application will unfortunately contribute to the rapid urbanization of the Gallatin Valley. Gallatin County was listed as the most endangered
of the 263 'at risk' counties that were studied. Mrs. Quinn noted there is no way that further development won't be self destructive? She stated the County offices at least say "no"
at some of the new development, however the City of Bozeman looks forward to it. Mrs. Quinn reaffirmed that she is opposed to the applicant's request and asked that the Planning Board
deny their request.
0:22:00 [22:31:00] Discussion
Board member Brian Caldwell referenced a goal 5.7.1 and that the statement that this application and how it promotes an adequate supply of safe housing. He wondered what is the status
of the supply of housing relative to the growth policy. Are we ahead or behind and how that impacts the board's recommendation. Planner Krueger noted the original boundaries of the 2020
plan have exceeded expectations, which is why we are seeing so many applications for a change from future urban to residential. The City has not done a new housing inventory. Mr. Caldwell
questioned the payback agreement. Planner Krueger noted the payback system will be created by the Meadow Creek subdivision and it is completely up to the subdivision. Mr. Andrew Epple
noted there is no statutory guidance or limit on the timeline for payback, however the engineering department has allowed a seven year timeline and of recent has entertained a ten year
payback period.
Mr. Krueger stated when the original 2020 plan was created, there were rational boundaries with outlying property close to City services. The plan did not envision needing city services
this soon, but reflects the recent growth. Mr. Skelton noted the 2020 plan established a boundary and with the Bozeman Gateway addition, we have the capacity to extend city services.
What's triggering the need for GPA, is the growth of the surrounding area and the current extension like Bozeman gateway allowing access by surrounding areas to have City Services.
Mr. Randy Carpenter asked Planner Krueger to elaborate on the 'future urban' designation. Mr. Krueger noted certain areas were given that designation due to the proximity of their location
to Municipal services. Senior Planner Skelton referenced his project, Meadow Creek, which is directly north of the Kraft property and that this unanticipated growth at this early stage
is due to the Bozeman Gateway subdivision and with that the surrounding areas west of the college now have accessibility to City services as well.
Board member Erik Henyon asked Planner Krueger how the traffic will be impacted in the areas of Kagy, Huffine, and 19th Avenue with this policy change. Mr. Krueger noted the issues will
be addressed during the preliminary plat stage of this process. Mr. Henyon then asked what impact Meadow Creek will have on the traffic in that area, to which Mr. Krueger noted the most
recent analysis showed it would be most impacted at Blackwood Road and Graph Street and he anticipates that there might be a need for an additional signal at Goldenstein.
Ms. Caren Roberty directed her question to Mr. & Mrs. Quinn and asked them how much land of the original homestead their property consists of, to which they answered 18 acres.
0:31:33 [19:55:26] Motion and Vote
Mr. Erik Henyon questioned the application and how it meets the description of section 241 of the 2020 plan. He noted that we are obviously outpacing the projections of the 2020 Plan
and stated tomorrow is actually today. Mr. Henyon noted we are seeing 'future urban' and it is happening now. He noted it does meet the criteria set forth in the 2020 plan and he supports
this amendment.
Mr. Ed Sypinski did not agree and feels this application does not meet the criteria set forth in the 2020 plan, it's affecting the community. He stated the City Commission addressed
the issue of emergency and fire services, however with another new community possibly before us, this would cause more needed adequate public health and safety services. Mr. Sypinski
noted there are several issues with City Services that cause him concern and this application does not address any of them right now. He stated he will not support this Growth Policy
amendment and commented to the board the necessity of moving forward so quickly.
Mr. Brian Caldwell noted in Section B, there is no clear vision of what an adequate supply of housing is. He stated he doesn't see a strong argument supporting this GPA and noted just
because water and sewer is at the gate, doesn't mean we should move forward with further annexations. Mr. Caldwell does not support this application.
Mr. Randy Carpenter noted he does not think this project is 'sprawl', he stated it is good, logical development. Mr. Carpenter pointed out that 'sprawl' occurs outside of cities and
this is not the case here. He noted if the infrastructure constraints can be solved by engineering, he will support the Growth Policy Amendment.
Ms. Caren Roberty stated that since she works in the housing industry, she would have trouble saying there is an adequate supply of housing right now. She noted that as much she empathizes
for the neighbors, this application follows the growth policy. Ms. Roberty will be supporting this.
Chair Pomnichowski agreed with Mr. Carpenter in that this amendment application is not considered sprawl because it is contiguous to city limits. Ms. Pomnichowski reminded all
present that this is only the very first step in a very long process. It only designates what the land use pattern is going to be called and if the board is in favor of this application,
we will call this 'Residential' instead of Commercial or Industrial. Chair Pomnichowski encouraged the applicant to be sensitive of the surrounding agricultural land ethic in the Gallatin
Valley. She noted that the use of residential is the least impactful that could be found. It meets the criteria for a growth policy amendment and it does. She recommends approval of
the application.
Planning board member Caren Roberty moved to recommend approval of the Growth Policy Amendment #P-06045, seconded by Erik Henyon. Those voting for approval were Caren Roberty, Erik Henyon,
JP Pomnichowski, and Randy Carpenter. Those voting against approval were Ed Sypinski and Brian Caldwell.
Chair Pomnichowski noted this proposal will go before the City Commission without any formal recommendation.
Mr. Andrew Epple stated to all present that the motion to recommend approval did not pass because five affirmative votes were required.
0:42:52 [22:31:26] 2. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, #P-06041 (Edgewood Townhomes). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by applicant,
Soman Development LLC, representative, HKM Engineering, and property owners, Robert and Sally Sobrepena in conjunction with Bart and Berit Manion to allow the subdivision of 3.72 acres
into 2 single-household and 8 multi-household lots on property legally described as NE ¼, SE ¼, Section 18, T25, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton)
Chair Pomnichowski requested from all present that during public testimony, there be no public displays, vocal outbursts, applause or the like. She noted to Planner Skelton that this
project is of limited scope, the board will only be considering the Preliminary Plat part of the PUD application.
0:44:23 [19:56:31] Staff Presentation
Senior Planner, Dave Skelton gave the board members background information on the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood. He included comments from the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and how the application
relates to the trails and park land program. Planner Skelton noted the letters of public commment against this proposal. He stated he met with the Bozeman Creek neighbors last week.
Mr. Skelton noted the applicant is requesting several relaxations; A second or emergency access to the site, a private street in less than a 60 foot right of way, a sidewalk on the west
side of Edgewood Dr. with a trail on the east side which is not a typical street standard, the 2 interior lots will not have frontage on the approved public/ private street of at least
25 feet of frontage, and parkland dedidcation for a transportation trail to the north. Planner Skelton stated there were engineering issues and key provisions that need to be met. He
noted the planning staff, DRC, and DRB have reviewed
this proposal and are recommending conditional approval, he also noted they recommend approval of all relaxations except three.
1:14:10 [20:05:03] Discussion
Mr. Erik Henyon queried Planner Skelton as to what the density of the homes is that lie directly to the west of this project? Mr. Skelton responded that the homes are on about 7,000
sq. foot lots. Mr. Henyon asked if that equals four units per acre and Mr. Skelton stated it would equal six units per acre.
Ms. Caren Roberty noted the new development looks as if it was 'at the border' of the bordering R-1 lots. She asked how this is from the existing homeowners. Planner Skelton noted the
footprint could be a five foot side yard, however the applicant is proposing a 20 foot side yard directed by the City Commission.
Mr. Brian Caldwell commented on condition 15. He stated this would require a 'hammer head' cul-de-sac if a road exceeded 150 feet. Mr. Caldwell asked Mr. Skelton where do you start to
measure this on Road 'A'? Mr. Skelton noted it starts where they start their turning movement and there's two turning movements on this PUD. He stated they've already addressed the
'turn around movement' with the fire department.
1:14:10 [20:15:00] Applicant Response
Mr. Jesse Sobrepena noted he was the architect on this project. He stated there is now a 32 foot set back from the west side of the homes property line. Mr. Sobrepena commented that
the density equals 6 units per acre.
Mr. Clint Litle from HKM Engineering noted they are really striving to have a minimal impact to the community. He stated the project has been brought to the City before and feel that
now Mr. Litle's group has developed a better plan and are in agreement with the DRC & DRB conditions.
Mr. Erik Henyon commented to Mr. Litle that the Planning Staff has requested denial of 3 relaxations. He queried Mr. Litle as to whether or not he is in agreement with that decision
and Mr. Litle responded the applicant has agreed to this. Mr. Henyon was concerned with the hardships this would this cause. Mr. Litle answered they strived to work with the parks and
receive some value from the trail easement, but if the committees prefer cash-in-lieu instead of relaxations then his applicant is in agreement.
Ms. Caren Roberty wanted to know what the three recommendations were from the City Commissioners. Mr. Litle commented they felt the structures were a little bit large, so they reduced
their size and the footprints are now smaller. He noted the proximitity to the neighbors to the west was originally at 10 feet, and now these lots are at 30 foot setbacks.
1:25:48 [20:26:29] Public Comment
Frank Munshower at 1407 South Bozeman: He noted he's lived there for 34 years. He's the chairman of the executive committee of the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association. He noted his
house is 2 blocks away from this project and this project is in the middle of our neighborhood. Mr. Munshower stated he does not want the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood to be destroyed.
He noted there is no R-3 zoning or four-plexes in this area. He states this proposal needs to meet the requirements of the R-2 zoning. He is requesting that the planning board deny this
application.
1:29:25 [20:27:57] Public Comment
Karin Boyd at 1416 South Montana Avenue: Mrs. Boyd noted these townhomes are inappropriate for this area. She stated in section 18.16.020 in the UDO, townhouses are neither a permitted
or a conditional use in R-2 zoned residential areas. Mrs. Boyd opposes this application due to non-compliance to the UDO residential zone codes and asks the board members to deny it.
1:32:18 [22:30:53] Public Comment
Nancy Etchingham at 1510 South Rouse noted their property is completely west and adjacent to this proposed project. She commented this project is in violation of section 18.16.040 of
the UDO due to it's lot width being 39-44 feet in width when the requirements for lot width in this zone is 50 feet. Ms. Etchingham opposes this application and requests the board deny
this proposal.
1:34:53 [ ] Public Comment
Lorie Keyshae at 1504 South Rouse noted she and her family live directly west of these Edgewood townhouses. She stated the proposed Road A terminates 40 feet from her residence, it is
troubling, and unacceptable.. Ms. Keyshae stated the applicant has requested three relaxations and in section 18.44.020 A2 of the UDO, this would not meet the City standard for a private
street. This would be a sub-standard city street. Mrs. Keyshae stated the constant headlights in her back yard would cause a serious disruption to her family and their lives. She urged
the board to refuse to grant any of this applicant's relaxations. Mrs. Keyshae opposes this proposal and requests the Planning Board to please deny this application.
1:37:37 [ ] Public Comment
William Halpin lives at 1319 South Church Avenue and states he's to the Northeast of this proposed site. Mr. Halpin noted that several years ago, they went through this process with
the City for another new residence at this same location, but due to the flood plain delineation not being correctly mapped, they have been able to enjoy the Bozeman Creek Corridor in
it's semi-natural state. Mr. Halpin suggested that an independent confirmation be required to confirm the flood plain location. He commented that this proposed townhouse project is
just too dense. He stated the surrounding residential lots are larger by 50-80%, therefore the density suggested by the applicant is much to excessive. Mr. Halpin asked the board to
recommend denial of this proposed townhouse project.
1:40:57 [ ] Public Comment
KC Kassidy lives at 1316 South Rouse. Mrs. Kassidy mentions she knows the Manions very well and supports their rights, but note that making income off of property should not be at the
expense of their neighbors. She states there is no reason to approve the many relaxations requested. Mrs. Kassidy noted all these lots fail to meet the minimum lot area requirements
set forth in the UDO. She also asked that Road A be a 'dedicated' right of way. She opposes the application and requests that the board deny this proposal.
1:44:33 [ ] Public Comment
Richie Boyd lives at 1416 South Montana. Mr. Boyd's family home is only one block from these Townhomes. He notes this proposal is in violation of UDO section 18.42.030 that regulates
lots. Lots 3A, 3B, and 4A are double frontage lots and are not in compliance. The adverse affects of this project will impact his entire neighborhood. He requests that the board approves
proposals that meet all requirements of the UDO. Mr. Boyd respectfully asks that the Planning Board and City Commission deny this proposal.
1:46:56 [ ] Public Comment
Leonard Baluski lives at 1416 South Rouse. Mr. Baluski is just west of the townhouses. He states these are pushed as far west as possible on the site and have a greater impact to their
neighboring residences, himself. Mr. Baluski noted that in UDO section 18.36.010 sets community objectives for PUD's. According to section 18.36.020, he stated the PUD should be situated
in such a manner to constitute a harminious relationship with the neighboring community and it has been made aware that this proposed townhouse project is not meeting this requirement.
Mr. Baluski noted these townhomes are situated only 30 feet from existing residences including his property, yet it will be 75 feet away from the Manion residence and 175 feet from the
Sobrepena residence. Traffic and noise will have a major impact to us, myself, and minimal impact to the applicants. Mr. Baluski respectfully requests the board deny this application.
1:49:40 [ ] Public Comment
G.K. Reiser lives at 1603 South Church. He notes this is not a 'new' development, but a redevelopment. Mr. Reiser states the original development was when the Manions and Sobrepenas
built their homes on this property. He feels they are trying to maximize their profit while minimizing the impact on their personal dwellings. Mr. Reiser noted the original Bozeman Creek
Plan, adopted by the City, called this whole corridor a 'conservation area'. He stated if this proposal is approved, it cuts the corridor in half. Mr. Reiser notes with all the added
impacts of traffic, high density units, and lack of parking, this application should be denied by the board.
1:52:53 [ ] Public Comment
Michael Ivie lives at 1407 South Rouse. Mr. Ivie notes this proposal is by two of his valued neighbors. His family has lived there for 14 years. He stated the scale and density of this
project is of major concern. Mr. Ivie translated the higher density households attract more occupants and more traffic projecting through their neighborhood. He opposed the dead end
of Road A and is simply unworkable. Mr. Ivie states if there were a broken down vehicle at this dead end, it could block access for firetrucks who were at the end of the cul-de-sac and
to the occupants who were in need of their services. He is opposed to this application.
1:57:47 [ ] Public Comment
Chuck Paden lives at 507 Ice Pond Road. He's been involved in the neighborhood association and lived there for 18 years. Mr. Paden requested the board recommend denial because the Plat
application violates several sections of the UDO. He notes there is an extreme discrepancy of lot sizes and this plat is not designed as a harminous arrangement of lots and integrated
unit. Mr. Paden noted lot 5 is 24,000 sq. feet and yet lot 6 is 12.9 times the 5,000 sq foot lot of the townhomes. He states the small number of townhouse lots is not complimentary to
the two large larger lots of this PUD and there is an irregular size lot as well. He notes there is an excessive number of relaxations and several violations of the UDO. Mr. Paden requests
that the board deny this application.
2:01:31 [ ] Public Comment
Ted Lang works at the Gallatin Valley Land Trust on South Willson. He noted their company does not take positions for or against developments, but comments on parks and trails. Mr. Lang
is hopeful they can work with the neighbors to find an alternative, however the applicant has the right to develop. He stated if this is approved, they will support staff recommendations
of cash in lieu fees for the park land. Mr. Lange notes the bridge could be a benefit to the community and this will allow bicycles and pedestrians to escape the Church Avenue area.
He notes if this proposal is redesigned at a lower scale, they would like to see a boulevard besides the trail.
2:03:49 [ ] Public Comment
Rich Searle lives at 1321 South Rouse. His wife and children just moved here last year and notes he is concerned with the size and scale of this development. Mr. Searle stated when the
little league games and football season are going on in Christie Field, the streets are already packed with vehicles and is opposed to this application.
2:05:00 [ ] Discussion
Board member Caren Roberty noted it would be good if Planner Skelton could address the questions the neighborhood has asked. Senior Planner Dave Skelton noted that we as a staff have
a challenge in keeping up with the UDO and boils down to a matter of interpretation. Mr. Skelton noted this proposal did comply with the ordinance and there were no other relaxations
necessary. He stated we have attached single family dwelling units on
each lot.
Planner Skelton commented that Road A is not a private street, it is a two-way drive aisle and the minimum required is 26 feet which is being met. He notes there is an additional turnaround
for the two most western located townhomes.
Mr. Skelton states that since they are attached single households, the proposal could have easily suggested 3,000 square foot lots, but the applicant chose to stay at 5,000. He also
noted there was an issue with parking, but stated the applicant has added an additional four more parking spaces per unit on top of their garages. He stated that if there is no parkland
in this PUD, there is the possibility to redesign this layout. Mr. Skelton noted there is some R-3 in the area, however he apologized for the map print out in the application because
there is a discrepancy, there is no direct R-3 zoning next to the proposed townhouses.
Mr. Brian Caldwell noted there is a lack of definition for a single household dwelling, but there is a townhome definition. He stated he's never heard of an 'attached' single family
homes. Planner Skelton noted there one way to achieve affordable housing and that's through 'attached' single family homes, however this project does not meet the threshold for affordable
housing. These are not condos, they own the wall to the side and the gound underneath them. Again, Mr. Skelton noted it's a matter of interpretation.
Mr. Caldwell asked the applicant if they ever considered coming into the property on Lincoln about 80 feet and head north with Edgewood Drive and put four lots on either side and turn
those into single family homes so the width of the lots are more appropriate. Mr. Litle responded they have been working on this project since 1999. Mr. Jesse Sobrepena noted the original
project was single family homes, however what the board sees now is the redesigned version taken from all prior planning department's recommendations.
Ms. Caren Roberty noted the design of the buildings were going to be 35 feet high. She stated the buildings behind were going to be 25 feet high, but seems as if this a bit much.
Chair Pomnichowski stated this proposal is many projects combined into one application so it is a bit confusing, however they are only to make recommendations on the Preliminary Plat,
not the PUD.
2:20:22 [20:58:25] Motion and Vote
Mr. Brian Caldwell recognized all the efforts from all parties involved, yet he noted there should be a reconfiguration of Road A and redesign the layout and accomodate four lots on
each side and a hammer-head at the end. He stated this should allow for compatible lots with the neighbors and addresses the street access yet alleviates the amount of relaxations and
deviations.
Mr. Ed Sypinski complimented the organization and preparation of the presentation from the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association. He noted there are numerous relaxations that need to
be addressed. Mr. Caldwell stated that if some of the relaxations were
dealt with, others would appear.
Chair JP Pomnichowski notes that a redesign is not within the board's capacity at this meeting and reminded all members that the application before them is the design the applicant wants
to pursue. She stated that any suggestions would be welcomed that would address the issues of the preliminary plat relaxations without going to a redesign of the plat. Mr. Caldwell stated
his comments were only an interpretation of the public testimony since it was so thoroughly research and not neighborhood rhetoric. He noted the development is within the right of the
applicant, yet he hopes Mr. Epple can suggest another option since he has direct alternative.
Planner Skelton stated the applicant and staff have looked at several alternatives. He noted the public or private street in the neighbor’s back yard is not desirable. Mr. Caldwell suggested
the homes on the western side would have four residential houses whose backyard is to neighbor’s backyard to match the land use pattern of the rest of the neighborhood. Planner Skelton
noted to the board that if redesign is what's suggested, then the board should move forward with a recommendation of denial because although it would eliminate some of the relaxations,
but it would cause more. He stated a redesign will force the applicant to redesign the entire subdivision given this current density.
Chair Pomnichowski questioned the lot width stating it does not meet the 50 foot requirement. Although the lot area does calculate, the width does not. She was concerned about the double
frontage also. She noted some of the aspects of the plan do not appear to meet code. Mr. Caldwell stated the lot width does not comply giving reason for the applicant to look for another
alternative. Chair Pomnichowski responded by stating there was no relaxation for lot width provided and it leaves her very concerned. She noted the flood plain/wet lands delineation
was not done, she wants to see an application with this attached and a bridge would need several issues to be resolved as well. There are too many items that don't meet our required
ordinances and this application leaves too many unanswered questions. Ms. Pomnichoski fully supports the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood plan and has questions regarding this applicant's
compliance with this. She states she cannot support this application.
Mr. Erik Henyon would like to see the flood plain delineation included. He stated the key issue is section 18.16.20 of the UDO that states there can be no townhomes in R-2 and Mr. Skelton
stated they were 'attached' single family homes. He disagreed. Mr. Henyon stated these are one in the same. If this were to pass, we would need a zone change if townhomes are to be allowed.
Also, in section 18.60.040 of the UDO states the lot width of 50 feet and these lots do not comply and there was no relaxation for it. Mr. Henyon likes the idea of a hammer-head road
as well. He is very in favor of in-fill projects and feels the density is appropriate, but since there is a lack of meeting UDO requirements, he will not be supporting this.
Mr. Randy Carpenter stated this comes down to a density issue. He noted if this proposal could get rid of a couple of lots, it would alleviate some of these density issues. Mr. Carpenter
states there are too many constraints on this parcel to put houses on this many lots.
Reducing lots would give this proposal a more appropriate plat and suitable for this neighborhood. He noted he will not be supporting this plat application.
Chair JP Pomnichowski entertained a motion. The motion to recommend approval of the Plat Application #P-06041 failed unanimously.
Mr. Caldwell wants to make a recommendation to look at another street alternative to reduce the relaxations and make these lots compatible. Randy Carpenter agreed. Chair JP Pomnichowski
noted this recommendation will be passed on to the City Commission.
2:42:33 [21:03:31] ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Brian Caldwell requested that the Planning Board meet at 7:30PM instead of 7PM. Chair Pomnichowski noted if Zoning Commission does not convene, then the Planning Board will meet
at 7PM, otherwise we will meet at 7:30PM. She reminded everyone that Planning Board meets at City Hall on September 6th. Mr. Henyon noted his wife is expecting and may not be in attendance
for a meeting or two.
2:44:44 [21:50:31] ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting at 10:32 PM.
_________________________________ _________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, President & Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director
City of Bozeman Planning Board Planning and Community Development