Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-06 Planning Board Minutes.doc** MINUTES ** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 7TH, 2006 CITY HALL, COMMISSION MEETING ROOM 7:00PM 0:13:22 [18:44:14] ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair and President, JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:01PM and directed the secretary to record attendance. Members Present: JP Pomnichowski Ed Sypinski Randy Carpenter Erik Henyon Caren Roberty Brian Caldwell Dave Jarrett Mike Hope Members Absent: Steve Kirchhoff (excused) Staff Present: Ron Brey, Assistant City Manager Jody Sanford, Senior Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Sean Becker, Commissioner Camden Easterling, Bozeman Daily Chronicle Dab Dabney, Farmhouse Partners - Baxter L.P. Tom Eastwood, Engineering Inc. Patty Kent, Western Montana Mental Health Center Dan Aune, Gallatin Mental Health Center Bernie Jones, Darigold Representative Robyn Schmitt Mike Gaffke Anne Halligan Sherm Veltkamp Ted Lange, GVLT Ben Donatelle Jim Gorman 0:14:30 [18:44:33] ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (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 none, Chair Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 0:14:53 [18:44:38] ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17th, 2006. Seeing there were no changes or additions, JP Pomnichowski noted the minutes will stand as written. 0:15:07 [18:44:59] ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 0:15:15 [18:45:18] Preliminary Plat Application (Baxter Apartments Minor Subdivision) #P-06055. A Preliminary Plat Application requested by the owner, Fiarview Investments, LLC, applicant, Farmhouse Partners-Baxter L.P., and representative, Engineering Inc., to allow a subdivision of 20.118 acres into three lots resulting in the third or subsequent minor subdivision descried as W1/2, NW1/4 of Section 2, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County Montana (Baxter Apartments, East of 27th, 1 lot north of Turbulence Lane, 2 lots North of Tschache Lane). (J. Sanford) 0:15:19 [18:46:17] Staff Report Senior Planner Jody Sanford presented the staff report. She noted it is a phased minor subdivision to divide 20.55 acres into five residential lots and one common open space lot. They are requesting a variance from section 18.74.030 of the UDO which addresses completion of improvements. She added the client is hoping the final plat for phase one can be filed without installing street improvements to North 25th Avenue, but do the improvements during phase 2. It is zoned R4 (high density). Planner Sanford noted the staff is recommending seven conditions. One of which is water rights or cash in lieu of water rights. The water rights were deferred until this time. She added there is the existing Baxter Apartments development and their water rights should have been done when the apartments were constructed, but feel it would be unfair to do that now and charge them for that fee since the Apartments are an affordable housing project. That would be the only change to consider for this project. 0:19:35 [18:46:24] Questions for Staff Dave Jarrett asked if this is the Wayne Jennings development and Ms. Sanford answered no, it's the Farmhouse Partners development which was just recently completed this summer. Erik Henyon wanted to know why they are requesting a variance to not improve that portion of 25th Avenue. Planner Sanford noted the applicant can better explain that, however stated there is some type of agreement between the Farmhouse Partners and the owner of the entire property. She stated that it has to do with the timing of the improvement, but closed in stating staff is comfortable with the variance because the city is going to get improvements on 25th done, but just not during the phase one development. Ed Sypinski asked if the city has a guarantee by the developers to improve 25th with the development of the other lots and Ms. Sanford noted the property owner will sign an affidavit to guarantee the improvements during development of the remainder of the property. She noted the apartments are functioning fine without the improvements of 25th Avenue. Mr. Sypinski wanted to make sure that the developers and owners put in their fair share. Planner Sanford noted the city will expect the improvements to be completed with phase two of the development. JP Pomnichowski noted that lot 5 is not compliant with lot width or length and asked how they plan on making this lot compliant. Ms. Sanford noted it will be addressed by the developer upon further development, either to create a trail easement or street easement to split up that block length. Chair Pomnichowski noted she was not comfortable approving this application without this issue being addressed and Planner Sanford stated the developer just is not sure at this early point of how he wants to develop this parcel. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how the city will know they will complete this and Planner Sanford noted the developer is put on notice and according to the UDO, it is a requirement of any further development. Mr. Jarrett asked if the developer could just run Tradewinds through this area and Ms. Sanford noted they could not go very much further to the east due to significant wetlands. There is an approved condo development to the east and they will use the wetlands area as part of their dedicated park land, but stated a trail connection is what will most likely happen to this parcel. Chair Pomnichowski noted the watercourse setback is actually platted outside of lots 4 and 5 and asked how ownership will be determined and how will it be filed and platted. Planner Sanford answered that when they file the subdivision of phase 1, they will create a trail easement, but most likely a separate document and not part of the final plat. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the client is requesting that water rights be secured for all lots except lot 1 to which Ms. Sanford answered yes. Chair Pomnichowski then requested to add an amendment to the condition stating specifically "Except lot 1". Randy Carpenter asked if the trail easement goes all the way down to the southeast corner of lot 4 and Ms. Sanford answered the portion of this watercourse is very small, therefore connecting the trail further to the east and have been working diligently with the land trust to figure out the alignment of the trail within this whole section. 0:29:08 [18:46:43] Applicant Presentation Dab Dabney, representing Farmhouse Partners and owners of this land, Fairview Investments gave a history of how this land was developed. He approached the owners about 18 months ago with an affordable housing project of 48 low income units. Mr. Dabney stated they did not have the time to subdivide the land in order to develop that project quickly, the only way was to lease the entire 20 acres from Fairview Investments and develop the 2.5 acres into the affordable housing units. He added it was always his intent to subdivide the property as soon as he could. His investors made an accommodation to him to allow a lease arrangement. Fairview is planning on doing a great job for the rest of the 20 acres. Not improving North 25th Avenue was to satisfy the bank investors to get the development completed as soon as possible. He knows Fairview Investments will come back with a plan that is well thought out. 0:32:14 [18:47:37] Questions for Applicant JP Pomnichowski asked Mr. Dabney about Turbulence Lane that crosses the stream and required setback. She asked if they have acquired a 310 or 404 permit for that portion. Mr. Tom Eastwood stated the permits would come from the Army Corp of Engineers as the development proceeds. Ms. Pomnichowski then wondered if the developers expect Turbulence lane to be developed as it's shown on the application. Mr. Eastwood confirmed and noted they are working with all adjacent land owners and added all the permits would be in order before the construction commenced. Dave Jarrett then asked Mr. Eastwood if he does not know where Turbulence Lane is going to be for sure, how can they file their plat, to which Mr. Eastwood noted there is an underlying easement that exists for Turbulence Lane. He added that with the current design standards, they do not have very much flexibility. Tom Eastwood ensured Mr. Jarrett that the confirmed location of Turbulence Lane on the application map is where it is going to be. JP Pomnichowski asked Mr. Dabney to confirm that the water rights will be secured for all lots except lot 1. Mr. Dabney answered the rest are secure and the water rights have been budgeted for lots two through five. 0:36:40 [18:48:48] Public Comment Ted Lange with Gallatin Valley Land Trust noted the possibility of connecting the trail to Rose Park. He added they just received funding to build that trail through Rose Park next year when things dry out. Mr. Lange stated it makes more sense to put this trail in since Highgate Senior Living has started. He felt that this trail provides a connection to the post office and in the future, up to Gallatin Center. He closed by noting that the developer should ensure the curb cuts and striping are done appropriately on Turbulence Lane. Dave Jarrett asked Mr. Lange what the plans are for a trail going accross Baxter to Tschache. Mr. Lange answered there are plans for striping and signage, with some sort of refuge island in the middle. He noted they need to see if it fits with the road construction and whether or not it is a really good design. Mr. Lange did state that Tschache is eventually going to have a 10 foot path along the south side. 0:41:42 [18:51:18] Discussion JP Pomnichowski noted there are a number of individual items to discuss and requested that all members address each separately and then asked them to start with the variance issue. Mr. Erik Henyon stated he was unsure as to how inclined he was to grant a variance to the UDO without undo hardship because the applicant presented this in such a manner like this variance is as more of a favor. He was not clear as to why this infrastructure cannot be done during the platting of phase one. Mr. Henyon also added the lot widths and lengths are not compliant with the UDO are problematic and this needs to be included and corrected in order to approve a preliminary plat application. Caren Roberty is inclined to let the subdivision not do North 25th with phase one, it has to do with the timing of Mr. Dabney's tax credits and missing this deadline will leave him with substantial hardship. Mr. Dabney noted this does not affect the tax credits, however the land lease payments excellerate significantly very soon since that was the owner's incentive for him to make sure the subdivision was done in an expeditious manner. So, he will end up paying 10 times as much as he does now. Mr. Henyon asked Mr. Dabney how soon the improvements could be done after this application was approved, and if they could be done within a year. A representative from Fairview Investments noted she was unsure with the exact timeline, but is working diligently with developers and engineers in the area to ensure they have a good project for the city. Mr. Jarrett asked Mr. Dabney if he is responsible for 1/2 of the improvements to 25th to which Mr. Dabney responded this was solely the expense of Fairview Investments. Mr. Jarrett then asked if there was any access from 25th to this tract and Mr. Dabney stated there is not. Mr. Dave Jarrett then closed by noting that ultimately it does not add anything or subtract anything from this project so he feels that there is no reason to deny this application with the variance, but to approve it. Erik Henyon noted the owners will be responsible for the improvements and nothing else can happen unless these improvements are made. Brian Caldwell stated the issue of 25th Avenue not being constructed, if a variance is granted, offering a temporary access would be acceptable to the delay of the 25th extension. Mr. Dabney noted that delaying construction on North 25th and all other ideas for the rest of this property are preliminiary and subject to change. The owners just really want to do this all at once. Mr. Sypinski noted that since the apartment property does not have access to 25th anyway, he is inclined to approve the variance. Mr. Brian Caldwell and Randy Carpenter asked for Chair Pomnichowski to explain the rationale behind approving this variance as the City Commission is not likely to approve variances. Chair Pomnichowski noted the staff report states the variance is for the entire part of 25th from Baxter. Planner Sanford then pointed out that the applicant is only asking for a variance to not construct the small portion of North 25th adjacent to lot 1. Mr. Caldwell asked if the agreement to complete 25th could be included in the proposal. Mr. Sypinski then stated that if the client can guarantee this in writing, the planning board would be more likely to approve it. Dave Jarrett asked to amend condition 4 to read 'Next Phase' instead of 'Phase two' that way, the completion of improvements to North 25th will be done regardless of what phase they are in. 0:56:35 [18:51:37] Motion and Vote Condition 4: Ms. Pomnichowski motioned to amend condition 4 regarding the water course and trail easement. She motioned to replace all occurrences of "phase two" to read "the next phase". Mr. Jarrett seconded. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski, Dave Jarrett, Brian Caldwell, Mike Hope, Caren Roberty, Ed Sypinski, Randy Carpenter, and Erik Henyon. All in favor, motion passed 8-0. Condition 5: JP Pomnichowski motioned to amend condition 5 regarding water rights to read "Whichever occurs first, for the remainder of the parcel except lot 1". Dave Jarrett seconded the motion. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski, Dave Jarrett, Brian Caldwell, Mike Hope, Caren Roberty, Ed Sypinski, Randy Carpenter, and Erik Henyon. All in favor, motion passed 8-0. Condition 6: Chair Pomnichowski motioned to amend condition 6 to read "The next phase" and delete the phrase "phase two" from that condition. Dave Jarrett and Brian Caldwell seconded the motion. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski, Dave Jarrett, Brian Caldwell, Mike Hope, Caren Roberty, Ed Sypinski, Randy Carpenter, and Erik Henyon. All in favor, motion passed 8-0. Condition 8: Chair Pomnichowski motioned to amend condition 8 to read "The trail easement shall be dedicated as an easement and platted as indicated on the preliminary plat". Randy Carpenter seconded. She then asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Jarrett noted there is no need to amend this condition as during the platting phase, it will be delineated out. Planner Sanford also stated that this can only be 'dedicated' if this is going to be a park. Mr. Eastwood added this trail is shown as an easement area so no one can build on it, it has a building restriction. Dave Jarrett again added this will be resolved during the platting process therefore there is no need to dedicate the trail. Ms. Pomnichowski motioned to amend condition 8. Erik Henyon seconded. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski and Erik Henyon. Those voting against being Mike Hope, Dave Jarrett, Brian Caldwell, Randy Carpenter, Caren Roberty, and Ed Sypinski. The motion did not pass with a 2 - 6 vote. Condition 9: Chair Pomnichowski motioned to amend condition 9 to require the permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Department of Environmental Quality as a condition. Planner Sanford noted the permits are part of the code requirements for the city so this amendment would not be necessary. Ms. Pomnichowski withdrew the motion. Condition 10: Chair Pomnichowski motioned to amend condition 10 regarding lot 5 and it's non-compliance to the UDO. Planner Sanford noted that item 2 on page 7 of the staff report, the non-conformity must be addressed prior to further development on this lot. Mr. Jarrett suggested that if the applicant drew a line through the middle of lot 5 and call it lot 5A, it would be in conformity. Ms. Pomnichowski withdrew the motion. Brian Caldwell asked how to best recommend the variance to the City Commissioners. Chair Pomnichowski asked for discussion on the variance. Mr. Roberty stated if the variance is not approved, it creates a financial hardship for the affordable housing project. Mike Hope noted he agrees with the variance, but it has nothing to do with low income housing. He added what happens when the next applicant comes forward with a hardship case for the next project and it's not low income housing, the city could possibly be looking at a lawsuit. He closed by noting the variance is the right thing to do, it's logical and has nothing to do with low income housing. Ms. Caren Roberty stated that if the board does not have a real good rationale for recommending approval, the Commission would be less likely to approve the variance. Mr. Dave Jarrett noted there is enough rationale because the fact that completing 25th at this time would not serve any purpose except now having a road leading to no place. Mr. Sypinski agreed with Mr. Jarrett. Mr. Caldwell stated the rationale ultimately is logic and not financial hardship. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the primary rationale in her opinion would be access. Mr. Hope noted that if the board was unanimous in it's decision, this would send a strong message to the Commission and added that having Commission Sean Becker present would also have a firm impact since he has heard the entire argument for approving the variance. ** Mr. Dave Jarrett moved to recommend approval for file #P-06055 with conditions as noted as changed. Seconded by Erik Henyon and Ed Sypinski. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski, Dave Jarrett, Brian Caldwell, Mike Hope, Caren Roberty, Ed Sypinski, Randy Carpenter, and Erik Henyon. All in favor, motion passed 8-0. Ms. Pomnichowski stated this application will go before the City Commission on November 20th. 1:13:05 [18:51:43] Preliminary Plat Application (Tract 4A Minor Subdivision of No. 162C) #P-06056. A Preliminary Plat Application requested by the owner and applicant, Farmhouse Partners, and representative, Engineering Inc., to allow a subdivision of 11.53 acres into three lots resulting in the third or subsequent minor subdivision described as SW1/4, SE1/4, Section 8 and the N1/2, NE1/4, Section 17, T2S, R6E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana (just South of Ellis Street, East of Haggerty Lane). (J. Sanford) 1:13:14 [18:51:46] Staff Report Senior Planner Jody Sanford presented the staff report. She noted the subject property is zoned R-O (Residential Office). She stated the applicant is requesting a variance from section 18.44.060D of the UDO that specifies levels of service standards for streets in the city. Planner Sanford added the intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street, is currently at a level of service F, requiring the applicant to improve this by the installation of a traffic signal. However, MDOT will not allow the installation of a signal because it is too close to the highway and East Main Street is a state route. The Commission did grant a variance for this exact same reason for a Condominium property right across the street from this property. She added that if this variance is not granted, the applicant will probably not be able to develop this property and neither will any other developer. Ms. Sanford noted staff is recommending 14 conditions of approval. This property also has a water rights issue because part of the property consists of the Comstock Apartments property, which was annexed at a separate time. She is asking to amend condition 4 to exclude proposed lot 4A1 because that part of the property's water rights were already dealt with. 1:16:44 [19:00:54] Questions for Staff Mike Hope asked Planner Sanford to talk a little more about the variance stating the real problem is traffic and if Haggerty Lane is currently at a level of service F and MDOT will not authorize a traffic signal, the city is looking at a traffic nightmare. He added that there should be no more traffic on that road until it is fixed. Mr. Hope asked Planner Sanford how one could justify this variance. Ms. Sanford noted she is not comfortable with this, but on the other hand, it is a significant hardship. Mr. Hope then asked what is more important, public safety or financial hardship. Planner Sanford noted it is not her decision to make, but rather the City Commissions. Mr. Ed Sypinski asked Ms. Sanford if there was another alternative, possibly putting in a light at Ellis and Haggerty. He did add there is a larger plan with the hospital development and they will end up having the same variance. Planner Sanford stated this will have to get resolved eventually with all the other development going on in the area. Erik Henyon noted the UDO does not allow the level of service of streets to fall below level of service D and wanted to know how Haggerty got to level F. He then stated he is feels MDOT's reason for not putting in a signal on this road because it is close to the highway is completely unfair to the developer. There are controlled lights adjacent to highways all across the United States. Mr. Henyon added it's not fair to penalize developers for MDOT short-comings and level F is a matter of public safety and it is the State's problem and it needs to be fixed. Mr. Jarrett stated the city needs to hear better language from MDOT. He added that maybe now is a good time to get together with MDOT and get the city and state to make a decision. Ms. Sanford noted Bob Murray, the project engineer met with MDOT last week and couldn't get a definitive answer at that time as to whether or not they still take this position and overall, they control it, and we cannot make them put in a light. Mr. Hope stated that one of the things that made Durston come together was the fact that the city told the developers they could not proceed any further unless the improvements along that street have been completed. The developers had more incentive to get Durston fixed for development of Laurel Glen. Planner Sanford noted there was no state involvement there. Mr. Hope stated we have the potential to create another Durston problem on Haggerty if this does not get resolved. JP Pomnichowski noted there was no waiver of right to protest street improvements so when MDOT agrees to put a signal there, the developer has the opportunity to participate and wanted to know why it was not included in the application. Ms. Sanford replied this comes from the engineering department. She added this is a condition made by the engineers, condition 10. Requiring a waiver would only be necessary if the variance is approved. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she expects the variance to be granted by the City Commission since it's a state route, and the waiver should be added as a condition. Mr. Henyon stated the traffic study was done over a period of three days, two half days and one full day in June. He wanted to know if this was typical for a traffic study because it seemed very short. Ms. Sanford responded she could not answer that, this could be better answered by the applicant's engineer. 1:27:21 [19:01:02] Applicant Presentation Mr. Dab Dabney stated that for the last 6-7 weeks on Thursday nights, Brian Caldwell and himself and sometimes Caren Roberty would get together and discuss affordable housing policy and come up with a way to build homes ranging from $120 to $220 thousand dollars. This is the project he'd like to do on this 5 acre site. A traffic light would cost $375 thousand dollars and to add that cost to this affordable home project of 25 little houses would not work. Mr. Dabney stated the city should not burden the developer with a cost that is unbearable. It's in the public's interest to spread the cost out and approve the variance. He added there is a mental health center going in here also and to penalize them is not fair either. Mr. Dabney then introduced his co-applicant, Patty Kent, involved with the hospital in creating a mental health center. Patty Kent, director of housing and development for the Western Montana Mental Health Center stated they took over mental health services for the low income group for five years. In working with the hospital, they decided to move forward with the behavioral health center. Ms. Kent stated they approached the community and staff, and the city recommended to not do it in pieces, but submit a master plan even though the hospital was not ready with their plan. She noted that is when Dab approached her with his proposal and they went forward with that plan by starting with a boundary realignment and ZMA, which was approved by the City. Although this is Mr. Dabney's application, Ms. Kent stated she was here because her company wants to create a behavorial health center. She will try to meet with staff to go through the conditions to determine if the mental health center will be part of this project. She closed by noting there are many benefits for the community, however even if the mental health center pulls out, she does not want to stand in the way of approving this project. 1:33:17 [19:02:18] Questions for Applicant Brian Caldwell noted that in Ms. Kents' presentation, she mentioned there were 'other conditions' that would make her project difficult to complete and asked that she expound on those. Mr. Kent stated she firmly believes that every developer pay his fair share, but in this case, it's a matter of fairness. She then added there are formulas for reimbursement as well as additional resources. The County has given $1million to them to help build this project. She closed by noting connectivity and access are good things, but they are trying to keep their campuses free of traffic to help with patient safety. Mike Hope stated to Mr. Dabney that he does not think it is fair that he pay for the traffic light but asked if we need low income housing that bad that it would risk public safety to not put a light in. Mr. Dabney replied there are other alternate routes one could take and that is what connectivity is. Mr. Hope then added it's not connectivity he's worried about, he's worried about the person trying to make a left during a high traffic period, so when more cars are added, the risk is greater that there will be an accident. Mr. Dabney agreed with the safety issue and it does have to be addressed, however the hospital will look at the big picture and address this. Ultimately, Mr. Dabney noted he cannot afford to front the bill for the traffic signal here. 1:40:09 [19:02:34] Public Comment Dan Aune lives at 517 Dove Court and is the director of the Gallatin Mental Health Center. He detailed the comprehensive plans for the campus. Mr. Aune stated the variance allows them an opportunity to go forward. He added the three County Commissioners have offered $1 million to get this started and are in support of this. He closed by stating this will serve the community well. 1:41:59 [19:02:50] Discussion Chair Pomnichowski noted it was very important to this body that there be connectivity to the larger development from these residential lots. She is very pleased with how this is presented, but as far as the variance is concerned, she is inclined to approve this because the city has no jurisdiction over this area and it is up to MDOT to make these improvements happen. Ms. Pomnichowski then closed by stating the waiver of right to protest will benefit all involved and is her rationale for recommending the addition of a condition for the SID. Brian Caldwell stated that a possible solution to Haggerty Lane would be to amend condition 5 to read that Haggerty Lane be built to a two lane, minor arterial standard and some thought given to an SID for those improvements at a later date. He strongly recommended to remove condition 5 and participate financially for this improvement at a later date. Mr. Caldwell moved to recommend a waiver of right to protest for street improvements on Haggerty Lane along the length of this property to East Main. Seconded by Dave Jarrett. Those in favor being Brian Caldwell, Dave Jarrett, Ed Sypinski, Randy Carpenter and Caren Roberty. Those opposed being Erik Henyon, JP Pomnichowski, and Mike Hope. Motion passed 5 - 3. Mr. Hope recommended that the traffic study be repeated to a time when schools are still in session and the vacation season hasn't started and moved to put condition 5 back in, but request a separate SID. Dave Jarrett noted with the amendment, that intersection will have to be improved. Erik Henyon stated he agreed with Mr. Hope and also moved to put condition 5 back in because we have a code and standards, we do not just create an SID. He stated he prefers to have the developer build it to code the way the UDO is written. Mr. Caldwell noted these projects always start off with good intentions and they just get killed for issues like this, and making Haggerty Lane a major arterial is not going to change it. Jody Sanford noted to the board that if the board is stating they do not have to do these street improvements, you'd have to request another variance and we would have to re-advertise and the client would have to submit another application. Mr. Hope noted he will not vote in favor of this regardless and feels that Mr. Jarrett is right in his view that we need to put pressure on MDOT to make these improvements happen. 1:52:06 [19:02:53] Motion and Vote Mr. Hope moved to recommend that condition 5 be put back in the application. Seconded by Erik Henyon. Those in favor being Randy Carpenter, Ed Sypinski, JP Pomnichowski, Mike Hope, and Erik Henyon. Those opposed being being Brian Caldwell, Caren Roberty, and Dave Jarrett. Motion passed 5 - 3. JP Pomnichowski moved to amend condition 15 to read "The applicant must sign a waiver of right to protest traffic intersection improvements at Haggerty Lane and East Main Street". Seconded by Dave Jarrett. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski, Mike Hope, Randy Carpenter, Caren Roberty, Dave Jarrett, Ed Sypinski, and Erik Henyon. Those opposed being Brian Caldwell. Motion passed 7 - 1. JP Pomnichowski moved to change condition 4 to include a phrase after "whichever comes first" to exclude lot 4A1. Erik Henyon seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed 8-0. Caren Roberty moved to recommend approval of #P-06056 as amended. Ed Sypinski seconded to motion. Those in favor being Caren Roberty, Ed Sypinski, JP Pomnichowski, Erik Henyon, Brian Caldwell, Randy Carpenter, and Dave Jarrett. Those opposed being Mike Hope. Motion passed 7 - 1. Mr. Henyon noted he would like to make a statement on record to note he has a big issue with the traffic light denial by MDOT on Haggerty Lane and does not think it is the fault of the applicant, but wants to make it clear that it is now in the hands of the of the city to push MDOT immediately to ensure this traffic issue is rectified. He added that any fatalities on Haggerty Lane would be blamed on MDOT since they chose not to install a signal. He closed by encouraging Commission Becker to grab the City Commission and Chris Kukulski to get this traffic issue resolved. Dave Jarrett and Mike Hope agreed with Mr. Henyon on this matter. Mr. Caldwell stated he is in support of this application and noted the intersection will be addressed within the next two years and having the county be in support of this project is even more of a reason to approve it, he closed by stating this will serve the community and county and feels there is a greater good in having this project move forward. Mr. Sypinski agreed. Chair Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting by noting this application will go before the City Commission on November 20th. 2:06:42 [19:02:58] ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Seeing none, JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 2:06:50 [19:07:28] ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS North 7th Urban Renewal Plan. A presentation by Winter & Company to present their final draft for the proposed North 7th Avenue Urban Renewal Project (Ron Brey). 2:06:57 [19:17:07] Staff Report Assistant City Manager Ron Brey stated he wanted to thank and send his appreciation to all board members for taking as much care and concern about traffic issues and planning projects as City Commissioners do. He summarized the staff report. Mr. Brey noted downtown was created for urban renewal as a way to establish principles and standards for development as part of an urban renewal district. Once the plan was adopted by the City Commission, he added the city started the tax increment process which is driven by private investment. It has started, but somewhat sluggishly. Mr. Brey stated the bike paths were a big concern and during the final process, it was addressed. The urban renewal plan encompasses all of the design and connectivity standards as well. Mr. Brey stated he would encourage all board members to pass on any recommendations to the City Commission. Both the 'design and connectivity' and 'urban renewal' plan of North 7th were in conformance with the 2020 Growth Policy, the Transportation plan, and is tied very closely with the Bozeman Design Objective Plans. He noted the street standard is what is causing a delay because it will change North 7th from not just a commercial street, but it will have it's own identity and become a major arterial. Ron Brey stated the city is doing the same neighborhood planning activity that provides for an annual work plan and an annual budget. Otherwise we will have to do the 15 year plan which will not work with our city's growth. He added this plan prohibits the use of eminant domain for private reasons and prohibits eminent domain for use of park land. The City Commission has adopted an ordinance which is the most stringent prohibition of the use of eminent domain, that will not allow condemned property to be used for private use of another individual. Assistant City Manager Brey noted the Planning Board is given 60 days to decide whether or not this is in conformity with our city standards and codes. If we can adopt this by the end of November, then Bozeman can do the tax increment for 2006. He stated the reason why this is important is because whatever funds are picked up in any given year compounds over a period of time and it is driven by private investment. Mr. Brey noted this captures additional property taxes to further encourage that kind of investment. Mr. Brey closed his presentation by stating this plan acknowledges and encourages any revision of subdivision regulation and zoning ordinance that impair the implementation of the 2020 Growth Policy. This provision is useful in taking a look at how the contrary North 7th standards can be found compatible. 2:24:46 [19:20:21] Questions for Staff Dave Jarrett talked with the engineers when the project was presented prior and he asked them about the roundabouts and they acknowledged the fact that it takes quite a bit of land. He noted he's traveled in a number of countries that have roundabouts and in light of this, we will lose all the businesses at all four corners and do not see the city buying the land to make this work. Mr. Jarrett relayed that he feels the roundabouts are a flaw and thinks it is foolish to try and do a roundabout with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. He closed by stating the roundabouts need to completely rethought about when presenting or approving this project. Ron Brey responded by noting the consultant did adjust the positions of the roundabouts due to these concerns. He noted that on page 15, in the area A gateway and phase I improvements, it just has some enhancements and no roundabouts. Where they adjusted their approach is on page 10, in going ahead with the Phase 1 improvements, they would address both traffic flow and proposed implications of roundabouts and the final feasability is whether or not the city wants to acquire the right of way for this. Therefore, after Phase I, there will be another study to determine if roundabouts are even going to be necessary. Mr. Brey noted the city does not want a plan that calls out a need for many more studies. Bozeman does not advocate roundabouts, but we do want to have another study. Mike Hope stated there will be many more adjustments and honestly, he sees the roundabouts being the last thing to happen and agrees that the roundabouts are a flaw. Dave Jarret then added he will not be able to drive a car down North 7th if the roundabouts are put in. Erik Henyon noted there are some connectivity issues that still exist, but feels the consultant has addressed many concerns. He added he has similar concerns with the roundabouts as Mr. Jarrett does. Mr. Henyon stated that his issue is the intersections and deviating away from what an arterial standard requires. The definition of an arterial is to 'move traffic correctly' and noticed there was a speed limit of 20 MPH for a major arterial yet it should be 35-40 MPH. Mr. Brey responded this was a point of discussion with the consultants. The selection committee for this project did not propose this, this was the consultant's intention to create character. He then noted this is not a posted speed limit, it is only a suggestion. Mr. Henyon then stated that Oak, Peach, Durston, and Main streets are all inadequate to handle our current traffic level. He noted there is a need for dual left hand turn lanes today because going north on 7th just trying to get to Oak, the traffic backs up past K- Mart to Ferraro's restaurant during peak traffic times. There is not enough lane cuts for moving traffic properly. Mr. Henyon asked if this plan will solve today's problems and even more, will it be able to handle 2020's problems. Mr. Brey replied the key concerns was the inability of pedestrians to get across 7th safely, but the objective throughout this plan is to have two lanes of traffic on each side. He added there is nothing in the plan that accommodates more volume, but this plan proposes reducing some of the accesses and if we can get parking it would not require the need for additional curb cuts. Mr. Brey noted the pressure on this plan was to make 7th like 19th Avenue in respect to moving traffic. He closed by stating an arterial is an arterial and the real question is do we want North 7th to look like North 19th and the answer was no. Randy Carpenter asked what the life span was of the tax increment district and Mr. Brey answered it is 15 years and the city can bond against it at any point during that 15 year life span, and again anything is negotiable in a tax increment district. Mr. Carpenter wondered how the school districts have performed and Mr. Brey replied that they have had a change in legislation so they can adjust and not lose anything, plus they are eligible for other programs. 2:43:01 [19:24:51] Public Comment Bernie Jones, representing Darigold Farms located on North 7th. He noted he is not opposed to this project, but just wanted to let it be known that his company continues to grow and has been there since the 1940's. Mr. Jones biggest concern is they have heavy trucks up to 90 feet long and would like this plan consider this with a format that is safe for truck traffic. Dave Jarrett asked Mr. Jones what the turn radius is on his trucks. Mr. Jones replied it is a lot and explained that when one of his trailers are in the drive way still, from the front to the rear it extends about 75 feet. He added it depends which truck is in use at that time. Mr. Hope asked Mr. Jones how much of the traffic goes in and out of the Darigold facility and wanted to know if they come off the I-90. Mr. Jones answered that 95 % of the deliveries is in the larger trucks and only the empty trailers come in from I-90. He added full loads go North but they try to get as much movement from the trailers at night to keep the congestion on 7th as minimal as possible. Mike Gaffky, representing the Bozeman Inn at 1235 North 7th, stated he wanted to encourage the city to get this done this year. Mr. Gaffky is pleased with the process and happy how Winter and Co. dissected this project. He closed his comments by stating this is a unique part of our town and just wanted to get started as soon as possible. Ben Donatelle representing the bicycle shop on North 7th, lives at 621 N. Bozeman. He stated he also would like to encourage the use of bike lanes. Mr. Donatelle noted there's been a lot of discussion about traffic problems and the way to combat this is to provide alternate uses of transportation, like bicycles and routes to accommodate them. He closed by stating promoting this project would help to benefit the city as a whole. Ted Lange, representing Gallatin Valley Land Trust noted he strongly supports the plan and urges the Planning Board to adopt it. He stated the bike paths allow for greater connectivity to the high school. The East Gallatin Recreation Area is becoming more popular and yet there are no trails going in and out of this area. Mr. Lange just asked the board to make sure these issues are addressed. He added that roundabouts that try to encompass a shared use plan should be looked into. Mr. Lange closed by stating his board supports the shared use path. Jim Gorman, owner the ground just north of I-90 and designated as park land, in response to Mr. Lange's comments he stated there is no way to get in and out of his property because it sits behind the land on the north side. He closed his comments by noting he is in support of the tax increment financing. Erik Henyon asked Mr. Gorman if his land is truly designated as park land and Mr. Gorman confirmed. 2:54:18 [19:29:54] Discussion Mr. Jarrett asked the engineers to give us a projected radius of these roundabouts and it looks like 200-250 feet, but it is important that this information be depicted on the street profiles and should be there so in the future one can see it. He noted a roundabout is just fine if it has stop lights all the way around, but cyclists and pedestrians need to be very careful. Ultimately, he likes the idea and need a good plan to help the business. Brian Caldwell stated it is apparent that there are checks and balances to address regarding the feasability of the roundabouts. He noted he thinks the plan is very thorough and includes a bike path throughout. Mr. Caldwell urges us to forward a recommendation with the knowledge that this plan will address all the issues. 2:58:14 [19:56:03] Motion and Vote Erik Henyon moved to recommend approval of the North 7th Urban Renewal District Plan. Seconded by Mike Hope. Ms. Pomnichowski asked for discussion on the motion. JP Pomnichowski stated she is a big supporter of this plan because it lays out a blue print for a number of things; landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, bike paths, a better street scape, and something that has its own character. She felt confident that enhanced intersections will supercede roundabouts. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the street sections are not a conflict, we have three different standards with Areas A, B, and C. Randy Carpenter noted he feels like Ron Brey and his group has developed a great plan with the requirement to do a yearly update plan. He added there's flexibility with this plan and it is a really good district plan. Those in favor being JP Pomnichowski, Dave Jarrett, Randy Carpenter, Mike Hope, Brian Caldwell, Ed Sypinski, Caren Roberty, and Erik Henyon. All in favor, motion passed 8 to 0. 3:02:30 [20:16:35] Other New Business Mike Hope stated that he wanted the board to know that this project would have never happened unless Ron was involved and wanted to thank him for his efforts, time and energy to get this done. He then addressed the board by stating he is officially resigning. He added the time he spent on the board was incredible and commended all board members of their service. Mr. Hope encouraged the members to continue their service and is confident the commission will continue to keep the variety of members like board currently has, a great diverse group. Mr. Hope closed his comments by encouraging the commission to move quickly on the UDO revisions and he truly enjoyed his time serving on the planning board. JP Pomnichowski stated to Mr. Hope that he has been a valued member and will miss his input on the board with your diversity of opinions. 3:05:15 [20:01:54] ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT President and Chair, Pomnichowski thanked the board for meeting on a holiday and adjourned the meeting at 9:56PM. _______________________________ _______________________________ JP Pomnichowski, President & Chairperson Andrew C. Epple, Director City of Bozeman Planning Board City of Bozeman, Planning and Community Development