Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-06 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Members Present Staff Present JP Pomnichowski Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Ed Musser Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Harry Kirschenbaum Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development Erik Henyon Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Jane Stroup Dave Jarrett Visitors Present Jim Ullman Sharon McIlhattan Steve Ziegler Doug Smith Cameron Clark Paul Rugheimer Sandie & Jerry Hammer Rob Pertzborn Bryon Dingman Lynn Rugheimer Don Jackson Hallie Rugheimer Michael Pl… Pat Martin 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.} President Kirschenbaum opened the meeting for public comment on any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Hearing none, he closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2006 President Kirschenbaum called for corrections or additions. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the edits she had made were included in the minutes presented to the Board. Ms. Stroup noted she had asked to have an addition of “affordable” to her comment on housing on Page 7, second paragraph. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05071 - (Diamond Estates No. 2, Phases II & III). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the property owner, Douglas Smith, represented by Gaston Engineering and Surveying, Inc., to allow the subdivision of 82.190 acres with a remainder into 182 residential lots. The property is legally described as a Tract of Land being a Portion of the S½ of Section 3, T2S, R5E, City of Bozeman, Montana, and is generally located east of Flanders Mill Road and south of West Oak Street (extended). (Skelton) Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the Staff Report. He discussed several amendments to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. (The secretary was not given a copy.) He gave background information on the suggested changes made to the plat from the Pre-Application submittal. He described a possible condition #23. He stated there had been no public testimony. Ms. Stroup asked for further clarification of the parkland designed for the north end of Diamond Estates I and Oak Springs. Planner Skelton described the exchange of parkland at the northeast corner of Diamond Estates I for a larger park in the core of Oak Springs, just south of the Regional Park Dennis Foreman, applicants representative, explained the location of the through street paralleling the open space between Annie Street and Tanzanite Drive. He noted they agree to all conditions except condition #3, the second portion. He stated he doesn’t feel there is a need for an additional north/south street in the middle Blocks 10 and 11 is needed. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the water table is quite close to the surface on the northern-most lots along the water course. She asked if a floodplain delineation had been done. She noted the plat notation should be enforced for Block 9 multi-family units and Block 7. Mr. Foreman noted he had no problem with that and a water course delineation hasn’t been done at this time. Ms. Pomnichowski discussed the 20 ft. alleyways between Topaz Drive and Ferguson Avenue. She stated she was concerned that longer vehicles and fire department vehicles will have problems maneuvering in them. Mr. Foreman noted a 30 ft. alleyway would encourage parking in the alley. Ms. Pomnichowski noted parking in a 20 ft. alley blocks the alley. She noted she is resistant to changing the condition from 30 ft. to 20 ft. Mr. Foreman noted if all the alleyways are paved to 30 ft., it would remove more than an acre of grass from the subdivision. He is not receptive to making the alleyways 30 feet. He stated he had met with City Staff, who found the narrower alleyways acceptable. Mr. Henyon noted he would agree with the applicant as he has met with City Staff and Staff approved the 20 foot request. Mr. Foreman noted he would not be opposed to a 30 foot alley behind the lots that front onto Ferguson Avenue. Mr. Smith stated he doesn’t want 30 foot alleyways anywhere in the subdivision. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she would like to see Garnet Street connect through across Ferguson Avenue. Mr. Foreman noted that wouldn’t allow sufficient distance between street accesses along Ferguson Avenue. Ms. Stroup clarified condition #3. Mr. Forman clarified that another street through would serve no purpose. Mr. Jarrett asked about the alley north of Sanders Avenue and the design of Sanders Avenue. Mr. Foreman noted there is alley access from Sanders Avenue and Annie Street. Mr. Jarrett asked if all of the wetlands are included in the parkland dedication. Mr. Foreman discussed the wetlands and parkland areas. Mr. Jarrett noted he doesn’t like Garnet Street ending in an alley. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if Moonstone Drive were moved to join Agate Drive, would only one of the street names be used. Planner Skelton noted only one name would be used. Planner Skelton discussed condition #3, noting the Fire Department’s representative accepted the 20 foot alleyway since this application is not a PUD and no infrastructure is proposed within the alleyway. Ms. Pomnichowski asked about the retention/detention ponds located in the stream setbacks. Mr. Foreman discussed the locations of the ponds and stated they meet the requirements. He indicated the location of the pond if the street is relocated, which would be to the northwest side of Annie Street. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the pattern of lots backing onto parkland is frowned upon by the City Commission. Mr. Foreman displayed an alternative plan for the realignment design. Mr. Musser asked if the redesign was directed by City Commission and if it would promote speeding through the subdivision. Mr. Foreman noted it could; however, stop signs on Agate Drive would be used to calm traffic. He discussed the number of lots in the two scenarios. President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. Ms. Pomnichowski commended the applicant on his design of the project. She noted she preferred the street design of the alternative plan. She discussed the pluses of the project. Ms. Stroup noted there is an issue with too much vehicle speed possible with either design. Mr. Henyon noted he preferred the applicant’s proposal and disagreed with the last half of condition #3. Mr. Jarrett noted he would prefer the 20 foot alleys. Mr. Musser concurred with the deletion of the second part of condition #3. Ms. Stroup asked if condition #4 is what Staff wanted. Planner Skelton explained that Staff is comfortable with 20 foot alleys with “No Parking” signage. He noted staff is recommending that condition #4 be amended as on the memo distributed this evening. MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Ms. Stroup seconded, to amend condition #3 to end after, “in Block 7.” The motion carried 6-0 MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Musser seconded, to amend condition #4 changing the alley width from 30 feet to 20 feet. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Musser seconded, to add condition #23 which states as written in the Memo dated January 18. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Musser seconded, to add condition #24 requiring Garnet Street to extend to the east through the Open Space Corridor to Ferguson Avenue. The motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Jarrett voting no. B. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05065 - (Baxter Meadows, Phase III). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the property owners Baxter Meadows West, LLC, and Geske Properties, LLC, represented by PC Development, to allow the subdivision of ~83 acres into ~129 to 150 lots for neo-traditional multi-use development with single household residential use. The property is legally described as Lots 1 & 2, Block 7, Baxter Meadows Subdivision PUD Phase 1 Tract 1, is situated in the SW¼, Section 34, T1S, R5E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is generally located northeast of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Harper Puckett Road. (Windemaker) Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report, explained the requested relaxations, the location of the ditches and easements, the 68% frontage of streets along the park, and conditions relating to the parkland. She noted one change in the conditions on page 14, condition #2, last line should read “shall not exceed 1,575 square feet.” Ms. Stroup asked about the legal requirement for condition #5. Planner Windemaker explained the UDO states that watercourse setbacks cannot be counted as open space. Mr. Jarrett asked for clarification on the street frontage along parks. Planner Windemaker noted the UDO requires 100% street frontage and this proposal has only 68%. Jason Leep, PC Development and applicant’s representative, noted they are in agreement with all the conditions except for the removal of the five lots in condition #9. He gave a brief background of the project. He discussed the connectivity of the new design and its compliance with the UDO. He noted the RSL lots will be exchanged for the ones already located in Phases I and II. He noted if they can’t do the exchange, they will locate the RSL lots along Equestrian Lane. He noted if they don’t get to count the setbacks as part of their open space, they will still meet the open space requirements. He explained the relocation of the Border/Baxter pipeline to the west next to Harper Puckett Road. He noted he and the applicant disagree with condition #9. He noted the amount of park and open space is about 41% of the project and they feel that the amount of street access to the park is sufficient. He also objected to condition #5, describing the watercourse setback as an amenity to the project. He distributed a previous design and discussed it. He noted the existing street locations of Riata Drive and Equestrian Lane and the existing environment dictated the shape and size of the large park. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the pipeline is part of the Farmer’s Canal. Mr. Leep noted it isn’t part of the Farmer’s Canal. He noted they will move the pipeline into an easement as currently there is no easement for the pipeline. He noted the whole road base for Flander’s Mill Road needs to be moved. He noted they will be building the roadway and placing millings on the surface. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she is worried about the construction of Flander’s Mill Road. Planner Windemaker noted when the ditch is relocated, the road will be reconstructed to City standards. For now they are being required to placing millings on the existing roadway. She noted the reconstruction will be done by Diamond Estates from Baxter Lane to Oak Street. Ms. Pomnichowski commended the applicant on the connectivity of the streets in the subdivision. She asked about the bottle necks caused by the five lanes decreasing to two lanes at the Baxter Lane end and the end beyond Kimberwicke Street. Mr. Leep noted the street will be constructed to a five lane standard. Ms. Pomnichowski asked where the community center is located. Mr. Leep noted the center in business area on the east side, the YMCA, and the Regional Park will meet those needs. Mr. Jarrett asked where the equestrian trails locations were. Mr. Leep noted those trails had been eliminated. Mr. Jarrett asked about Block 16, why is there open space just north of it. Mr. Leep noted it was to square up the open space along “C” Drive. Mr. Jarrett asked what was planned for the street crossings for pedestrians. Mr. Leep explained the bridge construction. Mr. Jarrett asked for an index to the document. He noted it is a good project, and he noted he would support removing condition #9. President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. MOTION: Ms. Stroup moved recommend approval of application of #P-05065 with the exception of condition #9. The motion was withdrawn to allow a vote on just condition #9. MOTION: Ms. Stroup moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to remove condition #9. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the desired park frontage is 100% by City Commission. She stated the Board should consider retaining condition #9. The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Pomnichowski voting no. MOTION: Ms. Stroup moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-05065 as amended. The motion carried 6-0. C. Growth Policy Amendment Application #P-05056 - (Churn Creek). A Growth Policy Amendment application, proposed by the owner, Churn Creek Partners, LLC, represented by Bechtle Slade PC, to establish a subarea plan for properties situated in the S½ of Sections 29 and 30 and the N½ of Section 32, T2S, R6E, P.M.M, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally described as ~ 810 acres on the east and west sides of Story Mill Road, north of the McIlhattan intersection and inclusive of the City landfill. (Morris) In the absence of Associate Planner Jami Morris, Director of Planning and Community Development Andrew Epple presented the Staff Report, noting there are three design concepts. He described the concepts. He noted Staff has recommended the elements of Plan “C” be carried forward. He explained the role of the Planning Board was to evaluate the plan elements with the 2020 Plan. Mr. Jarrett asked if a formal governing document would be prepared and if this was, in essence, a giant PUD. Director Epple noted it is similar to a PUD, then he described the detail required of the sub-area plan. Mr. Henyon noted he had problems with the colors used to represent different uses, and asked for explanation of the densities. Director Epple noted Staff also feels there are too many colors in the plan, he also noted he would let the applicant address the issue. Ms. Stroup noted Churn Creek Partners doesn’t own all of the property. Director Epple noted the neighbors had been invited to be involved with the development of the plan. Ms. Pomnichowski clarified the role of the Planning Board. Director Epple explained that the Staff findings and conclusions state what is expected. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the public would be further involved in the development of the plan and would it be reviewed by the Planning Board when it is complete. Director Epple noted the public has been invited to comment during this current review, and that final review would occur at Staff level. Mr. Jarrett noted he is frustrated with the fact that the Planning Board has had no involvement with the development of this plan. Mr. Henyon noted the new plan needs to come back before the Planning Board. Ron Slade, applicant’s representative, asked for questions. Ms. Pomnichowski asked for the process used, and the parties involved. Mr. Slade noted he is representing Churn Creek Partners. He stated the City asked Churn Creek Partners to prepare a sub-area plan for the City Landfill property, the Churn Creek property, and the Rugheimer property. He stated they held neighborhood meetings prior to and following the concept design. He described the issues discussed at the meetings, and the progression of the annexation and zoning of the Churn Creek properties. He asked the Board to not get bogged down with the colors as they only have preliminary annexation approval at this time. Ms. Stroup asked if Plan “A” had been rejected and why. Director Epple noted all three plans are on the table. He noted Staff prefers the trails shown on Plan “A.” Mr. Jarrett asked why the land use plan includes the City property. Director Epple noted the lands to be planned were City Commission directed, and with the closing of the landfill, it seemed appropriate to engage in some planning for that acreage. Mr. Slade noted the process helped them discover where the streets should connect to the Rugheimer property. President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Lynn Rugheimer, representing the Rugheimer family, discussed the positive aspects of the process. She asked if the sub-area plan is meant to work in concert with the 2020 Plan. Director Epple noted the underlying land use remains “Residential” and the sub-area plan overlays that designation. Ms. Rugheimer asked how binding the sub-area plan would be, could roads be shifted? Director Epple stated a sub-area plan sets the stage for development. He noted where the right-of-way is placed to the north will dictate where the connection to the south would be located, but would not dictate any layout of the property. Ms. Rugheimer noted the family would need more time to discuss the plan; however, the family realizes development will occur in the future. Director Epple noted the City Commission will vote on the plan in two weeks, then the applicant will submit the final plan to the Planning Department. Ms. Rugheimer noted their property has been within the sewer boundary and she wished to ensure their rights to sewer capacity. She noted they didn’t want to lose that right. She noted the family doesn’t know what they want to do with their property at this time. Paul Rugheimer, neighbor, stated he understands the need to locate road connections to ensure connectivity. He stated he concurred with Planner Morris’ assessment that detailed plans for the Rugheimer property should not be depicted at this time. He stated he doesn’t want to be locked into any development plan. Ms. Stroup asked if the connectivity was okay with them, but the design was not. Mr. Rugheimer concurred. He stated they were not ready to fill in the property with roads and trails. President Kirschenbaum asked Mr. Rugheimer if he would be comfortable working with the City to develop the sub-area plan. Mr. Rugheimer noted he wasn’t prepared to discuss zoning, or lot configuration. He sated he concurred with Staff’s comments to leave the Rugheimer’s property blank, and just show the entry points. Mr. Jarrett suggested the family not allow any trails to be shown, and to leave their property all blank. Steve Ziegler, 2531 Whitetail Road, noted he realized the area would be developed someday. He noted the area is part of a larger picture. He discussed the impacts of water, sewer, traffic, etc. of the total area, and that he currently has problems at certain times of the day gaining access onto Bridger Canyon Drive. He suggested finding a solution prior to the problem becoming an issue. Pat Martin, 2771 Deer Park Drive, asked if this Board is involved in the area from Sypes Canyon to the “M.” He asked that a thoughtful discussion be held concerning development of the bench. He stated the option of development of the Churn Creek area should be done in the County following State regulations, for a less dense development. He asked if 300 homes have to be accepted in the Churn Creek area. He suggested the Board have a role in determining the type of development. Ms. Stroup noted the County has chosen not to spend the Open Space dollars on this area. Don Jackson, 1280 Story Mill Road, neighbor, stated his concerns are with ground water quality and quantity, irrigation of landscaping, and the possibility of drilling wells. He asked that a complete inventory and analysis of existing conditions be done as indicated on page 4 of the Staff Report. He stated he felt people would drill wells to water the landscaping. He was concerned with the location and size of the water storage tank. He was concerned with the development of a portion of the City property for residential development. He noted the City landfill deserves its own process for a sub area plan. He stated it shouldn’t be determined by City Staff. He noted on page 7, D.1 – he felt that the first sentence was a misstatement as it will promote foothill development. He suggested that water should be looked at as a resource and protected. Mr. Slade addressed the water issue proposed by Mr. Jackson. He noted low water plant species would be required. He noted they will provide erosion control, use pervious pavers, pretreat stormwater, use energy star appliances and windows, energy efficient toilets and showers, use high R-value insulation, etc. Bryant Dingman, 8645 Lookfar Way, asked if City dwellers can drill water wells to irrigate. Director Epple noted wells are permitted for irrigation unless specifically not allowed by the individual subdivision. President Kirschenbaum called for further public comment, and hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. Ms. Stroup stated she opposes the amendment for three reasons. 1) It is an experimental process driven by the City Commission and is an immature concept. 2) The plan includes property owned by someone else. She stated she felt the applicant has done what they were asked and 3) an amendment is not needed. Mr. Jarrett concurred with Ms. Stroup. He stated he didn’t think Churn Creek would make it through the 2020 Plan and UDO processes. He stated he didn’t like someone else planning the City’s property. Mr. Henyon stated he felt the City Commission had stepped out of bounds with the process. However, he stated he felt the applicant had a better project because of the process. He noted the 2020 Plan states that the City intends to annex land next to the City. He stated he felt the City should stay within the water and sewer facilities plans with annexations. He stated he’d like to see the bridge improved for cars, pedestrians, and bikers. President Kirschenbaum noted he concurred with previous Board speakers and he felt they were usurping property rights. He stated he’d like to see a broader plan developed. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the proposal does not meet the criteria by which the Board must evaluate a sub-area plan proposal. She stated she truly believed in sub area plans, but the difference is that all the stake holders have to be vested in the development of the plan. She noted the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan considers all aspects of neighborhood. The whole point of a sub-area plan is to determine densities, connectivity, transportation corridors, services, etc. She noted there are common goals set for the greater area by everyone in the greater area. Mr. Musser stated he liked the idea of a sub-area plan. He noted it would benefit the whole area. He stated he was disappointed that neither the community or the Board was involved. MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-05056. The motion failed by a 0-6 vote. ITEM 5. OLD B USINESS Secretary Schott commended Ms. Pomnichowski for her minutes editing style, a sample of which was distributed in the packets. Mr. Henyon stated he had a problem approving developments without traffic mitigation, such as traffic signals. He stated he wants the traffic lights on Main Street, North 7th Avenue, and North 19th Avenue timed and more traffic signals installed to control traffic. He asked that the Board forward a motion asking the City Commission to make them a priority. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the City doesn’t hasn’t have jurisdiction on most of the streets where traffic signals are located, the State has jurisdiction over most of the streets with traffic signals. Director Epple suggested the members read the Transportation Plan prior to making recommendations to the City Commission. He suggested they attend a couple Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) meetings, with the first being next week. Mr. Jarrett noted he has asked that the different City departments be invited to make presentations to the Board. Mr. Henyon noted the Board needs to go before the City Commission or TCC with force requiring action on getting the lights timed. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Stroup noted she wouldn’t be involved with the Planning Board in the future. She stated she had enjoyed her time on the Board. President Kirschenbaum thanked the Board and stated it was a pleasure to serve on the Board. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to be conducted by the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ________________________________________ ______________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board