Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-06 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Brian Caldwell Jody Sanford, Senior Planner Randy Carpenter Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning & Comm. Dev. Mike Hope Andy Epple, Director, Planning & Community Development Steve Kirchhoff Carol Schott, Recording Secretary JP Pomnichowski Caren Roberty Ed Sypinski Erik Henyon Visitors Present (List of attendees on file at the Planning Office.) 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 Pomnichowski opened the meeting for public comment on any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. No members of the public came forward. ITEM 3. NOTICE OF DATE/TIME OF DECISION ON CHURN CREEK SUB-AREA PLAN BY CITY COMMISSION – (EPPLE) Director Epple announced the continuance of the public hearing for the Churn Creek Sub-Area Plan by the City Commission to February 21, 2006 due to a notification error. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2006 President Pomnichowski called for corrections or additions. She asked that the “30” in line 5, 4th paragraph, page 2 be changed to “20”. The minutes were accepted as amended. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Growth Policy Application #P-05075 - (Bozeman Deaconess Health Services). A Growth Policy Application, proposed by the owner, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services, represented by PC Development, to establish a subarea plan for properties situated in the Tract 1, less COS M-348, COS 2047, located in the NE¼ and the SE¼ of Section 18, T2S, R6E, P.M.M, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; Tract 2, COS 2047, located in the NE¼ and the NW¼ of Section 17, and the SW¼ of Section 8, T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and Tract 3, COS 2047, located in Section 17, T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located east and west, north and south of the existing Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, between Bozeman Trail Road and Peets Hill, and Kagy Blvd. and Rocky Mountain Surgical Center on Ellis Road. (Sanford) Senior Planner Jody Sanford presented the Staff report. She described the zone map amendment and subdivision processes, and stated those processes would be required following this Growth Policy Amendment prior to any development of the property. She discussed the concerns of the residents who submitted written comment. President Pomnichowski asked if a future Growth Policy Amendment (GPA) would have to comply with both this sub-area plan and the 2020 plan. Planner Sanford noted a future GPA on this property would require an amendment to the 2020 Plan. Mr. Hope asked if traffic concerns would be mitigated when any subdivision plans were review. Planner Sanford explained that traffic concerns would be discussed and mitigated within a subdivision review. Mr. Sypinski noted the space for public services isn’t large enough for a fire station. Planner Sanford noted City Staff has notified the applicant that the site has to be larger and the fire department has asked for it to be more centrally located. Jason Leep, PC Development and applicant’s representative, introduced several of the development team. He described the areas of the plan and the intent for each area. He described the public involvement held to date. Cheryl Ridgely, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services, described projected increases in services which will require expansion of the current facilities. She described the projected future needs. Mr. Leep continued his presentation with a comparison of the proposed plan and the 2020 Plan, the slopes, soils, location of utilities, and the future upgrade of wastewater treatment system. He discussed access to the area, potential access points in alignment with the existing street network, potential signalized intersections, the street sections from the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update, trails systems and possible extensions, the neighborhood areas, and the alternative plans. He described the proposed park lands and open space. He noted the natural waterways and natural vegetation would remain in their existing state with weed control and mowing of designated areas. He noted a pre-application for Hillcrest West has been submitted to the City for review. Ms. Roberty asked if a signal at Haggerty Lane and Main Street was planned. Mr. Leep noted they will have to work with Montana Department of Transportation to find a solution everyone can live with. Ms. Roberty asked if the land across from the hospital had been sold. Mr. Leep noted the property is being planned by another consultant for development as a mental health campus. He discussed the signalization of several intersections. Mr. Hope noted there are several properties east of Bozeman Trail Road that will be developed to an urban scale and the traffic from it will impact the area intersections. Mr. Leep noted they are considering some of those properties in their traffic study. Ms. Roberty asked if the mental health facility would be part of the hospital campus. Ms. Ridgley noted it is being developed independently of the hospital and has been donated for the mental health campus. She noted there could also be some high density development within the campus. Mr. Caldwell noted with their projected growth rate for the next 33 years the land area allocated for the hospital could be doubled. He asked if more land should be allocated for health care for the future. Ms. Ridgley discussed the planning process used to determine the projections of growth. Mr. Caldwell suggested that the hospital be aggressive in projecting their numbers rather than being conservative. Ms. Roberty asked if the powerlines would be buried, or would they possibly be relocated. Mr. Leep discussed the portions to be buried and/or relocated. Mr. Hope asked where the people are coming from to populate and develop the commercial areas. Mr. Leep described the predicted users. Mr. Caldwell asked for the rationale on the segregation of the various densities of the Highland and Hillcrest neighborhoods. Mr. Leep described the densities as being not static. Mr. Caldwell noted the rings of density look like set boundaries. Mr. Carpenter asked if an environmental assessment had been done. Mr. Leep noted it would be done with the subdivision process. Mr. Carpenter asked if all the trails are outside the glen. Mr. Leep noted they are located within the glen as well as outside it. Mr. Carpenter asked if he had visited with the school district about an elementary school site in the area. Mr. Leep noted the district currently owns a 10 acre tract which they stated was adequate to serve the area. He noted trails and bike lanes would be installed on the interior streets for children to use to walk to school. Mr. Carpenter asked if the neighborhood services area was large enough. Mr. Leep noted it is and would require very little fill to develop. President Pomnichowski asked if he has considered the Department of Public Service’s request for a different, larger location. Mr. Leep noted the request has been considered. President Pomnichowski asked about the ADA parking requested in a letter of public comment. Mr. Leep noted all parking requirements will be met and provided during site plan review. President Pomnichowski OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Lorrie Gjersing, 871 Bozeman Trail Road, stated her concerns were 1) Bozeman Trail Road being widened – where will the right-of-way be taken and what will happen with her mature trees. 2) Will there be a traffic signal at Haggerty Lane and Main Street. Ms. Chandler asked for the density of the Cherry Drive area. She asked if the park spaces would be flat and usable. She stated her biggest concern was with increased traffic on the Highland Boulevard /Main Street intersection. She noted a second concern was where the power lines would be relocated. She asked if the less dense lots should be located in different locations. Phillip Clark, 1133 South Spruce Drive, stated he was concerned about the large number of lots proposed along the linear parks. He noted the 7 houses per acre proposed in this development is more dense than the 5 houses per acre in New Hyalite View Subdivision. Chuck Paden, 507 Ice Pond Road, stated he was concerned about traffic increasing on South Church Road and Willson Avenue from this development. He stated the intersection ratings falling to Level of Service F at South Church/Kagy Blvd. is unacceptable. He stated he didn’t feel the application met criteria #3. He asked that a traffic study be completed first to determine what density the street network will support. He asked that the decision be delayed until the traffic study is completed. GK Reiser, 1603 South Church Avenue, stated he was concerned with electrical service improvements, which serve the Bozeman Deaconess Hospital and cities to the east. He noted the burying of the line would be cost prohibitive. He asked who would pay for these improvements. He suggested a letter should be written to the Public Service Commission to investigate what is being done. He noted the expanded substation was built next to his house. He suggested that transmission lines be treated as other infrastructure and planned more carefully. Sylvia Drain, 1405 Maple Drive, stated she was concerned about traffic and asked that the new development not be connected to New Hyalite View Subdivision. She noted traffic would go through her neighborhood, endangering the people living and visiting there. Dawn Sampson, 1418 Cherry Drive, stated she and her husband attended the public meetings held by the Bozeman Health Services Foundation. She stated that alternative #1 was the only proposal discussed. She was concerned about density in proposals #2 and #3, and the power line location between the old and new developments. She stated she felt a park study and a traffic study need to be completed prior to this being developed as well as a study on the biological effect to the wetlands area and the wildlife within them by a development of this magnitude. Dab Dabney, 522 South 6th Avenue, a property owner in the neighborhood, stated his residents in Comstock will be disappointed their views will be disturbed and the quiet will no longer exist. However, he noted the studies would be done, and a good plan would be developed for all involved. He noted he dislikes sprawl extending into the county when there are properties such as this which remain undeveloped. He noted he wants his hospital to be as well capitalized as possible so they will be able to take care of him when he needs care. He noted he felt it will be a huge asset to the community. Carol Polich, 841 Alpine Way, stated she was concerned with the dropping of the water table, animals, and the pushing out of the wildlife all caused by development. She noted she was also concerned with why the hospital is selling their lands. She asked where they will expand in twenty or thirty years. Ted Lang, GVLT, stated his organization is very excited about the trails and parklands in this development. He noted he is looking forward to discussions of the development of the trails and parklands. He discussed the possible extension of groomed ski trails north of the hospital. He commended the proposal for only one road across the glen. He asked for paved bike/pedestrian trails around the perimeter. He noted GVLT is requesting a continuation of the parkland along Burke Park on the north edge of the property. He noted GVLT has suggesting installing an over or under pass for skiing across Kagy Boulevard. He noted GVLT is advocating not connecting Kenyon Drive and Maple Drive to this development. Bill Fordyce(possible misspelling), Maple Drive, stated he doesn’t want Maple Drive extended for vehicular traffic, but would not oppose a trail connection. He noted the intersection in the interior of the proposed project is too close to New Hyalite Subdivision. He suggested realigning the collectors to locate the intersection closer to the midpoint of the development. He noted he would prefer the low density alternative as the most appropriate. He noted undevelopable land should not count as parkland. He suggested the density should transition from the existing densities to the higher densities in the interior. Rab Cummings, 1109 Holly Drive, commented on the traffic generated by the new home owners and the doubling of those figures by commercial uses. He noted Kagy Blvd. or Highland Blvd. can be jammed by a traffic accident or power lines being down. He stated a school in the area would create another substantial increase in traffic. He asked that the streets and parks in New Hyalite View not be connected to those in the proposed development. He stated he was concerned with traffic on Highland Blvd. and the addition of the parkland to the parks already maintained by the City, which already has more parkland that the current manpower can serve. Jim Schmitt, a neighbor, stated he was concerned with the proposed high density of the development. He noted the area contained the intersection of two major fault lines. He stated floods have historically traveled down the gullies. He noted the City has already built flood control dams in all of the gullies in New Hyalite View. He noted he is a taxpayer and should be afforded rights over and above the hospital as it is not a taxpayer. Joan Holborn, 805 Bozeman Trail Road, asked when the Planning Board would make a decision. President Pomnichowski noted only a recommendation would be forwarded to the City Commission. Ms. Holborn stated she was concerned with the location of the mental health facility, indicating she felt it should be located next to the hospital. She noted she was concerned about school crossings over collector streets, density being too great, and the topography affecting the whole project. She stated she felt traffic is the main problem with application. Denia Layton, 1214 Holly Drive, stated she was concerned with the proposed density, increased traffic, and the extension of Maple Street into the proposed development. She suggested the lower density should be placed on the outer areas with higher densities towards the center. She asked the Board to give consideration to existing property owners. She noted she was concerned with the impacts on the waste water treatment plant. She asked that the proposal be reviewed as a total package with studies completed on traffic, sewer, water, etc. President Pomnichowski called for further public comment, and hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. Planner Sanford noted the right-of-way for the expansion of Bozeman Trail Road will come from the hospital property. She stated she didn’t have the figures for the density of the existing area at this time. She continued, the 11 acre park would be available for active recreation uses, and some of the neighborhood parks may also accommodate recreational uses. Director Epple noted there was a theme in the comments – increased traffic concerns. He noted a sub-area plan is meant to be a general plan for an area and not a detailed plan for traffic, water, and sewer studies. He stated those items would be evaluated with each proposed phase of the development. He noted the project would take a number of years to build out, with triggers for certain improvements to be done prior to a certain phase or percentage of build out. Ms. Ridgely clarified that Bozeman Hospital does pay property taxes. Mr. Leep clarified that the sub-area plan is the very first step in the process. He noted that build out would take 7 to 10 years. He noted they will have the data for traffic and infrastructure available as the phases are submitted and developed. He noted the density is within the range of the densities required in the UDO. He reiterated that the right-of-way for the expansion of Bozeman Trail Road would all come from hospital side of the road and not destroy the mature trees to the east of the road. He noted NW Energy has approached them to relocate the power line from Holly Drive to the green space between New Hyalite Subdivision and the hospital development. Mike Potter, PC Development, commended the audience for their questions and comments. He noted the capital interests will be returned to the hospital development to serve the community. He stated the plan is in compliance with the 2020 Plan, the Transportation Plan, and the UDO. He noted the development is all about controlling sprawl. He stated the natural glen is a wonderful feature, and the flora and fauna studies will be submitted during subdivision review. Mr. Hope noted he appreciated the hospital facility; however, he stated his concerns are the proposed density, which is driven by the 2020 Plan and the UDO. He stated traffic engineers are like lobbyists, they submit what is paid for. He noted Haggerty Lane and Highland Blvd will be pinched with traffic. He suggested the density should be lower due to the nature of the alignment of the existing streets. He noted he couldn’t vote for the project. Mr. Caldwell noted he respected Mr. Hope’s comments on density; however, if developed at lower densities, a much larger impact would be imposed on the western portions of the City. He argued that the benefit of higher density as it would support multimodal transportation. He stated he would vote in favor of the proposal or even higher density. Mr. Henyon stated he felt the applicant had met the UDO and 2020 Plan requirements. He stated his concerns were 1) he wanted a buffer at least on the west side next to Burke Park. 2) He questioned if the public works area was in the best location. 3) He noted traffic will be impacted significantly. 4) He stated the traffic signals in downtown have to be timed. He stated the amenities will outweigh the problems, and he is in support of the plan #2. Mr. Sypinski suggested using a public transit system would help mitigate some of the traffic concerns. He stated his other concerns were with the northeast section being designated Community Commercial, which he thought would change the zoning from B-2 to R-O. He suggested moving the Neighborhood Commercial area more to the center of the development. Mr. Carpenter stated the plan meets the goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan. He stated density is a relative thing, and discussed the pros and cons. He stated the plan is to develop a great neighborhood, which is what the citizens of Bozeman have said they want. He continued, he felt there would be opportunity for stewardship, and the design would be crucial. He stated he was concerned that trails would be located in the glen. He noted he doesn’t want them there until the natural resources have been determined. He stated care needed to be taken to prevent erosion during the development phase. He stated he didn’t feel it was realistic for the parks and trails to be maintained by the City. He suggested the developers plan for ways for kids to walk to school. He noted stormwater management will be seriously considered. Mr. Kirchhoff noted his wife works at the hospital; however, he stated he doesn’t feel her involvement there affects his ability to speak to the project. He noted the plan suggests infrastructure improvements that might be needed. He stated his concerns are the traffic infrastructure may not be done in a manner to meet the needs of the area. He suggested Planning Board require a proactive approach for street improvements to be done prior to development of each phase. He suggested the applicant study carefully the amount of traffic to be placed on Sourdough Road and Willson Avenue and how to mitigate it. He noted the choices are to spread the population through out the valley or make accommodations for it within the city proper. He noted the commercial area seems excessive. He noted he concurred with Mr. Caldwell in that the higher density areas should not be centered within the lower dense areas. He noted large and small lots should be intermingled on each block. Ms. Roberty concurred with previous comments on sprawl. She noted she is concerned with affordable housing and the ability to live and work in this area. She noted density does help affordability. She noted the emergency workers need to live in the City and not be 20 minutes away. She noted she doesn’t want to see the commercial area negatively affect the downtown core. She noted the densities are in compliance with the regulating documents. She noted this will not be an isolated subdivision and other roads will be developed to carry the traffic. President Pomnichowski noted the 2020 Plan is a very general, broad plan. She noted a sub-area plan is a rare opportunity to determine where connectivity will happen. She suggested the applicant follow the recommendations on page 12 of the Staff Report. She noted the intersection of Haggerty Lane/Main Street at a Level of Service of F needs to be addressed immediately, and include Church Street in traffic study. She suggested the pre-applications be brought before the Planning Board. MOTION: Mr. Caldwell moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for application #P-05075 for alternative #2 as conditioned by Staff, with an additional recommendation that the densities in the Highlands’ communities be portrayed as percentages rather than color depictions. Mr. Kirchhoff suggested adding specific concerns to the motion. The original motion and second were withdrawn. MOTION: Mr. Caldwell moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval for application #P-05075 for alternative #2 as conditioned by Staff, with an additional recommendation that the densities in the Highlands’ communities be portrayed as percentages rather than color depictions, and the advisory comments be added to give the greatest flexibility to create a mix of densities. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Hope voting against it. Mr. Hope suggested the citizens in the area remain actively involved in the density requirements of the UDO and 2020 Plan. Ms. Roberty noted she was concerned with the size of the commercial area being too large. She stated conditions #5 and #6 don’t cover the issue adequately. Mr. Hope noted the issue will be covered with each phase of development. MOTION: Mr. Caldwell moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval with the addition of the advisory comments and the standard contingencies for alternative #2, and to provide for the greatest flexibility to create a mix of densities types and address the size of the commercial areas in the neighborhood. Motion carried 7-1 with Mr. Hope voting against. B. Growth Policy Amendment Application #P-05069 - (Norton East Ranch). A Growth Policy Amendment application, proposed by the applicant, Freund-Spencer, LLC, and the property owner, Norton Ranch Inc., represented by Morrison-Maierle, Inc, to change the growth policy land use designation, as shown on the Future Land Use Map, from “Future Urban” to “Neighborhood Commercial” for ~ 3 acres, to “Business Park” for ~ 20 acres, and to “Residential” for ~ 217 acres. The property is located at 8553 Huffine Lane and is legally described as the SE¼ of the NW¼, the SW¼ of the NE¼, the E½ of the SW¼, and the W½ of the SE¼ of Sections 9, T2S, R5E, P.M.M, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located north of Huffine Lane and east of Gooch Hill Road. (Sanford) Senior Planner Jody Sanford presented the staff report. She noted no public comment had been received, and Staff is recommending denial as the proposal doesn’t meet the maps, policies, goals and objectives of the 2020 Plan. Tom Henesh, Morrison-Maierle, Inc. and applicant’s representative, distributed a handout with proposed sewer routes. He discussed the various routes, stating the Harper Puckett main line was their choice. He noted it is almost impossible for the applicant to install the 6 miles of sewer forced main. He noted they can make the project work without the B-1 portion of the request; however, they feel they need the Business Park (BP) designation along Huffine Lane. He noted they have an alternate proposal for 40 acres of BP rather than the 20 acres in the original proposal. Mr. Hope asked for the uses permitted in a BP Growth Policy land use designation. Mr. Henesh noted car dealerships were permitted when Billion Auto Plaza was developed. Mr. Epple noted that site was developed with a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Caldwell asked if the installation of $6 million of sewer will be feasible. Mr. Henesh noted with the paybacks from other developing properties in the area, it will be feasible. President Pomnichowski OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Joe Billion, 32 Keane Drive and current owner of Billon Plaza, noted he has met with the applicant to plan the area. He discussed the expansion of his Auto Plaza to accommodate the business on 19th Avenue and West Main Street as the lease expires in 7 years. He noted his 38 acre parcel to the north is zoned residential and he needs BP for the expansion. He noted the 20 acres to the west has about 5 acres of buildable land due to the stream and wetlands through it. He would like to do a land swap with the applicant and trade the 38 acres to the north for land along Hwy 191. He noted he supports the applicant’s alternate plan for 40 acres of BP. Logan Happel, Happel Family Trust at 4700 Gooch Hill Road, noted his property and the Lien property border the subject property. He noted their property is under a conservation easement. He asked that a buffer zone be placed between the two properties and this proposal. He noted the farming of their land will continue for perpetuity and all the dust, smells, sounds, etc. will be part of their operation. He noted Aajker Creek runs through the property and carries a large amount of water year around. He asked for a buffer between the properties to prevent children from getting into the stream or coming into contact with the neighboring cattle. He noted there are ground water problems, with the water table dropping as there are further developments. He noted there are often noxious weeds that come with development which can spread to adjacent farming properties. Al Lien, 8055 Huffine Lane, stated the sewer plant needs expansion. He noted he has newspaper articles from other locales that indicate agricultural operations can be operated within a city. He distributed a letter to the Board, planner, and applicant, and reviewed his comments in the letter. He noted more specifics are needed before the subject property is planned for development. Ted Lange, GVLT, noted GVLT holds the conservation easements for Mr. Lien’s and Mr. Happel’s properties. He noted the soils in the valley are some of the best in the state and are being protected by these easements. He described the existing and proposed trails in the area. President Pomnichowski called for further public comment, and hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. Director Epple noted neither the 2020 Plan nor the UDO allow for car dealerships in a BP zoning district. He stated it would require amendments to both to accomplish. He noted the suggestion for a buffer could be imposed during a subdivision proposal. Mr. Henyon asked what zoning allows an auto dealership. It was noted auto sales are a principle use in the B-2 zone. Mr. Spencer, applicant, asked for the City’s help in developing and annexing the property. He noted the parcel across Huffine Lane has the sewer capacity for his development in a private system. He noted there are already commercial uses all along Huffine Lane. He asked the Board to consider BP and B-1 on his property to allow Billion Auto Plaza to expand. He noted the B-1 area was used to provide coffee shops, reading rooms, etc. President Pomnichowski clarified the land use designation required for a car dealership. Director Epple noted Community Commercial land use is needed. Mr. Caldwell asked where the sewer main for the Loyal Garden subdivision would be located. Planner Sanford noted it will flow into the Valley West trunk. Ms. Roberty clarified the land use designation for a car dealership. President Pomnichowski noted the land use would need to be industrial or commercial. She noted the existing business came in under a different growth policy. Mr. Hope asked if it would be better to take this application off the table and bring it back with the land use designation required for a car dealership. Mr. Caldwell suggested Mr. Billion seek a GPA on his 38 acres for expansion of his business. Mr. Hope noted it is difficult to support a residential development along Hwy 191. Mr. Henyon concurred with Mr. Hope. Mr. Caldwell discussed the location of the B-1 area in Valley West and how it would be negatively affected by another B-1 area located too closely to it. Mr. Sypinski asked about the fire service ability. Planner Sanford noted that subdivisions some distance from the city are being asked to provide a fire station location during annexation review. Mr. Hope suggested the Board recommend the application be withdrawn and re-submitted with the land use needed for the proposals the gentlemen have in mind. Mr. Caldwell noted that mistakes were made in the past, and we need to hold to the 2020 Plan along Huffine Lane. Mr. Carpenter noted he was uncomfortable basing land use designation on a monetary basis. He suggested the applicants wait until the project can pay for itself. Ms. Roberty noted she is leaning towards waiting for development. Mr. Kirchhoff noted it is not the charge of the Board to help develop a property, but to protect the public from development before its time. He noted he would not vote in favor of the application. Mr. Spencer noted it isn’t a cost issue with him as far as installing the sewer trunk. Mr. Hope commented that Mr. Billion can go half a mile down the road and build a mega auto business. Mr. Caldwell suggested he change the land use designation on the 38 acres. MOTION: Mr. Hope moved, Mr. Kirchhoff seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-05069. Discussion followed on the development of the area, the timeliness of development, and direction to the applicant, Motion failed by a 0-8 vote. The applicant asked if the property were designated all residential, would the Board support it. Mr. Henyon noted he felt the auto dealership should be located along Huffine Lane. President Pomnichowski noted she had no problem with the existing application. She noted she could see continuing the BP land use along Huffine. She noted residential uses are the best designation next to agricultural uses. She said the lowest density residential is most appropriate adjacent to agricultural county uses or county residential. C. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05068 - (Annie Subdivision, Phase 3B). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the property owners, Roger and Rosalind Smith, represented by Gaston Engineering and Surveying, Inc., to allow the subdivision of ~ 1.5 acres into 7 residential lots. The property is legally described as a portion of Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision, Phase II situated in the SE¼ of Section 2, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Montana, and is generally located southeast of the intersection of Annie Street and North 25th Avenue. (Windemaker) In the absence of Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker, Director of Planning and Community Development Andrew Epple presented the Staff Report. He distributed two letters of opposition concerning the status of the drainage detention pond for the previous Annie Subdivision, and the adjacency of four-plexes to single family housing. Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification on the detention pond issue. Director Epple noted the detention pond is not located in this subdivision. President Pomnichowski asked if the detention pond actually sits on lot 7. Director Epple noted it is just east of Lot 7 and this subdivision, in the open space tract that was platted with the previous phase of the subdivision. Catherine Koenen, Gaston Engineering and applicant’s rep, stated she would answer any questions the board might have. President Pomnichowski asked which line was the common open space property line. Ms. Koenen noted it is the westerly most line. President Pomnichowski OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, she CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. President Pomnichowski asked if a deviation for block length had been requested, if so, why was it not called out. She asked that all relaxations and deviations be called out by the applicant. MOTION: Mr. Kirchhoff moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-05068 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 8-0. D. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05074 - (Oak Meadows). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the property owners BAM Properties, represented by Morrison-Maierle, Inc. and Think One, to allow the subdivision of 20 acres into 52 residential lots. The property is legally described as Tract A, COS 2439, is situated in the NE¼, SW¼ of Section 1, T1S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is generally located on the southeast corner of Oak Street and North 14th avenue extended. (Saunders) In the absence of Associate Planner Jami Morris, Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report. He noted no written comments had been received. Bill Hanson, Thinkone and applicant’s representative, noted this is a residential development infill project. He noted the most important aspect is that the applicant is proposing to develop the property within the requirements of the UDO. He noted there is a green space connecting the interior park with Oak Street. Mr. Caldwell asked if the RSL’s on the northern edge were nonconforming lots, and if so, he could add 30 feet to create the same number of conforming lots. Planner Saunders noted the individual lots for single family residences in R-4 lowers the density. He noted by leaving them in aggregated lots, more homes can be placed on them as 1600 sq. ft. after the first is the required square footage for each unit compared to a lot for a single household structure, which requires 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Caldwell asked if the lots were accessed only by the alley were restricted to two bedrooms. Mr. Hanson noted the size of the lots would limit the number of bedrooms. He noted the lots fronting on the parkland would be the premium lots in the subdivision. Any combination of alley and greenway frontage is an allowed option in the UDO. Mr. Hope noted the houses fronting onto the park could create confrontation between park users and homeowners. He asked for the price the lots would be offered. Mr. Hanson noted between $60,000 to $100,000. He noted nothing has been designed and he doesn’t know how they will be priced. Mr. Caldwell asked if he had considered providing alley access between the RSL lots and the two large lots to the north. Mr. Hanson noted the RSL lots would be served from the back from an alley/access. President Pomnichowski OPEN THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING. Mr. Kirchhoff asked why lots 4 and 5 weren’t further subdivided. Mr. Hanson noted the developer wants to develop those lots himself and the plans aren’t designed as of yet. President Pomnichowski noted Huckleberry Drive not extending to North 14th Avenue constitutes a safety issue. She noted other concerns were 1) the alleyway was not wide enough for two cars to pass, one car would block the alley. 2) There is no other way to access the homes in Block 3. 3) The extension of Huckleberry Drive would take away from the parkland, which would require a relaxation to parkland requirements. 4) Lilac Street needs to remain right in/right out. 5) the R-4 portion seems to be second class and needs to be more detailed. She commended them on having pursued obtaining letters from other reviewing agencies. Mr. Carpenter noted he shared President Pomnichowski’s concern with the homes on Block 3. He noted he would like to live in one of the homes fronting on the park. Mr. Henyon noted he would favor a relaxation of parkland requirements to gain the right-of-way for Huckleberry Drive to continue through to North 14th Avenue. Ms. Roberty asked if there was a 20’ road for access. Planner Saunders noted it will be a paved access road for emergency access only across the top of the park as agreed with the Fire Department. Distance to homes from the street provides adequate service distance for emergency response. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Kirchhoff seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-05074 with staff conditions. Mr. Hope noted the housing fronting the park is totally different from other developments that have come before the Board. Mr. Caldwell concurred with Mr. Hope. He noted it seemed a missed opportunity for design. Mr. Kirchhoff concurred with the comments on park frontage; however, he is less enthusiastic about the design as he doesn’t know what is going on in the 4 lots along Oak Street. He’d like to see the whole plan in more detail. He noted he would not vote for the application. Mr. Sypinski noted all of the nicer homes are near the park and all of the affordable homes are on the northside with little access to the amenities of the subdivision, which was unacceptable. Ms. Roberty stated she felt it was a good development as it has a mixture of home types. She noted the site plan review will take care of the access issues. The motion failed 2-6 with Ms. Roberty and Mr. Carpenter voting for it. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS – None at this time ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS – None at this time ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. _____________________________________ ___________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director JP Pomnichowski, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board