HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-06 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Brian Caldwell Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development
Randy Carpenter Carol Schott, Recording Secretary
Mike Hope
Dave Jarrett
JP Pomnichowski
Caren Roberty
Ed Sypinski
Visitors Present
Sean Becker for Steve Kirchhoff
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 called for public comment on any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2006
President Pomnichowski called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 22, 2006. Hearing none, she declared the minutes of February 22, 2006 approved as submitted.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEWS
A. Major Subdivision Pre-Application #P-05082 - (Hillcrest). A Major Subdivision Pre-Application requested by the property owner, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services, represented by
PC Development, to allow the subdivision of 31.5 acres into 78 single-household lots, one (1) multi-household lot, and one (1) Bread and Breakfast lot. The property is legally described
as the southern portion of Tract 1, COS 2047, is situated in the NE¼ of Section 18, T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is generally located south of 1701 Highland
Blvd. (existing Hillcrest complex).. (Sanford)
In the absence Senior Planner Jody Sanford, Director of Planning and Community Development, Andrew Epple, discussed the review process for subdivision pre-application submittals, and
where pre-applications fall in the overall review process. He discussed staff comments #3, #5, #10, #13, and #14.
Mr. Caldwell asked if the overriding principle of all planning documents is for the health and public safety of the community, and, if so, Kenyon Drive should connect to this subdivision.
Director Epple concurred the overarching principle is for the public health and safety of the community.
Mr. Hope asked what would happen if the park is dedicated to the City in the future, yet in the future, the City determines it doesn’t have the funding to support the park. He stated
he felt the subdivision should be responsible for the maintenance of the park. Director Epple noted there is hope that a Parks Maintenance District will be created in the next few years
to maintain all City parks. He noted the park is a combination of active and passive spaces. He described several existing open space/ parkland combinations existing within the City.
Mr. Sypinski noted parks in other parts of the country are often maintained by public/private partnerships.
Mr. Jarrett asked for the width of the Kenyon Drive right-of-way. Director Epple noted it is a full 60’ right-of-way. Mr. Jarrett asked where the crest of the ridge is located in relation
to project. Director Epple indicated the general location.
Mr. Carpenter asked if 100’ of right-of-way for Highland Blvd. will be continued from Main Street to Kagy Blvd. Director Epple noted it is so indicated in the Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan Update 2001. He discussed the right-of-way widths north of this subdivision to Kagy Blvd. Mr. Carpenter asked how the curve will be done to connect to Kenyon Drive. Director
Epple noted it would be engineered in conjunction with the design of the western-most street.
Mr. Caldwell asked if there could be a waiver of right to protest the creation of a parks maintenance district. Director Epple noted such waivers are currently being collected with
each subdivision.
Jason Leep, Potter Clinton Development and applicant’s representative, noted the subdivision is an extension of the Hillcrest subdivision with an age restriction of 55 years or older.
He noted the current subdivision regulations are aimed to family-type neighborhoods. He noted a city needs to plan for retirees. He discussed condition #3 addressing the squaring
of the corners of the street and the connection of Kenyon Drive, noting neither are a problem. He noted they do oppose placing the western-most street next to Burke Park as suggested
in comment #4. He discussed the reasons, with the main concern being that evening partiers could be encouraged to use Burke Park, which would interfere with the neighborhood. He suggested
an alternate location with a public park access to the south with Josephine Park with parking on both sides of the access. He noted that it would also be detrimental to users of Burke
Park to have the street along side it.
Mr. Leep noted there are two types of lots proposed. One type is a bungalow lot which fronts onto the park land. The other is a cottage lot. He noted the design of the homes will
be very controlled and the buyer will have a choice from about four plans. He described the 3’ to 4’ high fencing proposed between the homes and Burke Park, which would be “open” and
be more of a “property delineator” rather than a privacy fence.
He noted they will have a much clearer understanding of the traffic issues and what upgrades will be needed during the preliminary plat process. He discussed the parkland dedication
which, he indicated, is proposed to be met with cash-in-lieu. He stated he felt it would be unfair to require the homeowners within the subdivision to maintain the park as users would
come from all parts of the City.
Mr. Hope asked for clarification as to how traffic generation from outside the parks will be calculated. Mr. Leep noted the traffic engineers will hopefully be able to determine those
numbers.
Mr. Jarrett stated he liked the layout, he appreciated the fact that Burke Park doesn’t have a road along it. He suggested some changes such as: combine the “pocket park” areas and
put in tennis and shuffle board courts, relocate the parking area for access to Burke Park, and Josephine Park should not be accessed from the north.
Mr. Leep noted the most difficult issue is condition #4, which requires the street location along Burke Park. Everything else they can work with.
Mr. Carpenter asked how an age-restricted subdivision works. Mr. Leep noted the residents are encouraged to interact with the other residents, and the amenities of Aspen Point – laundry,
bed changing, and meals, for instance – are available to the residents. He noted four-way intersections have higher accident ratings associated with them. He noted there is no real
reason for traffic to pass through the development. Mr. Carpenter noted traffic shouldn’t be limited through a subdivision as it is a public right-of-way. Mr. Leep noted the interior
streets are private with a public access easement; however, it will not be a gated community.
Mr. Hope concurred with Mr. Jarrett. He asked why the 55 years and older are being given special dispensation. Mr. Leep noted most of the recent subdivisions have all looked the same.
He stated there should be differences. He noted the basis for 55 and older is based on the Fair Housing Standards. He noted Burke Park is different from all other parks in the City.
He noted the only issue with the subdivision for the developer is the location of the street near Burke Park.
Mr. Caldwell noted private streets permit many different street designs. He asked if they have considered parking for access to Burke Park and different street standards. Mr. Leep
noted they have discussed several designs.
Ms. Roberty asked why they chose the 55 year old group rather than the 65 year old group. Mr. Leep noted that was the age group they choose as there seems to be a niche in the market
for that group.
Mr. Sypinski asked for information on the Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Leep noted it would have about 8 rooms as an extended stay facility for the family of hospital patients or residents
at Aspen Point/Hillcrest. Mr. Sypinski noted he felt it was the goal of the Planning Board to look at the larger picture. He stated he had no problem with an age restricted neighborhood.
Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification on the connection with Kenyon Drive. Director Epple discussed the City Commission action on the Sub Area Plan. He noted the right-of-way currently
exists to the property line from the south.
Ms. Roberty asked if the traffic study would consider just this area or a larger area. Mr. Leep noted it would consider the greater area as well as the effect of traffic from this proposed
subdivision. He discussed the plans being prepared for the preliminary plat submittal, noting they will address traffic in the neighborhood as well as the greater area.
Mr. Hope asked what guarantee was in place to prevent the hospital from selling some or all of the parcels and not develop the whole property themselves. He noted the sub area plan
can change significantly with a different developer. Mr. Leep stated that is the purpose of the Sub Area Plan, but noted amendments could be requested from any PUD Plan.
Mr. Caldwell asked about ridgeline development regulations and if they have considered the ridgeline and the height of the homes. Mr. Leep noted all homes meet the regulations, and
they are planning to shift the whole development 50 to 60’ to the east, which will move it further from the ridgeline.
President Pomnichowski called for public comment, there was none.
Director Epple noted one point that was reviewed by Staff today was a letter from former City Manager Clark Johnson in reference to Burke Park. He noted the letter reminds the City
that the Burke family retained two lots just to the west of this subdivision on Kenyon Drive and have asked that access to those two lots be maintained as promised many years ago. He
urged the Board to suggest a compromise on the western most street that meets the needs of the Parks and Recreation Board.
Mr. Jarrett noted continuing Kenyon Drive north is imperative; however, it shouldn’t be located next to Burke Park. He noted what happens in the future is based on the parameters set
by this stage. He suggested combining the two green spaces into a meaningful active park.
Mr. Carpenter concurred with Mr. Jarrett on the combining of the two green spaces to make a large active space. He disagreed with Mr. Jarrett on the access to the Josephine Park and
having the parking away from the park area. He noted he would rather have Kenyon Drive extended. He noted he disagreed with the developer on the location of parkland in the subdivision.
He stated he was troubled by the public access roads being designated for private use. He asked if the older generation should be segregated from the rest of society.
Ms. Roberty noted she was in favor of shifting the whole subdivision 50’ to 60’ to the east, and feels that reduces the need for the road next to the park. She stated she was more at
ease with the traffic study being submitted with the preliminary plat. She noted she was in favor of creating a parking area and a the placement of a bathroom in the area.
Mr. Caldwell asked if the idea of providing a sense of ownership of the park was possible, using a great street design adjacent to it. He noted a poorly executed road would be horrible
for a park. He suggested parking on one side might be permitted. He suggested more density could be created along the street when the subdivision is moved to the east. He suggested
they should get credit for developing an access to Burke Park.
Mr. Hope stated there needed to be an area for the 55 and older group and combining the green spaces is good. He noted if the plan were submitted without the sub area plan, it would
probably be denied. He noted the sub area plan could set a precedent for future subdivisions – to be non-integrated.
Mr. Sypinski noted his concerns have been that a traffic study needs to be done. A community of this type is an expansion of the Hillcrest plan. He stated he is torn about the location
of a street along Burke Park.
President Pomnichowski noted when she first looked at the plan, she felt is was backwards from what it should be. She noted the subdivision street/block patterns should align with the
subdivision across Highland Blvd. She stated she supported the extension of Kenyon Drive to the property line with a connection to an extension of Holly Drive. She noted she liked
the street along Burke Park; however, she felt there was a lot of wasted space in the open space. She stated she supported a Holly Drive connector. She noted a street adjacent to the
park would be a natural buffer for the residents. She stated she concurred with the inner lots being moved to a backyard-to-backyard design with an alley between. She noted the people
in the development need a park. She stated they have a responsibility to provide a park for the development. She encouraged them to rearrange the center parcel to include an inner
park. She noted she’d like to see some consideration for the CUP for the B&B, but not locate it in the center of the development. It would be better along Highland Blvd. She stated
she didn’t agree that the City should pay for maintenance of their park. President Pomnichowski echoed that the streets in a neighborhood are public streets and should be of use to
everyone. She noted this is not a gated community and the streets should be public.
Director Epple noted that a broad traffic analysis and traffic plan for the major street network for the City, including this area, has been provided in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan 2001 Update. He asked Mr. Leep to include South Church Avenue and South Willson Avenue in the study. Mr. Leep explained the study also includes Highland Blvd., Haggerty Lane,
and Main Street. He noted they will be able to relate how the proposed street improvements will affect the whole development as well as this subdivision.
Mr. Hope noted the Board and City need to foresee the needs of the whole subdivision and install the infrastructure as a whole. Director Epple noted with each phase of a development
a determination is made for the infrastructure to be installed. President Pomnichowski noted there are existing failing intersections that have to be fixed now, prior to any further
development. Director Epple noted if there are impacts on any part of failing or inadequate infrastructure, that part of the infrastructure will be required to be remedied prior to
any further development.
Mr. Hope stated he is concerned about traffic congestion in that area. He complained the City doesn’t jump out in front of traffic issues and provide the streets and intersections before
they are needed.
Mr. Caldwell asked if the sub area plan recognizes the needs of traffic, and if incremental detail would create thresholds for improvements are not met. Mr. Jarrett noted there can
be problems with MDT if warrants for signals and intersection improvements. He asked for a traffic analysis for the whole sub
area plan and how this development will be affected.
Mr. Leep noted what the Board has been discussing is included in the study. He noted they will show what the major street network should look like when the project is fully developed
and they will indicate what they will install as each phase develops.
ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS - None
ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Jarrett encouraged the City Commission to continue working on the UDO proposed edits.
Mr. Hope suggested the City have three or four traffic engineers for the developers to use, charge an appropriate fee for the traffic study, and have the City pay for the traffic study.
Director Epple noted dealing with licensed, professional engineers should yield the same study as the requirements are codified in the UDO. He noted he was familiar with cities that
use Mr. Hope’s suggestion and said he would take the suggestion to the City Engineer. He noted traffic problems are primarily caused from traffic coming into the City from outside City
limits. Mr. Hope noted he would be proud to get the issues of traffic solved during his tenure on the Board. He noted the City currently can’t keep up. He suggested a different method
for reviewing traffic studies could be used. Mr. Caldwell noted the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update needs to be more fully understood.
President Pomnichowski noted the Transportation Plan is a great tool and the City Engineers should be allowed to determine the destiny of the street network. Mr. Hope asked how to put
the City Engineering Department in charge of the traffic studies. Mr. Jarrett noted a preset list of traffic engineers would help.
Mr. Hope stated he just wanted the best information to be submitted to the Board and City Commission. He stated he wanted the City Engineering staff to take over the contracting and
paying of the traffic engineers with the developers paying the fees.
From the audience Mark Cramer asked if there was anything the Board could do now regarding traffic studies, before the City Commission reviews this project. President Pomnichowski noted
the Board has the ability to review this subdivision with regard to the sub area plan. Mr. Hope noted the greatest concern during the sub area plan public hearing was how the increased
traffic would affect the livability of the existing neighborhoods.
President Pomnichowski noted if the subdivision is done properly, it would benefit the community for years to come. If done wrong, it would take years to remedy.
Director Epple noted that having the City contract for traffic studies will slow the review process. He stated the Engineering Department could contract for traffic studies, but they
would get done on their time frame. Mr. Hope suggested that the City look at other cities methods of handling traffic and adopt the “best practices” policies. Director Epple stated
it would be important to identify what exactly is broken
with the current method of evaluating traffic impacts, before developing a new system. Mr. Jarrett noted we are so impatient in Bozeman that if we have to wait more that two minutes
at a stop light, we are frustrated. He described traffic conditions elsewhere in the country and in the world far worse than ours.
President Pomnichowski noted the theme of the discussion seems to be there may be a better way to handle traffic studies and the City Commission should be encouraged to look at other
methods of obtaining traffic studies.
Mr. Carpenter requested a display of an aerial photo with the submittal materials.
Commissioner Becker asked that a summary of board discussion always be included in the minutes. He noted it was a huge factor in processing the proposed UDO edits.
Secretary Schott asked that the Board be more specific with their consensus statements during the meeting and when editing the minutes.
President Pomnichowski asked the members to be more pointed on their questions and to limit the “discussion digression,” thereby shortening the meetings.
ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Andrew Epple, Director JP Pomnichowski, President
Planning and Community Development City Of Bozeman Planning Board