Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-06 Planning Board Minutes.docMINUTES THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2006 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance Members Present Staff Present Brian Caldwell Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Erik Henyon Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development Mike Hope Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning and Community Development Dave Jarrett McKenzie Setcoski, Recording Secretary Steve Kirchhoff Caren Roberty Ed Sypinski Erik Henyon JP Pomniowski Visitors Present Travis Baar Ken Baar Brian May Tara Hill Tom Clinton Mike Elliott Daniel Summerfield Gavin Anderson Don Cope, Jr. Matt Favre Steve Anderson Dustin Workman 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.} No public was present. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2006 President Pomnichowski called for corrections or additions to the minutes of April 4, 2006. Mr. Henyon noted on page 3, paragraph 6, the minutes read, “Mr. Henyon asked why the letter from CAHAB referred to Lyden’s Subdivision with Legends in the letterhead.” which should have read, “subject line.” and on page 3, paragraph 6, the minutes read, “He noted he grooms the trails in the Bridger Creek Golf Course and was sure there would be conflicts between people and dogs.” It should read, “He noted he grooms the trails in the Bridger Creek Golf Course and he didn’t believe there would be a conflict, due to the fact that dogs are not allowed.” Mr. Caldwell noted on page 3, paragraph 7, he asked that the paragraph read that he had thanked Mr. Henyon for his comment. MOTION: Steve Kirchhoff moved, Mr. Henyon seconded, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 4. PRESENTATION BY WALT BANZIGER (MSU-FACILITIES) “MSU Tomorrow” – The long range development plan for MSU’s campus Mr. Banziger, Planning, Design and Construction Department of MSU, noted he would like feedback on MSU’s Master Design project and the long range planning process. He encouraged the planning board to visit his department’s website, www.montana.edu/msutomorrow . This website includes the not only his preliminary sketch information, but also the information that was received from students and faculty, pertaining to what they do and do not like about the campus and why. President Pomnichowski thanked Mr. Banziger for his presentation. She noted her immediate reaction was that she would like to see MSU and the City work more cooperatively, most importantly, in the area of street connectivity. She asked Mr. Banziger how much weight he is putting on housing in the next 20-25 years. He responded he thought housing would be significant because of the expensive housing market, students might be forced to live on campus. He noted one draft sketch plan proposes additional housing, and MSU has considered purchasing houses to lease students, graduates, and alumni. President Pomnichowski noted she would encourage MSU to provide as much housing as possible, due to the high rent costs. She noted it will be less expensive for MSU to do something about the housing situation today rather than tomorrow. In addition, President Pomnichowski stated that she would like to see more play fields with more invitations for their use by the community and potential students. Mr. Jarrett stated that he disagreed with President Pomnichowski’s housing comment. He noted he would like to see the housing done privately so that the University property is not subdivided. He noted some college aged people will want to live in the dorms and some will not. He noted that the infrastructure on campus will be key in deciding on a final plan. Mr. Jarrett also noted that Kagy Blvd. needs widening. Mr. Jarrett asked how MSU planned to control foot traffic. Mr. Banziger responded he and his department are trying to keep everything within a 15 minute walking distance. He noted that in the next 5-10 years MSU will be considering adding a shuttle/bus system Mr. Henyon stated he has seen universities that don’t allow first year students to drive. He noted considering that option may allow for the development of a transit system. Mr. Banziger stated even though it would encourage a transit system, most first year students live on campus and MSU does not currently have the transit system in place to accommodate their needs. Mr. Banziger concluded by asking the board members to call him at (406) 994-6326 or email through the website with any further thoughts or ideas regarding to this project. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Major Subdivision Prel. Plat Application #P-06015 - (Baxter Meadows Phase 6). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the property owners, Baxter Meadows Development, represented by PC Development, to allow the subdivision of ~ 11 acres into ~ 49 lots for single-household residential lots, 3 multi-household residential lots, roads, alleys, park and open space areas. The property is legally described as a portion of Tract 2A in COS 2202A, located in the SE ¼ of Section 24, T1S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Windemaker) Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report. She explained the 11 requested relaxations. Planner Windemaker discussed condition #1, CAHAB’s requested relaxations on the RSL lots, which advises the City Commission to allow a 7% reduction - subject to conditions. However, if the conditions are not met, CAHAB would most likely deny the relaxation as RSL lots would be smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. Planner Windemaker discussed condition #14, a condition which the applicant has requested to be eliminated with the reasoning that there are 3 existing tot lots in Baxter Meadows. Harley Houstis, applicant, reported that phase 6 is a continuation of the last two phases. He noted they are not looking to do anything new, only continue what has already been done. He stated most of the relaxations have been approved in the past with the previous phases. Mr. Houstis noted conditions #14 and #35 required the sewer main to be moved from the pocket park to the alley, which he plans to do. He noted the applicant concurs with conditions #2, #3, and #10. He stated conditions #5, #6, and #14 are in regard to parking and are contradictory to what they have been doing, but they will attempt to provide the extra parking. Mr. Houstis stated two items he would like removed from the conditions. The first item is condition #14B, which requires play equipment. He would rather leave the park passive and well landscaped. Mr. Houstis stated the second item the applicant would like altered is condition #1, the RSL lots. He noted there is a four part reasoning for altering the condition: 1) it has been approved four times in the past. Mr. Houstis feels that he is meeting and exceeding what other subdivisions are doing by providing the most inexpensive housing in Bozeman. 2) Changing the plan would be a hardship on the applicant, contractors, and potential home buyers. The layout worked well in phase one as each home compliments the other surrounding homes. 3) Changing this plan would incur a delay in building and the market ends up not liking the houses as well. The proposed structures would be about the same price as a 1,575 sq. ft. house, but with less livable space and less equity for the buyer. 4) Mr. Houstis requested that condition #1 be stricken or modified to 3384 sq. ft. maximum lot size with a maximum 1575 sq. ft. house size. President Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING. Mr. Caldwell asked the applicant to clarify the square footage of the RSL lots. He asked Mr. Houstis if he was requesting a modification to condition #1 to a lot size of 3274 sq. feet. Mr. Houstis replied he was requesting 3384 sq. ft. Mr. Jarrett asked Planner Windemaker for code requirements on RSL lots as far as how many sq. ft. can be built. She responded that a RSL detached lot should be no more than 5000 sq. ft., as the builder is restricted to a 1:3.3 ratio, which comes out to be 1550 sq. ft. Mr. Jarrett then asked if the lot is smaller, does one get a smaller house. Planner Windemaker responded that one would. She added that if one has a 2500 sq. ft. lot, one would be restricted to a 725 sq. ft. house. Mr. Jarrett noted having a smaller house is where CAHAB has a problem, as they want to bring that ratio down. He noted that if a fire started in a house in phase one, with a wind, the whole block would burn. He stated the reduced setbacks and the 20 ft. alley are problematic, and he is not in favor of them. He added that he supported larger lots and larger houses. Mr. Sypinski asked for the proposed uses in the B-2 area of the phase. Planner Windemaker noted the applicant specified multi-family, but they would address the commercial aspect at a later date. She stated a decision has not been made. She noted one option is a multi-use, another option is placing a deed restriction on land that would require two-story structures. Mr. Caldwell asked Planner Windemaker what effect prior decisions have on current approvals. He noted it seems to be a moving target, as the UDO is always changing. Planner Windemaker stated the applicant does not receive approval fro a concept plan. She noted there are no guarantee to an applicant that any future phase will be approved as preceding ones were approved. Mr. Caldwell asked whether or not long range PUD’s should go beyond the two year period. Planner Windemaker stated it is a tough question because things are changing all the time, and ultimately the City Commission will answer it. President Pomnichowski asked about the groundwater and asked the applicant if he would have a problem with prohibiting basements. Mr. Houstis answered that he would have a problem with that, as he did not want to restrict basements. Planner Windemaker noted that the requirements for approval on a basement are stronger than before, as a licensed professional engineer has to verify the feasibility of adding a basement. President Pomnichowski inquired if the fire department had any issues with the 2 ft rear yards. Planner Windemaker responded they did not. President Pomnichowski asked if the applicant had considered a request for a variance in B-2 zoning. Planner Windemaker noted they would have to apply for a conditional use permit rather than a variance. President Pomnichowski asked the applicant if he had considered applying for a zone amendment. Mr. Houstis stated it has been discussed, but he intended to provide live/work buildings and was, therefore, advised by the City Planning Office to request B-2 zoning. Mr. Kirchhoff asked the applicant about GVLT’s concern for providing a safe route to the middle school. Planner Windemaker responded that the trail system will most likely be utilized, though it is still in draft form and has not been finalized. Mr. Kirchhoff asked if the applicant is willing to make that commitment. Mr. Houstis noted they would consider it and they are designing plans for a safe route. Mr. Jarrett asked what would happen if a builder bought 2 or 3 of the RSL lots and construct a larger house. Planner Windemaker stated that he would have to aggregate the lots into one lot; however, an RSL lot is a deed restricted and buying more than one lot to build a bigger home is simply not an option. The applicant noted the deed restriction applies to the house size as well. MOTION: Mr. Henyon moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to strike condition #14B. Mr. Caldwell stated he had an issue with a long term, multifaceted PUD and whether the planning board should contemplate them. Mr. Sypinski noted the board should not base their decisions on historic decisions, even within the same subdivision, because codes change. Mr. Kirchhoff noted changes have come from both the applicant and the City. He used the example of the 100 acre park – which was not originally planned. Mr. Jarrett noted developers progress through a PUD process and then, when they start doing phases, the planning board, etc. will get to review them. He stated as times change, it’s not only the policies, but also the PUD that changes. The motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Mr. Caldwell moved, Mr. Kirchhoff seconded, to recommend the RSL lots to be no larger than 3384 sq. ft. with a maximum structure size of 1575 sq. ft. Ms. Roberty stated when CAHAB originally proposed smaller houses on smaller lots, it was to create more affordable homes in Bozeman. She noted in some cases, it worked, in others it didn’t. She noted CAHAB is waiting to change their requirements until there are changes in the UDO to bring affordability to Bozeman. She continued Baxter Meadows Phase 6 will bring affordable housing to Bozeman. She stated CAHAB has worked with a number of developers who want to supply more affordable housing. Mr. Jarrett concurred with Mr. Kirchhoff, if the applicant decides that the market will produce the same profit margin for a smaller home, it will be built that way. He stated he favored the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Ms. Roberty voting in opposition. President Pomnichowski called for a motion regarding the entire application. MOTION: Mr. Kirchhoff moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to recommend approval of application, #P-06015, subject to the staff conditions as amended by the planning board. The motion carried 6-1, with Ms. Roberty voting in opposition. B. Minor Subdivision Pre-Application #P-06013 - (Commerce Business Park). A Minor Subdivision Pre-Application requested by the applicant, JWT Capital, LLC, representing the property owners, State of Montana School Trust, to allow the subdivision of 45.11 acres into 5 parcels. The property is in the process of being annexed into the City of Bozeman and re-zoned M-1 (industrial use). The property is located north of the 7th Street/Interstate 90 Interchange within the City of Bozeman. (Saunders) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the annexation and zoning requests have not been finalized yet. He discussed conditions #2, #10 and #11. Daniel Summerfield, Hyalite Engineers and representing the applicant, stated he had nothing to add to Assistant Director Saunders presentation. President Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING. President Pomnichowski inquired about the use proposed for lot 3. Assistant Director Saunders stated it is for irrigation with no downstream property users, and begins and terminates within the property. Mr. Jarrett inquired how the money will be allocated if the school fund sells the land. Gavin Anderson, Department of State Lands, stated none of the lots will be sold. Mr. Jarrett questioned if the applicant had the money to do the improvements. Mr. Anderson stated it will be worked out in a lease with the developer and according to the Constitution, no money will be used from school funds. Mr. Henyon stated that he is pleased to see commercial uses in this area. President Pomnichowski inquired what will happen to the existing home site. Assistant Director Saunders stated it is a privately owned parcel. President Pomnichowski stated the annexation map and the project boundary did not match up. Assistant Director Saunders responded that they are not the same boundaries. President Pomnichowski stated she supported the project. She noted it would be great to have the property developed as it has been zoned commercial for a long time. Assistant Director Saunders stated the project will be discussed at City Commission April 24, 2006. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS Presentation by Andy Epple – “Traffic Study Proposal” Director of Planning and Community Development Andrew Epple stated the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update is a macro view of future traffic patterns based on projected growth rates. He noted one of the products of the Transportation Plan is to plan the existing and proposed major streets. He continued that Transportation Planning at the macro level is the major street network, arterials and collectors. He noted in addition, the Transportation Plan includes the bike plan and is based on three C’s - Comprehensive, Continuing, and Coordinated. He stated that all the aspects of planning, are inclusive and open. He noted the result of this document is the allocation of scarce resources. He noted it prioritizes needs and projects in a systematic, public, way so that there is rationale behind the priorities. Mr. Kirchhoff stated he wanted to fast forward to the micro scale. Director Epple responded that traffic studies represent the micro, or more localized view on a street network. Director Epple stated the UDO requires traffic studies for all major projects be prepared by professionals. He noted once those traffic studies are submitted, they are reviewed by the Engineering Department, who conduct a peer review. President Pomnichowski asked what criteria the engineers base their assumptions. Director Epple responded it is an art. President Pomnichowski stated the professional engineers craft their assumptions to please the developer. She noted changes need to be made as Bozeman is behind the times every time a new subdivision is proposed. Director Epple added he has spent time discussing the issue with engineers, who feel their system works. He stated there are three major engineering companies in Montana that do traffic studies. He noted they are as good as any other traffic engineers in the country, and they do what they can with what they have. He noted there is no way to tell exactly what effect a development will have on the system. Director Epple added the errors are likely due to the traffic engineers not being familiar with the community. President Pomnichowski queried why we didn’t use engineers located in Bozeman to do the study. Director Epple responded the current system is efficient for time and money. President Pomnichowski stated she would like to revisit this issue in two weeks when the Board meets again when board member Mike Hope can participate. ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS None to report. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Jarrett moved, Mr. Kirchhoff seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director JP Pomnichowski, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board