Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-06 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President Dave Jarrett called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Brian Caldwell Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Randy Carpenter Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development Mike Hope Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Dave Jarrett Steve Kirchhoff Caren Roberty Ed Sypinski Erik Henyon Visitors Present Matt Ekstrom Paul Rugheimer Van Bryan Shaun Shahan Ben Cysewski Pete Rugheimer Joby Sabol Hallie Rugheimer Les Jones Kathy Campbell Rodney Campbell Don Jackson 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.} Vice President Jarrett 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. Vice President Jarrett announced a change in the format of the meeting. He stated staff’s presentation, the applicant’s presentation, and public comment will be taken prior to questions from the Board. He noted he will close the public comment and asked members to wait to be acknowledged before they begin to speak. He noted he will then ask for questions of Staff or the applicant. He stated any conditions of contention will be dealt with as they are decided. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2006 Vice President Jarrett called for corrections or additions to the minutes of March 21, 2006, and hearing none, he declared them approved as presented. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Major Subdivision Prel. Plat Application #P-06009 - (Legends II). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application requested by the property owners, Edgefield, LLC, Paul Rugheimer, Peter Rugheimer, and Mary Wictor, represented by Land West Consulting, LLC, to allow the subdivision of ~ 57 acres into ~ 127 lots for single-household residential use, roads, alleys, park and open space areas. The property is legally described as Tract 2 of the Plat Recorded in Film 12, pg. 825, and lots 27 and 28 of the Mt. Baldy Subdivision, located in the S ½ of Section 32, T1S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Windemaker) Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker presented the Staff Report. She discussed the relaxations requested. She discussed conditions #1 and #2, #3, #4, noting the applicant has an alternate plan. She noted that condition #19 allows the applicant to do cash-in-lieu rather than provide RSL lots in this subdivision. She noted two items of public comment had been received after the packets were distributed and the items were distributed to the Board prior to the meeting. Van Bryan, Studio Architects and applicant’s representative, presented the history of the project. He noted the proposed street standard meets the water/sewer installation and emergency needs. He discussed the connection of the park with the park in Legends I. He noted they tried to follow the approved plans for Legends I and Creekwood subdivisions for the treatment of the open space and parklands. He described the alternate plan, which displayed the relocation of Boylan Road closer to the open space corridor. He noted the original plan has the approval of the neighbors, meets the requirements of the City, and has corridors to the creek from the lots to the south. He noted vegetation enhancement in indicated along the creek to define the change from open space to back yards. Vice President Jarrett OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. He asked the members of the audience to keep their comments to three or four minutes, and not to repeat previous testimony. Rodney Campbell, 2205 Bridger Drive, stated he opposed moving of Boylan Road to the north next to the open space. Les Jones, 2103 Bridger Drive, stated he opposed the placement of Boylan Road to the north. She noted the original proposal had defined edges for the open space, and the trail system was located in the natural environment. Don Jackson, 1280 Story Mill Road, noted his property is adjacent to the proposed subdivision. He noted he often uses trails, has written grants for trails, and stated the trail next to the back yards rather than along the street was preferred. He was concerned that user created trails would occur if the street was moved to the north. He suggested covenant should be added to control fencing along the green spaces. He stated he was opposed to relocating the road to the north. Shaun Shahan, 8105 Alamosa Lane, stated he was supportive of the originally proposed location of Boylan Road. He noted the design addresses concerns with the riparian areas being accessed from any portion of the roadway. He noted the applicant was proposing a gathering place for the public with signage and information for the public guidance. Kathy Campbell, 2205 Bridger Drive, noted she supported the original location of the street. She suggested locating the street in the center of the subdivision was better for the public good rather than having the public use the alleyway to access certain properties. Hallie Rugheimer, 1400 Story Mill Road, noted there are parking places, ski trails which were laid by the Bridger Ski Foundation, and parking was limited to certain areas. Paul Rugheimer, part of the applicant team and a neighbor of the subdivision, presented a recording of sounds along the creek and where the creek crosses under Bridger Canyon Road, about a trail’s distance from the road. He stated he was opposed to moving the road closer to the creek. Vice President Jarrett called for further public comment, and hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING. Mr. Henyon asked why the letter from CAHAB referred to Lyden’s Subdivision with Legends in the subject line. Planner Windemaker noted it was a typo. Mr. Henyon noted he would be in favor of striking condition #4 and was opposed to moving the road to the north. He noted there are several deer in the area and they could be compromised by moving the road to the north. He noted he grooms the trails in the Bridger Creek Golf Course and was sure there would not be conflicts between people and dogs due to the fact that dogs are not allowed. Mr. Caldwell thanked Mr. Henyon for his question and then noted he was trying to understand the widening of the street to address the cul-de-sacs. Planner Windemaker noted Engineering staff had no problem with the proposal. Ms. Roberty asked if the alternate proposal met staff’s concerns and the comments received during pre-application review. Planner Windemaker noted the alternate plan met the needs. Mr. Carpenter asked for the net density. Planner Windemaker noted it would be 5.7 units/acres in the original, and a little closer to 6 units per acre in the alternate plan. Mr. Carpenter discussed the RSL restriction lots. Planner Windemaker noted the lots would remain the same size, but would allow structures more in keeping with the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Carpenter asked for explanation of PUD Open Space. Planner Windemaker discussed the meaning of the paragraph. Mr. Hope asked where the cash-in-lieu funds are deposited and used. Ms. Roberty noted the funds have to be deposited in the Affordable Housing fund. Mr. Sypinski asked where the dedicated parkland would be located and if all parks would be dedicated. Planner Windemaker noted the parkland west of Northview Drive would be dedicated. Mr. Sypinski noted it is critical that there be public access to all of the public parklands. Mr. Hope asked for the value of the RSL lots. Planner Windemaker noted she was not sure and estimated the lots to be approximately $200,000.00, with there being 7 RSL lots. Mr. Sypinski asked if there was any traffic mitigation planned for Story Mill Road/Bridger Drive. Planner Windemaker noted condition #37 addressed the concern. She noted it specifically requires a traffic signal at Griffin Drive/Bridger Drive with a deceleration lane required. Ms. Roberty asked where the club house and parking lot would be located. Mr. Bryan referred her to section 17, MP-2. He noted a road would provide access to the area. Vice President Jarrett asked how Mr. Bryan felt about condition #19. Mr. Bryan noted the use of the word “may” lets them choose whether or not to do it. Vice President Jarrett asked if condition #4 was a problem. Mr. Bryan noted the neighbors and applicant have addressed the condition adequately. Mr. Hope asked how the Affordable Housing funds would be spent. Ms. Roberty noted the CAHAB Board would offer suggestions to the City Commission. Mr. Henyon noted he would be in favor of striking condition #4. Mr. Caldwell noted the concern can be addressed in several ways, such as, centralized points of access. He noted he would support the inclusion of condition #4. He commended the design of the subdivision with the green corridors. Mr. Carpenter noted there were good reasons for proposing an alternative site plan, with access to the creek being the primary reason. He noted cars were moving at about 60 mph in the recording and would be moving much slower through the subdivision. Mr. Kirchhoff noted he contact Mr. Robert Eng, wildlife biologist, who recommended spacing the backyards away from the open space. He noted a right-of-way along a park or open space provides access to it for public use. He noted the back yards often end up “including” some of the open space. He noted wildlife corridor should be respected. City Commission has determined that right-of-way is a better way to protect open space corridors. He asked why the alternative contains so many lots backing onto the open space. He stated the design hasn’t gone far enough. Vice President Jarrett noted his back yard is on a trail corridor. He often sees wildlife and people interacting and respecting one another. He stated he supported the original design with the homes as a buffer. He noted he was in favor of fences. He stated he preferred to strike condition #4. Mr. Hope asked if cash-in-lieu for RSL lots had occurred in previous subdivisions. Mr. Kirchhoff noted it was offered by the applicant for Legends I, but the City Commission decided not to accept the offer. He noted City Commission has determined a better variety of homes would occur if the RSL lots were included. Mr. Hope noted if the City Commission wanted to accept the offer, it would do the City a lot of good. He noted with checks and balances the City and residents would benefit from the cash-in-lieu. He encouraged City Commission to take a strong look at the cash-in-lieu for this specific property. Mr. Caldwell stated he wanted it to be clear that it was the applicant’s option to choose cash-in- lieu of providing RSL lots. He noted that restricting dogs on the lots along the open space would be difficult to enforce. He noted this location is prime for development. MOTION: Mr. Henyon moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to approve application #P-06009 with all staff conditions except condition #4. The motion failed on a vote of 3-5, with Mr. Hope, Mr. Henyon, and Vice President Jarrett voting in favor of the motion. MOTION: Ms. Roberty moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve application #P-06009 with all staff conditions. The motion carried 5-3 with Mr. Henyon, Mr. Hope, and Vice President Jarrett voting against the motion. ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Hope asked if the Planning Department had followed up with City Commission on the Board’s request to require developers to use only certain firms for traffic studies, and requiring the developer to pay for the City to have the studies completed. Mr. Kirchhoff noted the City Commission had discussed the issue, and stated perhaps it would benefit the City to put aside several thousand dollars to do traffic studies on major intersections. He stated the City Commission had determined it was important to the City to have accurate traffic studies. He noted the City Engineering Department already has those studies. Mr. Caldwell noted he visited with Project Engineer Bob Murray and Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders about the update of the Transportation Plan 2001 Update. He noted the energy should be focused on the update. He suggested a traffic engineering staff member do the studies. Mr. Hope noted the Board was suggesting the use of one of perhaps five companies in the State for the studies. Vice President Jarrett stated the issue should be sent back to the Planning Director. He noted he felt the Board wanted to know how a traffic study for a subdivision related to the Transportation Plan. It was noted the existing plan has served the community quite well. Mr. Carpenter noted the City has grown at twice the rate anticipated and an update is needed. Mr. Carpenter noted it is not easy for traffic planners, especially with double the rate of growth. He asked if the City Commission discussed having the developer pay for the traffic study by the engineering firm the City selects. Ms. Roberty noted, when market studies were required for Affordable Housing, the State gave the developers a short list of acceptable firms for market studies, which seemed to work very well. Mr. Kirchhoff noted during the discussion at the City Commission level the conversation was inconclusive. Mr. Caldwell noted if the applicant had to cut the check for the traffic engineer, the project could be delayed substantially. It was suggested that a memo be written to City Commission with the signatures of all Board members who wish to sign it. Mr. Kirchhoff noted street improvements are tied to trigger points and the concern is that they occur at the proper time. Vice President Jarrett asked Mr. Carpenter to carry the Boards concerns to the Planning Director. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS - There was none. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. _________________________________________ ________________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director Dave Jarrett, Vice President Planning and Community Development City Of Bozeman Planning Board