Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-05 Planning Board Minutes.docCITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Harry Kirschenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Sarah Alexander Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Dave Jarrett Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development Harry Kirschenbaum Carol Schott, recording Secretary Jeff Krauss Ed Musser JP Pomnichowski Jane Shaw Stroup Visitors Present Greg Stratton Jennifer Madgic Mark Macek John Davison Ted Mitchell 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.} There were no members of the public present. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2005 President Kirschenbaum called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 19, 2005. Ms. Pomnichowski made corrections to page 7, next to the last paragraph to have the beginning of the paragraph to read, “Ms. Pomnichowski suggested it is appropriate to annex the property because it is adjacent to city limits. She stated she would support the proposed R-1 designation because that zoning accomplishes city densities while it respects the historical agricultural use of the region, its natural amenities, and character of the site. She stated she was concerned …” She also amended the last sentence in the paragraph to read “…when they become available. She also recommends that fire services be addressed with a new city station, mutual aid with the rural fire district, or on-site cisterns.” As there were no other corrections or additions, President Kirschenbaum declared the minutes approved as amended. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Major Subdivision Pre-Application Plat Application #P-04063 - (The Bozeman Gateway). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat approval, requested by the owners, Mitchell Development Group, LLC, represented by Morrison-Maierle, Inc., to allow the subdivision of ~72 acres into 61 commercial lots. The property is described as Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A and is situated in the NW¼ of Section 14 and the NE¼ of Section 15, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located between Fowler Avenue and West College Street, south of West Main Street. (Skelton) Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the Staff Memos, and discussed the DRB Staff Report on the Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD and Subdivision. He noted there were four main points for the Planning Board to discuss. 1) Arrangement of subdivision lots that do not coincide with the footprint of the buildings. 2) Building orientation of structures fronting onto the entryway corridor. 3) Encroachments into water course setbacks and wetland setbacks. 4) Placement and need for adequate open space. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if he had any information on the DRC comments concerning the accesses over the waterways. Planner Skelton noted the applicants have focused on a 404 permit for the street crossings but was not if it included the parking lot driveway crossings. Mr. Krauss asked which streets are proposed to continue north/south to facilitate connectivity. Planner Skelton noted that Fowler Avenue is to continue south and Professional Drive also has the ability to be extended further south. Mr. Musser asked if Chronicle Drive is proposed to connect to College Street. Planner Skelton noted MDT has indicated an interest in creating the intersection with some need for intersection geometric improvements. Mr. Musser stated the curve is currently dangerous and some serious improvements would have to be done. Ms. Shaw Stroup asked if a signal was planned for the corner of Garfield Street/South 19th Avenue. Planner Skelton explained that the 2001 Transportation Plan doesn’t indicate Garfield Street as a collector; therefore, no signal is planned at this time. Mark Masek, Mitchell Group, gave an overview of who they are and what they do. He noted they began working on the project to acquire the land in 2001, made the purchase in 2003, and hired a national architect, Carter-Burgess, from Texas to design the retail center. He discussed several aspects of the project, including the street network, the orientation of the structures, the phasing of the project, and the types of the business to be attracted. Ted Mitchell, Mitchell Group, presented the proposed project, he noted there are slip lanes proposed on Huffine Lane to allow east bound traffic to decelerate and turn onto the interior streets of the development. He noted the development is not all retail as some convenience, office centers, and restaurants uses are also proposed. He stated their goal is to emphasize bicycle and pedestrian access to the site. He displayed renderings of several sites. He described the evolution of the site plan from the Farmers’ Canal as it currently is, through the middle of the area, to a site plan with no Farmers’ Canal. He noted they have met with the Farmers’ Canal Board to discuss moving the canal to the southern boundary of the development. He stated the 404 and 310 permits are in place. John Davison, Mitchell Development, discussed the streetscape, the siting of the structures on the lots in relation to Huffine Lane and other streets, and the approval by MDT of the signalization of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue, Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the tall plantings at the intersection of Fowler and Huffine Lane were to left standing. Mr. Davison noted this grouping is a natural, existing stand of willows, which they plan to leave in place. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the willows would lie in the vision triangle. Mr. Stratton noted a few of them may have to be cut to remove them from the vision triangle; however, the grove of trees just south of existing Fowler Avenue will have to be sacrificed as they lie in the path of the future extension of Fowler Avenue. Mr. Mitchell described the phasing of the development, noting the development is projected to be completed in 7 to 8 years. Mr. Hope stated that seemed to be a reasonable time frame. Mr. Mitchell noted the bridges are architectural in design. He noted the grocery store building will be moved slightly to the south to allow more greenspace between the structure and Huffine Lane, and the structure shown to the south of it will be eliminated. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how the relocation of the Farmers’ Canal would affect construction of the streets. Mr. Mitchell noted the re-routing of the canal will begin this fall or next spring, then the construction of Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street can begin. Ms. Pomnichowski asked the applicants to discuss the 50’ watercourse setback. Greg Stratton, Morrison-Maierle, indicated the location of the watercourses and setbacks. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if Fowler Avenue could be moved further west. Mr. Stratton noted MSU wouldn’t discuss locating Fowler Avenue on their property. He noted his team felt that most of the “wetlands” will dry up naturally; therefore, they are asking to relax the setback to apply from the stream rather than from the “wetlands.” He noted they are also asking to relax the 50’ setback from their created water features. Mr. Hope asked how many acres are involved in the properties in the downtown area from Rouse Avenue to Willson Avenue. He noted he was concerned that a project of this nature would have a major impact on Main Street businesses. He stated he was concerned that downtown Bozeman would suffer as those in Great Falls and Billings have suffered. Mr. Mitchell noted they feel that by the time this area is developed, in approximately 6 to 7 years, the population will be such as to support this development as well as downtown. He noted it is an upscale development. Mr. Jarrett stated for the record that he has interests in Gallatin Center. He asked why they were doing a PUD to create the development. Mr. Stratton noted the relaxations allowed by the PUD would allow the development as the applicants have proposed it. Mr. Jarrett asked why they are placing parking along the boulevard. Mr. Mitchell noted it is the current trend around the nation. Mr. Jarrett suggested they look carefully at the location of the lot lines as his development in Gallatin Center has had problems relocating them. He asked if they want to lease or sell the lots. Mr. Mitchell noted they prefer ground leases; however, some tenants prefer to own the land. Mr. Jarrett noted the more ownership Mitchell Development maintains, the more successful the development will be. Mr. Mitchell noted they plan to control the parking lots and lease the structures to control the maintenance of the project. Mr. Hope asked for examples of their work. Mr. Mitchell noted they have constructed several enclosed malls; however, this would be the first development of this type for his corporation. He described other developments they have done. He identified the partners and their accomplishments. Ms. Shaw asked why they are starting with a grocery store. Mr. Mitchell noted there is a need for one on the west side of town to serve the people in the western subdivisions. He noted it would attract people to other segments in the development. Ms. Alexander noted she was concerned about the path along Huffine Lane as people don’t tend to use paths along a major arterial. She suggested the pedestrian crossing be relocated from west to east of Fowler Avenue to allow better access to the water feature north of Huffine Lane. Mr. Mitchell explained the buffering planned between Huffine Lane and the pathway. He noted they have asked for signalization of Huffine Lane and Harmon Stream Blvd, but have met resistance from MDT. Ms. Alexander stated the mountains depicted in the color renderings will be hidden by the structures. Mr. Musser asked why the restaurants are clustered along Huffine Lane. Mr. Mitchell noted restaurant owners prefer to be located along major thoroughfares; however, there will be other restaurants located within the interior of the development, and indicated possible locations. Mr. Krauss asked how many hits have been predicted on the supermarket. Mr. Mitchell noted the prediction is for 20,000 customers per week. Mr. Krauss noted they will have to pay attention to the rear elevations of the structures along Fowler Avenue. He encouraged the applicants to consider the installation of a trail east of the water feature and continuing north. Greg Stratton, Morrison-Maierle, discussed the four items identified by Staff. He asked for a recommendation from the Board on the relaxations of the setbacks for the water courses and wetlands. He explained their request was for 35’ setback from water courses and wetlands. He noted there is a discrepancy on how Planning Staff and the applicants are interpreting the code as it relates to the calculating of open space requirements. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she felt the proposal was fairly well done. She noted she had concerns that a parking lot or a street can’t be moved on an open field void of and development. She stated she liked the added water features and the open streams. She suggested they honor the setbacks and the natural features. She asked if the proposed stormwater would undergo treatment prior to discharging into the water features. Planner Skelton noted that pretreatment of stormwater prior to running into the ponds and streams is a requirement. Ms. Alexander asked for an explanation of the setback relaxations from the streams. Mr. Stratton and Planner Skelton gave her the information. Ms. Alexander asked for the location of the three sites referenced in the Staff Report. Mr. Mitchell further explained where the setbacks on either side of the wetlands would lie if they were 50’. He noted the number of parking stalls limits the size and number of buildings they can develop. Ms. Alexander noted she could understand the request for the relaxations for Fowler and Chronicle Lane, but she couldn’t accept the relaxation for Harmon Stream Blvd. as it could be moved outside of the setback. Ms. Pomnichowski asked why the spacing of entrance was proposed to be less than the 660 foot required. Mr. Stratton explained. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the intersection proposed on College Street was already dangerous. Mr. Davison stated the proposal includes a reconfiguration of the intersection at West Main Street and College Street to include the elimination of the right turn lane on West Main Street from the west onto College Street. Mr. Stratton noted the intersection from Chronicle Lane is proposed to be right in, right out. President Kirschenbaum noted the applicant had asked for advice on the watercourse setbacks. Mr. Hope noted he would defer to Ms. Pomnichowski’s judgment as she has the expertise in the area. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she understood the setback encroachments being requested, but expressed concern that no hardship existing because it was presently raw, undeveloped land. She noted a hotel facility is needed in that portion of town. She noted the Design Objectives Plan requires the trail/path features and she commended their design of those features. She suggested the Huffine Lane pedestrian crossing be moved to Harmon Stream Blvd. She suggested they remain sensitive to the physical features. Mr. Krauss suggested they remain sensitive to the rear elevations of the buildings to satisfy the entryway corridor guidelines. He stated he is much more inclined to ignore the watercourse setbacks but will hold their feet to the fire on the design guidelines. President Kirschenbaum suggested they enhance the rear elevation of the grocery store especially from the west. A brief recess was taken. ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS A. GALLATIN COUNTY BOZEMAN AREA PLANNING – STATUS REPORT Andrew Epple, Director, City of Bozeman Planning and Community Development, introduced Jennifer Madgic, Director, Gallatin County Planning. Director Madgic gave a status report on the “donut” area surrounding the City of Bozeman. She noted the updates include the Master Plan, the Future Land Use Plan, the Zoning Regulations, and a fourth item. She stated it is an ongoing process. She noted the orange colored area is where the County thinks the City will grow. She noted the County Commission would like to see all growth occur within that boundary. Ms. Alexander asked Director Madgic to explain the substantive changes in the draft document. Ms. Madgic noted urban standards will be written out of the zoning document as more rural types of projects will be encouraged. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how the land use map will affect County decisions. Director Madgic noted there is no intention to change the zoning from 1:20 development or certain cluster development of 1:5. She stated the unzoned lands in the county can be developed at whatever density. She noted the County Commission has a track record of not approving all subdivision; however, with the change in Commission membership, those votes could change. She noted DNRC has also denied several subdivisions due to lack of water. Mr. Hope asked if the City Commission is encouraging the leapfrog development when annexing properties beyond the growth boundaries. Mr. Krauss noted the annexations allow the city to control infrastructure. Director Madgic noted the public hearing on the draft regulations will be held February 22, 2005. Ms. Alexander asked if high priority open space areas are indicated on the land use map. Director Madgic noted the Planning Board hasn’t worked on identifying specific areas. She stated there are no parks indicated; however, the trails and parks plan is a link to this plan. Mr. Krauss noted it is important to the City to know where the County proposes to locate trails and parks for connectivity. Ms. Alexander asked if there was a correlation between the plan and the land use map. She noted there are light industrial and commercial areas indicated, and asked where they are located. Director Madgic noted those areas are basically within the City of Bozeman. She noted in the County, those areas will be site specific. She noted the County supports annexation to the City rather than leapfrog development. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there was language to offer protections of natural features, wildlife corridors, industrial areas, and parklands. Ms. Alexander asked if the document was a product of the Planning Board. Director Madgic concurred. Mr. Krauss asked how the County Planning Board dealt with rezoning questions. Director Madgic stated the Board would probably offer a split recommendation to the County Commission. Mr. Hope asked if the zoning rules in the City were changed to allow a subdivision similar to Elk Grove, would it prevent those types of subdivisions from being developed in the County. Mr. Jarrett noted at the time of that development, the City was in a time of less friendly attitude towards this type of development. He noted it may or may not be of help in that instance. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the County Planning Board should be asked to show the transportation corridors within the orange areas. She stated she would probably testify at the public hearing asking the County Planning Board to provide protection for stream corridors and other sensitive areas. Mr. Hope asked if the County Planning Board is happy with the development at Four Corners. He noted it was developed using property rights. Director Madgic noted that development was outside the zoned areas in the County; however, the County is working with the area to remedy the infrastructure problems. In response to a question from the Board, Director Madgic concurred that an appearance by the City Planning Board at the public hearing might be beneficial. Mr. Krauss encouraged the Planning Boards to continue to promote the adoption of an Interlocal Agreement by the County Commission. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there could be a happy medium for development in the County be to city standards for future annexation to the city. Director Madgic noted that was part of the Interlocal Agreement. She noted the County Commission is not approving urban density in the donut area. Director Epple stated the City Manager and City Commission are looking at partial annexations with the Bozeman Trail annexation to perhaps be the first one. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the City relies on GVLT for connectivity of trails. Director Madgic noted the County relies on them also. Director Epple asked that the item be continued to the next meeting’s agenda. B. OTHER ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS A. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT President Kirschenbaum opened nominations for President. Dave Jarrett nominated, Mr. Hope seconded, Harry Kirschenbaum. As there were no other nominations, nominations ceased. Mr. Kirschenbaum was elected unanimously. B. ELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT President Kirschenbaum opened nominations for Vice President. Ms. Alexander nominated, Mr. Jarrett seconded, Ms. Pomnichowski. Ms. Pomnichowski nominated, Mr. Krauss seconded, Ms. Alexander. Ms. Pomnichowski was elected unanimously. C. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES (copy enclosed) Ms. Pomnichowski suggested the Board follow the “ Public Hearing Procedures as closely as possible to avoid the extension of meetings beyond their scope. Mr. Krauss noted there were times this evening when two conversations were going on at once. D. OTHER Ms. Pomnichowski commented she appreciated the attendance of the Board members at the joint City Commission meeting. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ___________________________________ _________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board