Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-05 Planning Board & Zoning CommissionMinutes.docAGENDA CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET WEDNESDAYTUESDAY, JANUARY 1FEBRUARY 155, 2005 7:0030 P.MMINUTES. (There is no Zoning Commission meeting scheduled) ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice President JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Member Present Staff Present Sarah Alexander Susan Kozub, Planner Dave Jarrett Jami Morris, Associate Planner Ed Musser Carol Schott, Recording Secretary JP Pomnichowski Jane Stroup Visitors Present A complete list of registered visitors is on file at the Department of Planning and Community Development. 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 Pomnichowski called for public comment on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. NoneThere was no public comment at this time. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2005MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2004 ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-04059 - (The Village Downtown Amended Plat). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat approval, requested by the owners, Village Investment Group, Inc., to allow the re-subdivision of ~ 8 acres in the Amended Plat of the Village Downtown PUD that would allow a reduction in the number of residential townhouse lots from 32 to 28 lots. The property is described as Lots 101 through 145, Village Downtown PUD Subdivision and is located in the NE¼ of Section 7 and the NW¼ of Section 8, T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is located generally located east of North Broadway Avenue on both sides of Village Downtown Boulevard. (Windemaker) Vice President Pomnichowski called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 1, 2005. Hearing none, Vice President Pomnichowski declared the minutes approved as presented. B. Growth Policy Amendment Application #P-04060 - (Spring Creek Village Resort, Lot 5). A Growth Policy Amendment application, proposed by the owners, Michael W. Delaney and Ileana Indreland, to amend the growth policy land use designation, as shown on the Future Land Use Map, from “Business Park” to “Community Commercial” on ~ 31 acres. The property is described as Lot 5, The Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision , and is located in the SW¼ of Section 10, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located between West Main Street/Fallon Street and Ferguson Avenue/Resort Drive. (Skelton) ITEM 54. PROJECT REVIEW A. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-04062 - (Brady Avenue). A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat application, requested by the applicant, Stockyard, LLC, represented by Think Tank Design Group, Inc., to allow the subdivision of ~ 2 acres into 4 residential lots. The property is owned by Tom & Susan Vander Vos, and is described as Lot 20, Block 7, Babcock & Davis Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located at north end of Brady Avenue, between Wallace Avenue and Ida Avenue. (Kozub) Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report and noted t. Three letters of public comment hadve been received regarding density and street improvements. Mr. Jarrett Dave asked if the triplex will remain. Planner KozubSusan noted it wouldill remain as a legal nonconforming use. Ms. Alexander Sarah asked if there were any comments from DRC regarding the need for two accesses to the property. Planner KozubSusan noted the fire department has is okay with the “T” turn around as proposed. Ms. Shaw Jane asked if the developer will bear the entire cost of the street improvements. Planner KozubSusan noted they willould, but that the majority of the sidewalks are already installed, however, with the new lots the upgrades must be done. Brian Caldwell, Think Tank Design Group and the applicant/representative, noted they had notified all the neighbors of what theytheir intentionsded and have had the opportunity to communicate with many of the neighbors. He stated this is an infill project with street improvements that provides some benefits to the surrounding area. He also noted that the new. as He noted the sidewalks would be installed andgo around the existing trees. He noted they explored the feasibility of connecting Brady Avenue to Wallace Avenue, however, it wasn’t necessary or desired by the neighborsdidn’t work. Vice President Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Kibbie Horsley, 414 North Brady Avenue, read her letter into the record. Her concerns were with the lack of an adequate street, lack of adequate parking, saving her trees, and her recommendation for single-family residences. .Shirley Waganhals, 428 North BradyWallace Avenue, noted the zoning for the area has been zoned down to R-2Aonly allow duplexes and single family homes. She was concerned about the added density. She noted she is for infill. She stated some of the area hHomes have been expensively renovated. D, Breanda Boyd, 411 North Ida Avenue, recommended the construction of single-family homes. She suggested a smaller scale for the structures. She stated she was greateful the property was to be cleaned up, but would prefer 2 not 3 lots. Alliyson Berry, 405 North Ida Avenue, asked what the impacts would be on Ida Avenue. Mr. Caldwell stated there would be none. Theresea Galleyi, 410 North Brady Avenue, stated she would support single-family homes and more than that would cause congestion of the area. Jay Paoppye, 415514 North Ida Avenue, noted the traffic in and out of the apartment complex across from them is phonenomphenomenal. He stated he would sSupports single family lots. Vice President Pomnichowski called for further comment, and hearing none, she COLOSOED THE PUBLIC COMEMNT PORTION OF THE MEETING. Eric Nelson, Think Tank, apologized for some ofto the neighbors who didn’t receive the initial letter prior to the process. He noted the triplex will continue to operate as is. He stated two of the three lots are under contract for single family homes. He noted parking on Brady Avenue will be improved. He stated Tthere are six occupants in the 1600 square foot house who contribute to the parking problem. Mr. Jarrett Dave asked for a description ofwhat the profile of Brady Avenue will be. Mr. Nelson explained it would have a 26’ wide roadway with regular curb and gutter and sidewalk. He noted they haveare proposing to allowed for install drainage facilities fromfor all of Brady Avenue and the proposed properties. Mr. Musser Ed asked if all of the lots will have on -site parking andwith no parking in the turn around. Planner Kozub noted that the Staff would probably support parking might be allowed ion some of the front yards if eacheachthe interested households wanted toould apply for a neighborhood deviation. She noted the design and scale of the houses would be reviewed under a COA application. There wouldShe noted no b e no additional access would be allowedconstructed onto Ida Avenue. Mr. Jarrett Dave asked what the process would be for each household to apply for a curb cut. Planner KozubSusan noted the Planning Office was willing to process a deviation for the neighborhood prior to the paving of the lotstreet. Mr. JarrettDave noted there is aare parking issues problem with parking during the day. Mr. Jarrett Dave stated itthe project was a great opportunity to create infill. He would prefer the triplex became a single household, but could live with the proposal. Ms. Alexander Sarah noted she concurred with DaveMr. Jarrett’s comments. She stated she was iIn 100% support of the project. She noted that because of the current zoning of the properties, duplexes are a possibility on any of the lots there could be duplexes. She noted she didn’t think the project would exacerbate the parking situation. Ms. Shaw Jane noted there certainlymay be problems with parking; however, paving and curbing of the streets will enhance the value of the properties. Mr. Musser Ed noted he concurred with previous comments. He stated the project should be beneficial to the neighborhood. MOTION: Mr. Jarrett moved, seconded by Ms. Alexander, to recommend approval of application #P-04062 with Staff’s conditions. CThe motion carried unanimously. B. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-04061 - (The Legends at Bridger Creek). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application, requested by the applicants, Brownstone Capital, represented by Van Bryan Studio Architects, to allow the subdivision of 20.12 acres into 65 residential lots. The property is owned by Aspen Properties I, LLC, is described as a tract of land being Tract 7A of Certificate of Survey No. 2408, and is situated in the NW¼ SW¼ of Section 32, T1S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Story Mill Road and Boylan Road extended. (Morris) Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report, reviewed the Staff recommended conditions of approval, the recommendations of GVLT and the Parks and Recreation Board. Ms. AlexanderSarah askded if about the parkland dedication was indicated on the maps and if the parkland requirements had been met. Planner MorrisJami ;noted the parkland is indicated on anone exhibit in a darker green. SheSarah asked if they had met the parkland requirements. Jami noted they do have meet the parkland requirements. Ms. AlexanderDSarah asked if about the possiblea variancewaiver could be granted for the subdivision as currently drawn, what would be the other criteria would have to be met. Planner Morris noted the criteria would be for unusual topography, adjacent to an arterial, and orientation. Ms. Shaw asked since there are townhouses are thereacross the street, should the homes in this subdivision have to face the townhouses. Planner Morris explained. Van Bryan, Studio Architects and applicant’s representative, discussed the Aaspen grove on Lot 11 and how they have planned for its protection. He noted a side yard setback should adequately protect the grove. He noted with respect to the trail, he noted they prefer to landscape the interior of the lots rather than install a hedge along the rear lot lines. He stated with respect to Story Mill Road, he read from the UDO on block lengthwidth. He noted the orientation of the lots along Story Mill Road helpsed create a sense of neighborhood. He stated orientation is a primary aconcern with regard to having the neighbors be facing one another. He noted the hedge would be removed, parking would be on Story Mill Road, and the neighbors would have their back doors facing one another if the orientation is towards Story Mill Road. He stated they feelt this is not a variance nor a PUD issue. Ms. Shaw asked where people wouldhow parking for the units was planned. Mr. Bryan noted each unit would have on-site parking with the possibility of some on-street parking. In response to Ms. Shaw, asked for the location of the hedge. Mr. Bryan indicated the hedge location on the site plan. Mr. Hope asked where people would park if the units are facing Story Mill Road. Mr. Bryan noted most visitors would park on Story Mill Road as most visitorsthey wouldn’t feel comfortable entering the rear of the property fromthrough an the alley. Mr. Jarrett asked for the classification ofwhat type standard Story Mill rRoad. Planner MorrisJami noted it is designated as a collector in the 2001 Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. Mr. Jarrett asked wherat the numbers are e the cut-off will be to change it to an arterial. He stated it doesidn’t make sense to him to have the townhouses face Story Mill Road. Vice President Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. Mildred McAfee, 1321 Bridger Drive and an adjoining property owner along with her sister, noted they had been concernedsome problems with the alignment of Boylan Road, but that issue ose haves been resolved. She noted her concern areis for safety issues. She noted as she plans her property is going to maintain agricultural uses on their property and they don’t want children being hurt on their property. She noted they use chemicals and fertilizers which could be of danger to children. She stated she was concerned about the possibility of fire. She suggested there be a chain link fence installed to prevent the children and pets from entestrayring onto hertheir property. Russ Squire, 5195 Copeland Lane and developer of the townhousme lots, stated he had eliminated 9 lots ofcut back the number of THtownhouse lotss to 35. He noted the young families will need bedrooms on a second floor. He noted residents agedthe 55 and up don’t want to back into a 20 foot alley. He noted the existing hedge row providgives a buffer from the street. He noted it adds appeal. Margaret Cone, 134134 Bridger Drive, noted she would prefer the applicantlike to save as much open space and foliage as possible. She stated tThe hedge is full of birds, and, if they leave because the hedge is removedare gone, the space will be overtaken by mice. She noted she can see eagles and deer from her property. She recommended the hedge be keepting the hedge as a buffer. She noted Rouse Avenue is becoming more congested every day. She suggested the Board look at safety factors for Rouse. Dane Gamble, 1315 Hitching Post Road and an owner of property at 1031 Story Mill Roadland diagonally across, across the road from the property. He noted the trails on Bridger Creek Golf Course are provided courtesy of the Golf Course on a year-to-year basis. He noted hedges haven’t been considered topography in any of his college courses. He noted the hedge is really a barrow pit full of Cchokecherry bushes. He noted the vegetation may or may not survive the widening of the street or the lack of moisture from the barrow ditch. He noted that Story Mill Road is not located in the centered ofin the right-of-way. He asked where the right-of-way will be located on his property. He noted there is a point of diversion of water from Bridger Creek for the golf course northeast of the property and he would hope they would allow access to their point of diversion point. Don Jackson, 1280 Story Mill Road,. He noted indicated the location of the diversion. He in andted the location of his property to the north of the property. He noted his letter needs a correction as the sidewalk is on the west side of the street. He concurred that the hedge is really a mature .Cchokecherry and Aaspen hedge which is critical to the animal habitat. He noted, that even when the landfill is closed, thatat traffic will be replaced by the traffic from whatever is developed there. He noted the aspen grove on Lot 11 could be preserved by moving the lot line to the west. He noted it doesn’t make sense to place the trail in the oxbow along the creek as there will be water in the oxbow some day. He stated there should be adequate space between the trail and the oxbow. He suggested the trail be located along the southern boundary and gcontinueo north between the two eastern most lots into the parkland. He stated the largest concern is preserving the mature vegetation. Bill Ranard, 25013 Valhalla Court, stated the new development will be great. He noted he is chairperson of the Valhalla Townhousme Association, and. He no stated he has dealt with the road issue for 8 or 9 years. He stated Story Mill Road is off center by 7 to 9 feet to the west, leaving no room to construct a boulevard or for parking on the west side of Story Mill Road. He noted an ugly fence, which has to be power washed and re-stained every other year, has been constructed for the safety of the residents. He noted the roadway was originally planned as a 460 foot road . Hfor which his subdivision has dedicated 30 feet for the roadway. He asked if the right-of-way problems couldn’t be remediedfixed when with the propertiesnew across the road annexations and to create the needed 90 foot right-of-way. He stated traffic from Sypes Canyon and other subdivisions to the north feed onto Story Mill Road. He noted the fence has to be power washed and re-stained every other year. He noted he spoke to George Durkin of the County Road Department about drainage behind the townhousesfrom Story Mill Road. as He noted water from the swale splashes over the 8 foot fence onto the townhouses. He asked that the whole road be fixed. He stated ifasked that the subdivision could be given the right-of-way for a boulevard back, the homeownersthe subdivision would find money to help withlandscape it. He stated there is a sight problem withwhen crossing Story Mill Road onfrom Boylan Road. He noted there is no place to plant trees because there is no boulevard. He noted parking along Story Mill Road will be used by residents on both sides of the street. He stated the trail is about 1000 feet from the Catherine Ebelke, 1280 Story Mill Road, stated preserving the vegetation is most important to her family and visitors to the area. She noted the developers have been very considerate with answering questions and concerns of the neighbors. She noted the facing of the townhomuses towards Story Mill Road would be bad. She concurred with the placement of the trail along Story Mill ?Road. Vice President Pomnichowski called for further public comment, and hearing none, she CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING. Mr. Bryan noted he would work with Mr. Gamble to alllieviate his concern about access to his property. He noted trails are required by the City of Bozeman. He nostated the trail system to the west from Story Mill Road to “Bozeman Beach” is quite a bit narrower. He noted the distance between the trail/ and the street distance in the oxbow area is 16 feet. He suggested perhaps installing a trestle. He concurred with Mr. Ranard that Story Mill Road is located in the wrong placenot centered in the right-of-way. He noted surveys have been done by the City to realign the street. (This is not factual!). Matt Ekcstrom, Morrison-Maierle, indicated the property lines and the proposed location of the curb line in respect to the hedge. He suggested the sidewalk be located insideinside the hedge next to the townhouses. He noted the proposedrequired parkland is almost double what is required. Mr. JarrettDave asked what the right-of-way would total row will be. Mr. Eckstorm stated it is a 48 foot back of curb to back of curb. He noted the stormwater runoff will have to be dealt with.Mr. Jarrett Dave asked if the sidewalk could be moved to the east side of the hedge. Planner MorrisJami noted itthat location would generally require a subdivision variance and is an engineering staff decision. DaveMr. Jarrett asked how the 48 foot right-of-way willould align with the rest of Story Mill Road. Mr. Eckstrom noted there roadway willould be a tapering of the to meet the existing roadway. He noted with the closing of the barrow ditch would be eliminated, and a sprinkler system wcillould be installed to waterirrigate the hedge. Planner Morris noted additional right-of-way will not be required on the east side to make up the missing rowdifference. She nostated she didn’t know howthe engineering Department will determine how the road willould be centered. She noted with the hedge, the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan acts to unite neighborhoods not isolate them; therefore, staff is recommending the removal of the hedge. She noted there was concern by staff of what would happen to the hedge if not it wasn’t irrigated. She noted Staff is recommending the vegetation from the hedge be relocated elsewhere. Mr. Hope asked if Staff thought the property owners of Lots 1-8 would/could install some type of buffer between the homes and Story Mill Road. Planner Morris noted regular street landscaping would be required. Mr. Musser asked if the Planning Board could recommend the applicant preservethey were to proceed with keeping the hedge, and could the Board recommend it and how would the Commission would handle it. Planner Morris noted it would be up to Commission to determine if the criteria are met. Ms. Shaw asked if any of the hedge would remain, and if there was a way to preserve the hedge. ShePlanner Morris noted the hedge is completely within the right-of-way except in the thickest part. Ms. Shaw asked if there would be a way of preserving the hedge. Planner MorrisShe noted Staff has reviewed the site and felt that most of the hedge would be removed during construction of the street. Ms. Alexander asked if a variance would be required for the street name change. Planner MorrisJami stated that a variance would be requiredconcurred. Ms. Alexander asked if a trail and sidewalk are proposed, a. And is the right-of-way wide enough forto include a sidewalk. Planner Morris Jami noted the street standards require the installation of a year round pedestrian facility. Mr. Hope stated the houses should have their backs to Story Mill Road. He noted iIt would be great to save the hedge; however, that may not be possible. He noted facing the homes toward Story Mill Road would create a nightmare. Ms. Shaw noted Story Mill Road has changed from a local street to a collector. She noted it is appropriate what the future of the street is. She noted she felt the houses should face inward to allow the residents to have front yards towards the interior of the subdivision for their children’s safety. Mr. Musser noted it wouldn’t be an ideal situation to front the homes onto Story Mill Road. He would be supportive of leaving the treeshedge, and facing the homes to the interior, and saving the Aaspen grove. Ms. Alexander stated she was supportive of having the homes face the street and not having a wall of fences on either side of the streets. She noted the fronting houses on the street is to create a sense of overall neighborhood. She then noted this may not be a section of Story Mill Road to hold to the UDO as this may be a special circumstances. She was concerned about the maintenance of the backyards if they fronted on Story Mill Road. She stated she wanted to see a sidewalk along Story Mill Road, the trail go through the parkland with a 25 foot width in all areas, and preservation of most of the vegetation. She wanted to see Lot 11 ten or eleven feet narrower or consult with GVLT on the trestle idea to maintain the 25 foot trail easement. She was concerned about the stand of aspens and would like to preserve it. She stated she had an issue with several of the smaller open space areas. Se noted open spaces #3 and #5 don’t serve any purpose, and she’d like them to go away. She suggested placing those open spaces in areas that are more usable. Mr. Ekstorm noted the open spaces on the south are for retention ponds. Ms. Alexander suggested relocating the open spaces to the north of the property. Ms. Monteith, Design Group, noted the green spaces next to Boylan Road are for entry enhancement with native plantings. Ms. Alexander noted the alley in Block 3 is commendable. She noted she would like to see an alley in Block 4. She stated all of the lots should face onto the same streets and none of them face side streets. She noted this creates lots with back yards facing onto the side yards of the interior lots. She stated she would like to see the trail moved to the east of Lot 9 allowing for a transition from the area to the south into the parkland to the north. She suggested moving the lots to the west. She noted this would create fewer street crossings by the trail. Mr. Jarrett commended the applicants’ attempt to save the chokecherry hedge. He noted there is a room to place the street, sidewalk, hedge, and trail in the right-of-way. He noted they plan to sprinkler the hedge. He suggested adding a condition, as depicted on the proposed plat, that the lots don’t front Story Mill Road; that Lot 11 should remain as is; that 63 feet is plenty of room for a trail for condition 10; and leave the decision on the location of the trail up to the developers. Vice President Pomnichowski stated she was concerned with the ground water levels and would like a plat notation to not allow substructures. Ms. Alexander asked if condition #4 should be revised to read, “… the natural fines trail be installed in addition to the sidewalk.” Mr. Ekstrom stated if a trail and a sidewalk are required, the hedge will be destroyed. He noted the installation of the curb would remove most of the hedge. Ms. Alexander noted the gravel trail through Bridger Creek is not used as much during winter and isn’t an all weather trail. Mr. Hope concurred with Mr. Jarrett that Lot 11 will be one of the first places sold. Ms. Alexander noted the condition should stand as stated. Ms. Alexander stated she was supportive of having homes face the street and not having walls on either side of the streets. She noted the fronting houses on the street is to create a sense of neighborhood. She noted this may not be a section of Story Mill Road to hold to the UDO. She stated she thought it is a special circumstances. She was concerned about the maintenance of the backyards. She suggested ainstallation of the sidewalk along Story Mill Road and, the trail go through the parkland with a 25 foot width in all areas and the , preservation of most of the vegetation. She wanted to see Lot 11 dealt with on the pinched part of the trail by making 10 and 11 narrower or consult with GVLT on the trestle idea. She was concerned about the stand of Aaspens and would like to preserve it and not push into it. She had an issue with several of the smaller open space areas. #3 and #5 don’t serve any purpose. She would like to see itthem go away. Mr. Eckstorm noted the openspaces on the south are for retention ponds. Ms. Alexander suggested placing the the openspaces in the back of the property. Ms. ___ noted the graeen spaces next to Boylan Road are for entry ehancement with plantgings and native plants. Ms. Alexander noted the alley in Block 3 is commendable. She would like to see an alley in Block 4. She stated all the lots should face onto the same streets because the current configuration is awkward. She would like to see the trail moved to the east of Lot 9. She suggested placing the trail on the eastern most portion of Lot 9 and move the lots to the west. This would create fewer street crossings by the trail. If the trail stays where proposed, it should be widened to 25 feet. She suggested placing the open spaces in areas that are more usable. Mr. Jarrett commended the attempt to save the Cchokecherry hedge. He noted there is a room to place the street, sidewalk, hedge, and trail in the row. He noted the hedge can be sprinklered. He suggested adding a condition, as depicted on the proposed plat the lots don’t front Story Mill Road; Lot 11 should remain as is, there is 63 feet for a trail for condition 10; leave the decisioin on the location of the trail up to the developers. Vice President Pomnichowski stated she was concerned with the water levels and would like a plat notation to not allowprohibit substructures. Ms. Alexander asked if condition #4 should be revised to read, “… the natural fines trail be installed in addition to the sidewalk.” Mr. Eckstrom stated if there is a trail and a sidewalk, the hedge will get hammered. He noted just to get the curb installed will take most of the hedge. Ms. Alexander noted the gravel trail through Bridger Creek is used in winter. Mr. Hope concurred with Mr. Jarrett that Lot 11 will be one of the first places sold. Ms. Alexander noted the condition should stand as stated. MOTION: Mr. Hope moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to delete condition #8. Ms. Shaw asked who would maintain the aspen grove if wasn’t included in a lot. Mr. Bryan noted the Home Owners Association would be responsible for it. Ms. Alexander noted moving the lot line would widen the pinch point of the trail. Mr. Jarrett noted the aspen grove is a great selling point for the lot. The motion failed with a 3-3 vote with Mr. Hope, Ms. Shaw, and Mr. Jarrett voting in favor, and Mr. Musser, Ms. Alexander, and Vice President Pomnichowski voting against. Mr. Bryan noted the developer has offered an alternative for Lot 11, moving the lot line to the southwest of the aspen grove. MOTION: Mr. Musser moved, Ms. Alexander seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-04061 with staff conditions. AMENDMENT: Mr. Hope moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to amend the motion to strongly recommend the houses not be required to front onto Story Mill Road. Mr. Hope withdrew his amendment, and Mr. Jarrett removed his second. AMENDMENT: Ms. Alexander moved, Ms. Shaw seconded, to support the variance for the block width due to unique circumstances. The vote on the amendment was 6-0. AMENDMENT: Mr. Jarrett moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to amend Ms. Alexander’s amendment that the houses will not be required to front onto Story Mill Road. The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Alexander voting against. The motion carried 6-0. Mike moved to delete condition #8, seconded by Dave. Ms. Shaw asked who would maintain the aspen grove if not on a lot. Mr. Bryan noted the HOA. Ms. Alexander noted the moving of the lot line would widen the pinch point of the trail. Mr. Jarrett noted the Aaspen grove is a great selling point for the lot. Mike, Jane, and Dave in favor. Ed, Sarah, and JP against. It will be up to the Commission. Mr. Bryan noted the developer would offer an alternative to move the lot line to the southwest of the Aaspen grove. MOTION: Ed moved to recommend approval of application with staff conditions. Sarah seconded. AMENDMENT; Mike moved to amend the motion to strongly suggest the houses not fronting on Stosry Mill Road. Seconded by Dave. Mike with drew his amendment, Dave removed his second. Amendment: Sarah moved to support the application with unique circumstances and , support the variancewaiver for the block width. Seconded by Jane. The vote on the amendment to the amendment was 6-0. Amendment to Sarahs amendment that the houses will not front on Story Mill Road, Seconded by Mike. Carried 5-1 with Sarah voting against. The motion carried 6-0.MEET JOINTLY WITH ZONING COMMISSION C. Major Subdivision Pre- Application #P-04058 - (Creekwood). A Major Subdivision Pre-Application, requested by the owners/applicants, Snowload LLC, represented by Gaston Engineering & Surveying, to allow the subdivision of ~ 38 acres into 53 residential lots. The property is described as a tract of land being the second tract described in Document No. 2012272, situated in the E½, SE¼ of Section 32, T1S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located north of Bridger Drive, northeast of Headlands Subdivision. (Morris) Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Memo. Mr. Musser noted the Zoning Commission has seen this proposal. Jami concurred. Shaun Shahan, Snowload, LLC and owner, stated thise project was designed as is a pedestrian friendly development. He noted it is a single family neighborhood with access to a trail from each lot. He described the trails proposed with the recommendation of GVLT. Ms. Shaw asked what kind of accesses will be onto Bridger DFrive. Mr. Shahan indicated the accesses. Dennis Foreman noted there will be stop signs toe regulateing traffic. Mr. Jarrett asked what wais currently being doneconstructed at the creek. Mr. Foreman noted the highway department is replacing the bridge. He noted the proposed speed limits are set by MDT. Vice President Pomnichowski asked how the 100 year flood plain was determined. Mr. Foreman noted they superimposed a site-based flood map over the site drawn mapplan. He notindicated the on-street parking indicated along the park. Ms. Alexander commended them on the accesses to the park. She stated she was concerned about left turns from the subdivision. Mr. Foreman explained MDT sets the requirements for accesses and the proposed accesses meet their specifications. Vice President Pomnichowski asked what the wider sections of streetparts are between Lots 22 and 23 and north of Lot 6. Mr. Foreman noted thoseey are the mail boxe drops. Ms. Alexander commended them for not congregating the affordable lots. She suggested trees be planted between Bridger Drive and the trail. Mr. Foreman noted they would prefer no trees there, but they are considering the installationing of a jackleg fence. Mr. Shahan noted they are looking at a couple of options one of which is planting of trees. Ms. Alexander noted the trail in Headlands with trees is more friendly than the parts without trees. She suggested a covenant against boundary fences. She was concerned that the trails were too steep. Mr. Shahan noted they walked all the trails with Gary Vodehnal and they are in locations where the creek can be enjoyed. Mr. Jarrett noted he would like to see the ability for folks to have fences in their back yards. He asked if there will be a bridge across the creek. Mr. Shahan noted there are two bridges. Mr. Hope nostated it is a great development. Vice President Pomnichowski asked whathy they needed thea floodplain permit is for in the engineering conditions. Mr. Foreman noted since they know if they need a permit due to the uncertainty of the design of the bridges, they plan to have the permits in hand in case they need themare not sure. Mr. Shahan noted the wood from the old structures would be used as materials for the as entry way signs. Vice President PomnichowskiShe noted there is something contradictory about trails and fences. She stated fFences make for an unfriendly environment, yet without fences, there are problems with extendinged backyards into the trails area. Mr. Shahan noted the City Commission is supportingve of the installationing of vegetation to mark the boundaries. He noted covenants are being written for protecting viewsheds, while protecting pets, and children. Vice President PomnichowskiShe stated she would like to see themprefer they submit for the permits and then not use them if they prove to be unnecessarynot needed. A. INFORMAL REVIEW Informal Application #I-04031 - (Churn Creek Meadows). An Informal Application, requested by the owners OBD Inc., represented by Springer Group Architects , P.C., to annex and provide urban zoning of R-1 (Residential, Single Family, Low Density District) for 360 acres. The property is currently zoned A-S (Agriculture Suburban) in the county. The property is located East of Story Mill Road, just east of the City of Bozeman Landfill. (Morris B. UDO REVISIONS UDO Policy Edits, if any have been returned from other reviewing agencies. ITEM 56. OLD BUSINESS Secretary SchottCarol noted the UDO edits memo has been distributed and the January Building Permit report were distributed prior to the meeting. DaveMr. Jarrett noted he will be notifying the public of the Planning Board meetings concerning certain proposed edits to the UDO. Discussion followed on the process of forwardinghow the edits will be forwarded to the Commission. Everyone agreed the discussion a this point was on forwarding a recommendation as to whether or not a proposed item should be further considered by the City Commission. ITEM 67. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 78. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City of Bozeman Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. *City of Bozeman Planning Board/Zoning Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a special need or disability, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).____________________________________ ______________________________________ Jami Morris, Associate Planner JP Pomnichowski, Vice President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board