HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-05 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005
MINUTES
AGENDA
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET
WEDNESDAYTUESDAY, JANUARY 1FEBRUARY 155, 2005
7:00300 P.M.
(There is no Zoning Commission meeting scheduled)
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Harry Kirschenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Dave Jarrett Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Harry Kirschenbaum Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development
Ed Musser Chris Saunders, Associate Planner
JP Pomnichowski Carol Schott, Recording Secretary
Jane Shaw
Visitors Present
Voss Bowman Dick Stafani Lowell Springer
Michael Stewart Matt Cotterman Mike Stewart
Thor Arnold Thail Davis
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 Kirschenbaum called for public comment to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Hearing none, he closed the public
comment period.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 115, 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)
President Kirschenbaum called for corrections or additions to the minutes of February 15, 2005. Hearing none, he declared the minutes approved as submitted.
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 ThinkTank 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)
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)
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)
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 Major Subdivision Pre-Application #P-05001 – (Oak Springs)
A Major Subdivision Pre-Application by the owners/applicants, McDonald Land Co./Land Equity Partners respectively, represented by C&H Engineering & Surveying, to allow the subdivision
of 78.27 acres into 342 lots for residential development. The property is described as a tract of land located in the E ½ of the W ½ of the SE ¼, Section 3, T2S, R5E of P.M.M., City
of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is located at 4801 Durston Road. (Skelton)
Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the Staff Memo.
Michael Stewart, Developer, stated the parcel of land consists of two ownerships, the McDonald property and the Smith property. He noted they have worked about four months with Staff.
He noted they were asked to look at a master plan that includes the Smith properties to the west to Flanders Mill Road, the development of a community center or park, the alignment
of the major streets over the major sewer trunk line, stream corridor preservation, street connectivity within the development, and providing a variety of lot sizes. He noted the centralized
park is approximately 11 acres, with none of the stream corridors being counted towards the park requirement.
He indicated location of the affordable housing lots. He noted they have offered to install half of the street between Durston Road and Oak Street in exchange for a relaxation of the
building permit restriction due to the condition of Durston Road. He stated the Parks and Recreation Board has given its support of the park’s location and size. He noted all lots
fronting onto Durston Road or Oak Street are all rear loaded. He discussed the mix of building types anticipated on the different sized lots. He noted the street system is basically
a grid system. He stated the Smith property is to be developed first, then the rest of the property from north to south. He noted Oak Street will be extended with the first phase.
He asked for direction from the Planning Board on several issues.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked about the size of the modular lots and how they would meet the minimum lot width requirement. Mr. Stewart and Planner Skelton explained the design of the modular
lots and how they achieve the intent of the ordinance (i.e., townhouse lots). Planner Skelton noted the covenants will govern the size of the structures on the lots. Ms. Pomnichowski
noted she fully supports the duplex, triplex, and four-plex lots being disbursed throughout the development. She asked if they have floodplain and wetlands delineations. Mr. Stewart
noted they have a wetlands delineation; however, a floodplain delineation was not necessary. He noted they do not plan to move the stream. Ms. Pomnichowski noted there was a potential
for a large population within the development and no commercial development is shown on the plans to service the development. Mr. Stewart and Planner Skelton discussed the location
of the community commercial areas in the area of the development. Director Epple indicated the location of the community development areas close to this particular development, noting
there will be two neighborhood commercial centers within walking/biking distance from the development. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if a traffic study had been done. Mr. Stewart noted they
have one. Planner Skelton explained the status of the SID’s for improvements to Durston Road. He indicated the location of Ferguson Avenue. He stated it was an issue for the City
Commission to determine; however, the City Commission would appreciate input from the Planning Board. Mr. Stewart stated he felt they had addressed the connectivity problem for north/south
streets. Ms. Pomnichowski commended the developer’s attempt for connectivity. Matt Cotterman further explained the limitations on the number of accesses permitted on Durston Road.
President Kirschenbaum asked for the status of the property to the north of this one. Planner Skelton discussed the future location of the street improvements to West Oak Street as
an arterial street and how the design is based on the current location of a high voltage power line. The West Winds property to the northeast has applied for preliminary plat and will
be required to construct their half of the arterial street. Director Epple noted the City Engineering Department has given conditions for improvements to Durston Road tied to the phasing
of a subdivision. Planner Skelton explained the possible traffic calming strategies for the north/south streets. Mr. Stewart noted there will be a traffic control at Annie Street.
Ms. Shaw asked if something different was planned for the houses along the busy streets. Mr. Stewart noted they will have street facing houses with access from alleys. He noted they
have integrated several traffic calming devices, i.e. slight curves, street next to a park, etc.. Ms. Shaw asked about the property to the southeast. Mr. Stewart explained that area
is already being developed by Mr. Smith. He noted they plan to have architectural standards in place to control the styles of housing.
Mr. Jarrett asked what the different colors mean on the conceptual map. Mr. Stewart noted the green indicates lots greater than 6000 sq. ft., the narrow lots are modular lots, the
salmon lots are between 5-6,000 sq. ft, and the cross-hatched lots are 5,000 sq. ft., the affordable housing lots. Mr. Jarrett asked if the water and sewer connections would be located
in the street or in the alley. Mr. Stewart noted they will be in the alleys. Mr. Jarrett asked how many stubs will be installed for the modular lots. Mr. Stewart noted they plan to
install stubs to each lot. Mr. Jarrett suggested paving the alleys after the sewer and water connections have been installed. Mr. Stewart noted
they were planning for townhouses or single family homes on those lots. Mr. Jarrett asked when the SID’s for the improvements to Durston Road would be let. Planner Skelton noted the
City hopes to put the improvements to bid late summer or early fall of this year. Mr. Jarrett commented that they should proceed forward.
Mr. Musser asked if Staff had considered cash-in-lieu for the parkland and use the money to develop the Regional Park. Director Epple noted this park was more of a neighborhood park
for this development. Mr. Stewart noted the uses of the parks need to be integrated and not duplicated. Director Epple noted the Regional Park will serve a different clientele. Mr.
Stewart noted that if the extension of Oak Street would open the feasibility for its extension to Flanders Mill Road by Mr. Smith when he develops his land to the east of Flanders Mill
Road.
Planner Skelton noted the applicant is striving to work with Staff during the pre-application plan review with an effort to limit the number of conditions necessary approval. The applicant
is attempting to avoid any requests for variances and/or relaxations to the regulatory standards while complying with goals of the 2020 Plan.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the colored area represents their property. Mr. Stewart noted they would make a property line adjustment if this development is given a favorable nod. Ms.
Pomnichowski noted she is not in favor of relaxing the restrictions for the development without the improvements to Durston Road. She commended the applicant on the park arrangement
and was in favor of changing the property line to accommodate it. She asked if the lot width of the modular lots would require a variance. Planner Skelton noted it is a new design,
however, they are working to ensure there are no orphan lots left after the others are combined. Ms. Pomnichowski asked that they pull together the acreage and lot numbers and indicate
only one of each on the preliminary plat submittal.
The Planning Board was recessed at 8:15 p.m.
ITEM 5. UDO REVISIONS – Joint meeting with Zoning Commission.
UDO Policy Edits requested for further consideration.
Planning Board President Harry Kirschenbaum and Zoning Commission Chairperson Musser jointly directed the rest of the meeting. President Kirschenbaum opened the meeting to comments
on edits before beginning individual edit review.
Thail Davis, Director of the Downtown Business Partnership, discussed the recent conversion of a retail store into a real estate office, which raised concerns for the downtown retail
businesses. She noted the downtown businesses rely heavily on local foot traffic to patronize the local downtown businesses. She noted the Association is concerned that the change
of retail space to office uses would eliminate some of the foot traffic. She suggested an edit to the code to allow only retail uses on the ground floor in the downtown core. Director
Andrew Epple stated Ms. Davis’s comments pertain to Edit #14.
Lowell Springer, Springer Group Architects, asserted that the total time spent by the UDO
group could be equal to a quarter million dollars of professional services. He asked that the Board/Commission take the edit suggestions seriously.
Karin Caroline, Delaney and Company, asked that the group take the edit suggestions to heart. She asserted the group with which she was associated was never directed by special interest
groups, but by the group as a whole. She discussed the background of the information used to create the proposed edits. She asserted the edits are not self-driven or self-serving.
Mr. Jarrett asked for the status of the revisions previously acted upon by the Board/Commission. Chris Saunders, Associate Planner, noted those edits were bundled with staff comments
and Board/Commission comments and sent to the City Commission. He stated the material hasn’t appeared on the City Commission agendas as of yet.
Planner Saunders presented a brief background on the project for the newest members. The review of the next set of edits was begun.
Edit #5 – Planner Saunders gave the rationale for the edit. Ms. Shaw asked if there had been any problems with schools and churches in residential areas. Planner Saunders stated a
school or church in a residential area hasn’t been proposed since the UDO was adopted last year. Mr. Evans asked if schools and churches were permitted in any residential area. Planner
Saunders noted, under this edit, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for schools or churches. Mr. Evans asked what the purpose was other than additional expense. Planner
Saunders noted that first, it would give the City Commission the decision making authority. Secondly, it allows the City to look at hours of operation, etc. He noted there is an evolution
of churches from being a weekend meeting place to more social activities and intensive activities during the week, which increases the activity in a neighborhood. A CUP allows a more
factual look at a project. Mr. Evans asked if there wasn’t a better way to protect the neighbors. Planner Saunders noted an alternative would be to craft specific standards for Community
Centers, such as moving a certain sized structure farther from the property line. Mr. Chisholm commented the types of mitigation discussed seem to be the nature of a CUP, and it is
a significantly different use from the intended use – housing. Planner Saunders noted a threshold could be developed to distinguish review between a site plan and a CUP.
Mr. Jarrett reminded the Board/Commission that they had decided at a previous meeting that they would consider each Edit and vote on them.
Ms. Pomnichowski noted there are three proposed actions and one recommended action for this edit. She suggested voting on the recommended action, then consider the other options if
necessary. She noted she supported Action 1.
Vote - Action 1 – 3; Action 2 – 1; Action 3 -3, with one abstention.
Edit #6 – Planner Saunders gave the rationale for the edit. Ms. Shaw asked if the approval of the edit would require a CUP. Planner Saunders noted that was correct. He noted the UDO
had listed the use as a permitted use in error. Since 1991, offices in R-4 have been allowed only with a CUP.
Vote – Action 1 – 6; Action 2 – 0; Action 3 – 1; with one abstention.
Edit #8 - The edit will be discussed and voted upon next time.
Edit #10 – No discussion - Vote – Action 1 – 4; Action 2 – 3, with one abstention.
Edit #11 – No discussion - Vote – Action 1 – 2; Action 2 – 0; Action 3 – 0; Action 4 – 5; with one abstention.
Edit #12 – Ms. Shaw asked if the edit would increase the side yard setback from 5’ to 8’. Director Epple noted it would; he stated the side yard setbacks were changed about three years
ago to 5’ to accommodate the historic neighborhoods. Mr. Jarrett noted the last few subdivisions have had smaller lots, for which changing the side yard setbacks would make a big difference
in whether a home could be constructed on the lot. He stated it is almost impossible to meet the 8’ requirements. Mr. Arnold stated lots with large homes in infill areas are creating
shaded yards. He suggested allowing a portion of a home be in the 5’ setback. He stated the 5’side yard setback would continue to change the fabric of the historic areas. He noted
Action 3 might be the more appropriate option. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the 5’ side yard setback is also a fire danger. She stated she would support the 8’ setback. Director Epple noted
the change could affect the narrow lots by either having a garage dominated front yard or a garage access from the alley.
Vote – Action 1 – 2; Action 2 – 0; Action 3 – 0; Action 4 – 5; with one abstention.
Edit #14 – Planner Saunders gave the rationale for the edit, and noted City Commission has adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting ground level offices in the core area, which will
expire soon. Ms. Shaw noted she felt the edit was a restriction on freedom by allowing retail businesses an advantage over other business types.
MOTION: Mr. Jarrett moved to send the edit back to Planning Staff to be rewritten. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Chisholm noted it is an appropriate tool to force retail
businesses only on the ground level. He stated he supported Action 1.
Vote – Action 1 – 5; Action 2 -2; with one abstention.
Edit #15 – Mr. Evans asked if a drive-in could be located there. It was noted a drive-in restaurant could be located in a B-1 zoning district if all code requirements could be met.
Vote – Action 1 – 6; Action 2 – 1; with one abstention.
Edit #17 – Planner Saunders gave the rationale for the edit. Mr. Evans asked if the edit would be an additional requirement. Planner Saunders noted it would not, and, in fact, it would
give
the user more flexibility.
Vote – Action 1 – 7; Action 2 – 0; with one abstention.
Edit #18 – The edit will be discussed and voted upon next time.
Edit #19 – Ms. Pomnichowski gave the rationale from her group for the edit. Planner Saunders noted there were some technical problems with the edit. He noted that Staff’s opinion was
that there would be community center type developments in random places, yet not in the defined areas as designated in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Director Epple noted the idea
of supportive uses was appropriate; however, it may be covered in an expansion of the accessory use category. He noted accessory uses don’t conflict with the underlying land use designation.
MOTION: Mr. Jarrett moved to ask Ms. Pomnichowski’s group and Planning Staff to collaborate to re-write the edit. Following discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Director Epple suggested
adding an Action 2 – to expand the list of allowable accessory uses in BP, R-O, and R-4 zoning districts and establish criteria for them. Planner Saunders noted, since the Board/Commission
seem to be in agreement that Edits #21 - #30 are similar to Edit #19, and if the edit is moved forward by City Commission, Staff and the group would work together to create an amendment
that includes all of Edits #21 through #30 into Edit #19.
Vote – Action 1 – 1; Action 2 – 6; with one abstention.
Edit #21 – Planner Saunders gave the rationale for the edit and explained that no text has been drafted. Staff is seeking approval for the idea before beginning work. Vote – Action
1 – 7; Action 2 – 0; with one abstention.
Edit #23 – Planner Saunders noted the combined changes of Edit #23 – 30 would change the character of BP zoning districts. He gave the rationale for Staff’s lack of support.
Vote – Action 1 – 1; Action 4 – 6; with one abstention.
Edit #24 – Planner Saunders noted it already is allowed. Vote – Action 1 – 0; Action 4- 7.
Edit #25 – Planner Saunders stated the subject of the edit is currently allowed as a CUP. He gave the rationale for the edit. Vote – Action 1 – 0; Action 4 – 7; with one abstention.
Edit #26 – Planner Saunders gave the rationale for Staff’s non-support of the edit. Vote – Action 1 – 0; Action 4 – 7; with one abstention.
Edit #27 – Planner Saunders gave the rationale for Staff’s non-support of the edit. He noted Staff would suggest a much smaller number of beds than the 100 proposed as a review change
threshold should this edit be approved. Vote – Action 1 – 1; Action 4 – 6; with one
abstention.
Edit#28 – Planner Saunders gave rationale for the edit. Vote – Action 1 – 0; Action 2 – 4; Action 4 – 3; with one abstention.
Edit #29 – Planner Saunders gave rationale for the edit. Vote – Action 1 – 0; Action 2 – 4; Action 4 – 3; with one abstention.
Edit #30 – Planner Saunders gave rationale for the edit. Vote – Action 1 – 0; Action 2 – 3; Action 4 – 4; with one abstention.
Edit #32 – Planner Saunders gave rationale for the edit. Vote – Action 1 – 6; Action 4 – 1; with one abstention.
ITEM 667. NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 778. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President
Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board