Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-05 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 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 Joint meeting of the Planning Board and Zoning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Harry Kirschenbaum Jami Morris, Associate Planner JP Pomnichowski Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Dave Jarrett Andrew Epple, Planning Director Jane Stroup Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Sarah Alexander Mike Hope Visitors Present Rob Pertzborn Karen Jacobson Jeff DeVoe Marsha McKaveney 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.} Lowell Springer, representing the Hawkins-Cape, developers of Stoneridge Phase 4, stated he thought the project was on the agenda. He noted his clients came from Boise for this meeting. He asked that the Stoneridge MaSub Pre-ap be placed on the agenda. Ms. Pomnichowski questioned the need for noticing. Director Epple noted there are no noticing requirements for pre-applications. President Kirschenbaum noted the item could be added at the end of the project reviews. The Board concurred. Loren Olsen, Local Government Study Committee, noted the Commission is looking for feedback from the Planning Board, and invited the Board to attend the meetings held on the second and fourth Tuesdays. He asked the public to provide comment, also. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 3 AND 17, 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 May 3 and 17, 2005. Ms. Alexander moved, Ms. Pomnichowski seconded, to accept both sets of minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously. 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. TRACY OULMAN -- NEIGHBORHOOD COORDINATOR – Jointly with Zoning Commission. A discussion of the Neighborhood Coordinator’s role in the City. Tracy Oulman, Neighborhood Coordinator, presented a discussion of her role in neighborhoods of the city. Mr. Jarrett asked if any of the newer HOA’s have come forward to join INC’s discussions. Ms. Oulman noted none had come forward at this time. President Kirschenbaum asked, since there are several HOA’s, if they could join the INC? Ms. Oulman noted they could, if they were willing to meet the basic criteria for INC participation and pointed out that a variety of representative structures exists and did not rule out the possibility for HOAs participating with the INC. She noted she was having a difficult time finding the HOA presidents or any other contact for most of the HOA’s and encourages the any members of the board to send citizens to the Neighborhoods Program. ITEM 5. 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 Informal Application #I-05011 - (Madill). A Major Subdivision Informal, requested by the applicants, TD&H and Intrinsik, on behalf of Dewin Madill, to allow the amendment of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan from “Future Urban” to “Neighborhood Commercial”, “Industrial”, and “Residential.” The application includes the subdivision of ~ 75 acres into lots for commercial, industrial, residential, and parkland uses. The property is owned by Dewin Madill. The property is described as C.O.S. 25, and is situated in the E½, NE¼ Less Highway Tract 1, Section 16, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located Southwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Cottonwood Road. (Morris) Jami Morris, Associate Planner, presented Staff comments, noting the items which Staff can and cannot support. Rob Pertzborn, Intrinsik and representing the owner, gave the background for the project and described the proposal. Ms. Stroup asked why the Planning Office was opposed to the commercial designation along Huffine Lane since it is across the street from Billion/Chrysler, a commercial operation. Planner Morris explained the 2020 Plan including the Business Park across the road, and the Neighborhood Commercial node location further to the north. Mr. Jarrett asked what improvements are proposed for Cottonwood Road. Mr. Pertzborn noted, since it is an arterial, it will be wide and fast. Mr. Jarrett noted he doesn’t care for any proposed roundabouts. He stated he doesn’t have a problem with the commercial on the corner. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if Cottonwood Road is centered in the right-of-way (R-O-W). She noted there is water on the west side of Cottonwood Road, but not on the east. Mr. Pertzborn noted if it is centered, a substantial amount of mature vegetation would be removed; however, the owner is interested in purchasing the extra R-O-W to move the street to the east. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the access distances are too close on Huffine Lane and asked if there was an opportunity for acceleration and deceleration lanes. Mr. Pertzborn noted there has been discussion on those issues. Ms. Pomnichowski commended the applicant for planning for protection of the existing foliage. Mr. Pertzborn noted the plan is to reroute the Farmers’ Canal around the ponds. Ms. Pomnichowski asked about the business uses in the northeast corner. She suggested relocating the neighborhood businesses to the southeast. Mr. Pertzborn noted locating local business within the community was a possibility, however, there was no guarantee they could make a living there. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she appreciated the applicant’s sensitivity to the natural features and had no objections to the neighborhood commercial center in the proposed locations. President Kirschenbaum concurred with his colleagues. He stated he appreciated their concern with the need for right in/right out. He wished them luck with the project. Ms. Alexander noted she supports the B-1 proposed for the corner. She noted that avoiding strip development along Huffine is important, but that commercial development at the intersection of arterials is probably unavoidable. As for the subdivision, she suggested they mix the higher density areas with the lower density, move the R-3 around within the R-2. She noted the lots next to the park in the south should be eliminated. She asked them to come back with an idea as to what might happen to the property to the west. She stated she liked the alleys and the roundabouts, and she stated she had no problem with the neighborhood business on the corner. Mr. Hope noted he supported the type of commercial uses proposed along Huffine Lane. He suggested it should be increased in size from neighborhood commercial to community commercial. He stated it would work as a buffer for the rest of the project. He noted he didn’t have an opinion one way or the other about the alleys, but he concurred with Mr. Jarrett on the roundabouts. He noted he doesn’t have a problem with the lots located next to the park. B. Major Subdivision Informal Application #I-05017 - (Lydens). A Major Subdivision Informal, requested by the applicant, Green Teal, LLC, on behalf of William Lydens, to allow the subdivision of ~ 22 acres into 66 residential lots and a park area. The property is owned by William and Lois Lydens. The property is described as Tract 8 of the Smith Subdivision, and is situated in the N½ NW¼ of Section 11, T2S, R5E, and Tract 3B, COS 1069A, and is situated in the SW¼ NW¼, Section 11, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located southeast of the intersection of Fowler Avenue and Durston Road. (Morris) Jami Morris, Associate Planner, presented the Staff comments, noting the informal application also references the French property to the south. She noted there are two concept plans, and indicated the plan preferred by staff. She noted a third plan has been drawn today and incorporates the park onto one lot. Michael McGullam, applicant’s representative, explained the newest plan, #SD6. He noted the agenda references 22 acres, however, they are only interested in the 13 acres to the north, next to Durston Road. The other property is under different ownership. He noted the applicant prefers the R-3 option for the lots along Durston Road for multi-family. He addressed the park configuration and stated the stream hasn’t flowed in some time; however, it is an overflow ditch for the Bozeman Ponds. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if they have applied for permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Mr. Greg Allen noted they are in the process of having a determination made on the stream. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the stream feeds the water feature. Mr. Allen noted the pond seemed to be ground water fed. Ms. Pomnichowski asked about the canal on the west edge of the property. Mr. Allen stated it is a Farmer's Canal and would remain as is. Ms. Alexander asked if Staff had any problems with the block length in the new configuration. Planner Morris noted the park breaks the block lengths. Ms. Alexander noted it could be developed into a nice park with or without the water feature. She commended them for taking out the double frontage lots. Ms. Stroup asked why Staff was opposed to R-3 zoning along Durston Road. Planner Morris noted it was due to the R-1 zoning located to the north and west, and the land to the east is single household use in the County. She noted that a small block of R-3 zoning was considered to be spot zoning. Ms. Stroup asked if the pond might be removed. Mr. Allen noted the pond is twelve feet or more deep, and they were interested in maintaining it. Ms. Stroup noted R-1 zoning would look better along Durston Road. Mr. Allen noted other R-1 zoned lots in other subdivisions back onto Durston Road, while their lots would face Durston Road. Planner Morris noted there are alternatives for orientation of the homes. Mr. McGullam noted they couldn’t meet the UDO density requirements without the R-3 lots. Mr. Hope noted most people don’t want to face a busy street like Durston Road. He noted a policy to front the lots onto a busy street shouldn’t be implemented if it doesn’t make sense. He concurred that R-3 does make sense. Mr. Jarrett asked if the people on the west side of Valley Drive have been contacted about annexing into the City. The representatives noted they had been contacted and didn’t indicate an interest in annexing at this time. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if this development would participate in the Durston Road improvements. Staff and the applicant/representatives stated it would. Ms. Pomnichowski suggested the R-3 units should face to the south, and not face Durston Road. She commended them for the new and improved design on the park. Ms. Alexander summarized the Board’s feeling that R-3 is the best. Mr. Allen reiterated that they would have density issues otherwise. Ms. Stroup noted that R-3 zoning might look better along Durston Road; however, she is uncertain. ( A five minute break was taken.) C. Stoneridge Square MaSub Pre-Ap #P-05017 Jami Morris, Associate Planner, gave a brief presentation. She noted the applicant has asked for discussion on the stream/wetlands setback as stated in the UDO. She noted the watercourse setback approved in the original PUD was 35 feet from the high water mark. Then with the minor subdivision for Home depot, a 35 foot setback was conditioned and noted on the final Plat. The applicant argues that the original approval for Stoneridge PUD should apply even though the originally approved Master Plan for Stoneridge identified Business Park and the city Commission did not approve the GPA from Residential to Commercial until 2004. Ms. Alexander asked what setbacks Highgate House was required to have. Mr. Springer noted it has a 35’ from the stream. Planner Morris noted Highgate House was reviewed under the old zoning ordinance. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if a floodplain delineation had been done. Mr. Springer noted it hadn’t. Lowell Springer, applicant’s representative, distributed a letter received from the Planning Office stating the dates for review by the Planning Board and City Commission. He noted he didn’t realize another person had agreed that the pre-ap didn’t need to be reviewed by the Planning Board. He pinned a map to the wall with north facing to the right. He noted that the setback from the stream in 1998, when the original PUD was approved, was 35’ from the high water line. He noted the wetlands didn’t exist prior to the stream/ditch being installed. He gave a brief history of the Stoneridge development. He noted there was disagreement as to the jurisdiction of the wetlands as they may be manmade wetlands. Mr. Hope asked where the greenspace would be located if held to the wetlands setback. Mr. Springer noted it would push everything east by 35 feet towards North 19th Street, thus locating the greenspace 35 feet from the wetlands. It would require them to move all the water and sewer lines installed previously under the earlier agreement. He noted all the rest of Stoneridge and Home Depot have a 35’ stream setback. Ms. Alexander asked when the infrastructure was installed. He noted it was in 2000 and 2001. Ms. Alexander asked when the GPA was done. Mr. Springer noted it was completed in 2004. Ms. Alexander noted the infrastructure was installed prior to the GPA changing from Residential to Commercial use; therefore, they must have been planning commercial uses in that location all along despite the fact that it was not zoned for commercial. Mr. Springer noted commercial uses were always contemplated at this location. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if it has jurisdictional wetlands. Mr. Springer noted a determination by the Army Corps hasn’t been requested. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if he has applied to the Corps for a permit for development. Mr. Springer noted he has not. Ms. Pomnichowski asked what the plan is for runoff from the impervious surfaces to prevent it from entering the stream. Mr. Springer indicated the retention ponds locations. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if any of the impervious surfaces were within the 35’ stream setback. Mr. Springer noted they were not. Rick Kerin, applicant’s engineer, distributed the proposed plat. He indicated the back-of-curb line which parallels the creek, and the retention pond. He displayed the site maps, which indicate the water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure. He noted there will be curbing to direct the stormwater to the retention basin. Ms. Alexander asked on which issues Mr. Springer needed feedback from the Board. Mr. Springer noted a stormwater drainage plan had been accepted by the Engineering and Planning Departments. Mr. Springer noted a stormwater drainage plan had been accepted by the Engineering and Planning Departments. He noted he’d like comments on the stream/wetlands setback, which has been based on a decision in 1998, from which they made commitments and have carried them through. He noted he’d like comments on the access south of Tschache Street. The applicant feels it would be an appropriate location for a pedestrian crossing and that they expected it to be signalized one day in the future. (Planning & Engineering & MDT do not support this.). He stated the stream setback was approved with a Zoning PUD. He noted it is staff’s opinion that the rules changed when the GPA and zoning were changed. Mr. Jarrett noted he isn’t concerned with the setbacks from the wetlands. He suggested Mr. Springer discuss lowering the speed limit on North 19th Avenue with MDT. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there were extra parking spaces proposed. Mr. Springer noted the parking is the minimum parking spaces. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the two buildings on the south end face the street and is the parking closest to the creek for employees. Mr. Springer noted the parking behind the buildings would be for employees. Ms. Pomnichowski noted it is a large issue whether or not the wetlands falls within the Corps’ jurisdiction. He noted the Capes installed the infrastructure in good faith as to the 1998 agreement. Mr. Springer noted also in question is the reliability of PUD decisions. Ms. Alexander noted she disagreed that it was a given that the commercial zoning would be granted during last year’s discussions. She stated she would be inclined to support some of the assumptions regarding setbacks, in exchange for a development proposal that more closely met the requests made during last year's GPA and ZMA discussions. She noted the discussions were about the image of North 19th Avenue and that it not become a long strip of large-scale development nor would this property mirror the development across the street. She stated the proposal under consideration is still very similar to the development across the street. Mr. Springer noted City Commission wanted the buildings up to the street rather than towards the back of the development. Ms. Alexander noted that she felt the buildings that were close to the street were to big, while the smaller, more interesting buildings were hidden in back. Ms. Pomnichowski stated that the issues are whether or not the plat approval was granted prior to July 10, 2002, in which case the 35-foot setback would apply, and whether or not the city commission and planning dept. had represented to the applicant that an exception to the watercourse setback was acceptable, with approval for infrastructure installation and the like. President Kirschenbaum noted he didn’t believe the proposed development is a mirror of that across the street. Ms. Pomnichowski also stated regret at the confusion over the scheduling, notice, and cancellation of the applicant's hearing. The Joint meeting with the Zoning Commission was reconvened by Vice Chairperson Sarah Alexander at 9:20 p.m. ITEM 6. UDO REVISIONS – Continue with joint meeting with Zoning Commission following the above project reviews. UDO Policy Edits requested for further consideration beginning with Edits #217d, #220, #223, #188-#199, #224. Vice Chairperson Alexander asked what the audience wanted to discuss. The audience noted they were there to discuss the parks edits. Edit #217d – Assistant Director Saunders gave a brief review of the request. Mr. Chisholm asked what the edits means “to limit the number of deviations.” He stated he thought they related to design issues and there is a trade-off for those deviations. Assistant Director Saunders gave a brief explanation of how the standards need to be clarified. Mr. Chisholm asked if legal staff is asking for a clarification of deviations applying to standards that are numeric. Assistant Director Saunders stated that was correct Vote – 7-1 with Ms. Stroup voting against. Edit #220 – Assistant Director Saunders gave a brief review of the request, noting an orange sheet hadn’t been prepared as the proposed edit contained the explanation and staff had no additional comments. Vote – 8-0 Edit #223 – Assistant Director Saunders gave a brief review of the request. Vote 8-0 Edit #224 – Assistant Director Saunders gave a brief review of the request. Vote 8-0 Edit #188 – Assistant Director Saunders gave a brief review of the request, noting the Parks and Recreation Board has requested the edits pertaining to parks be deferred. He noted the City Commission indicated some of the edits should be done now and some could be deferred. Director Epple noted the Parks and Recreation Board is working on the “Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails (PROST) Plan” and making any changes prior to the completion of the plan may not be in the best interest of the City. The Joint Board concurred with deferring the vote on the edit at this time. Edit #189 – Assistant Director Saunders gave a brief review, and stated it relates to Edit #68. He noted the items of concern are already contained in the ordinance. City Commission suggested a definition be developed for passive parkland. Jeanne Wesley Weiss noted the Northeast Neighborhood Association applied for the revision to clarify whether or not the Parks and Recreation Board can accept passive parkland and wetlands as part of the parkland dedication. She noted passive parklands can lessen the City’s park maintenance expenses. Mr. Hope asked if she would consider a 13 acre wetland as parkland. Mr. Dunlap noted he was obligated to do both parks and wetlands and couldn’t combine them. Ms. Weiss noted there is no parkland in the northeast neighborhood if wetlands aren’t counted. Mr. Chisholm asked her to suggest a definition. Ms. Weiss noted a passive park is for bird watching, trails, etc. She noted it is for any type of activity involved primarily with nature. Dave MacDonald noted he has done considerable development in Bozeman as infill. He noted the stream corridors are becoming wider. He stated his single highest increase in cost is the increase in cost per door. He noted his favorite park is the park along Sourdough Creek. He noted his concern is balancing affordability with production cost. He discussed using stream corridors/trails as part of the parkland requirements. Chris Nixon noted he supported the issues discussed by Ms. Weiss. He stated he thought the passive parkland should be accepted as meeting the parkland requirements. He noted the active use by senior citizens is walking along trails. He cited a trail system in Boise, noting how well used it had been. Lowell Springer stated he concurred with previous speakers. He noted wetlands are some of the best habitat in the area. He noted the developer has the right to shut off any ditches that supply the wetlands and they will if there isn’t a good reason for keeping them. Marsha Kaveney suggested the vote be taken tonight and not wait until September or October. She noted developers can create wetlands in another area to replace the ones existing. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if anyone was in attendance from the Park and Recreation Board. No one responded. She noted she didn’t support acre for acre acceptance of passive parkland as those lands have different roles than active parkland. She said she might support a percentage or proportion of wetlands counted as parkland, but not acre-for-acre counted in their entirety. Mr. Springer suggested creating a visual park as well as active parkland. Ms. Pomnichowski noted people don’t belong in wetlands where they disturb wildlife. She noted the developers and the City need to have more sensitivity for the land as it naturally exists. Mr. Springer noted when the ditch is shut off, the wetlands will go away. Ms. Pomnichowski stated that the agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands could determine if they were seasonal or permanent, and that those agencies must always be consulted. Assistant Director Saunders noted the UDO requires parkland to be suitable for the use proposed, and that State law requires subdivisions to either transfer or separate water rights. Without water rights, the ditches will be dry. Ms. Stroup noted the passive issue is in 18.50.100. Vice Chairperson Alexander noted the discussion should pertain to Edit #189. She noted the edit should be in the definition section. Mr. Jarrett noted the definition has to include passive and active parkland. Vote – 8-0. Director Epple noted the development of the Updated PROST Plan will include standards active and passive parkland as a community needs both. The joint board asked that the Parks and Recreation Board be invited to next week’s meeting. ITEM 677. OLD BUSINESS There was none. ITEM 8. NEW BUSINESS There was none ITEM 798. ADJOURNMENT As there was no further business to come before the joint board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. _______________________________________ _____________________________________ Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board _____________________________________ Sarah Alexander, Vice Chairperson City of Bozeman Zoning Commission