HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-05 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice President JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Ed Musser Jody Sanford, Associate Planner
Sarah Alexander Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development
Dave Jarrett Carol Schott, Recording Secretary
JP Pomnichowski
Jane Stroup
Mike Hope
Visitors Present
Jane Miller Schaaf Dan _________ John Denofly
Mary Denofly Rugheimer Family Bob Schweitzer
Don Seifert Chris Seifert Alex Phillips
Renee Sippel-Baker Lauren Oechski Pat Brown
Brian Baran Ron Slade Barry Brown
Charles Petrie Steve Ziegler Mark Chandler
Tom & Nikki Fine
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.}
Don Seifert, 5700 Fowler Lane, read a poem by Wally MacRay regarding the demise of the rural landscape with its individual land owners.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JUNE 21 AND 28, 2005
Vice President Pomnichowski called for corrections or additions to the minutes of June 21 and 28, 2005. Hearing none, she declared the minutes of both meetings accepted as presented.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05033 - (Gammack). A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, requested by the applicants, Thomas & Roberta Gammack, for
the property owners, Dana Pepper and Thomas & Roberta Gammack, represented by C&H Engineering and Surveying, to allow the subdivision of 0.458 acres into 2 two-household lots and the
relocation of a common boundary between 324 & 328 North Church Avenue. The property is legally described as Lots 11 & 13, Block 5, Babcock and Davis Addition, and being situated in
the NE¼ of Section 7, T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located in the southeast corner of the intersection of North Church Avenue
and Fridley Street. (Sanford)
Associate Planner Jody Sanford noted this is a public meeting not a public hearing as the proposal is a first subdivision of a tract of land. She presented the Staff Report, then noted
no public comment had been received.
Ms. Alexander asked if there was any reason to be concerned about the jogging of the lot line. Planner Sanford noted the jogged line is not an ideal situation; however, it would allow
the new lot to meet minimum lot area standards and be more buildable. Vice President Pomnichowski asked if they could leave the property line as is due to the existing fence. Planner
Sanford noted it was an attempt to make the new lot meet the minimum standards and eliminate the need for a deviation.
Mark Chandler, C&H Engineering and the applicant’s representative, described the lot line realignment, and the installation of sidewalks and water and sewer.
Ms. Alexander asked if the lots are owned by the same person. Mr. Chandler noted there are two property owners.
Ms. Stroup asked about the existing and proposed structures. Mr. Chandler noted there is an existing duplex and a proposed single family home for Lot 13B.
Vice President Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING.
Vice President Pomnichowski asked if Lot 13A would be land locked. Planner Sanford noted it has a driveway.
Ms. Alexander noted she felt it was a good project; however, the jogged lot line might cause problems in the future. She noted she would rather see a new lot with a straight lot line
and a variance for the minimum lot size.
Vice President Pomnichowski noted she felt a straight lot line might be better, but acknowledged that with the realignment, each lot meets minimum square footage requirements. She also
noted that the lot line could be straightened to the west edge of the lot, since the minimum
street frontage is already non-compliant. Planner Sanford noted the applicants could have requested a subdivision exemption, which would probably have been administratively approved.
Director Andrew Epple explained the rationale for the siting of the line.
Mr. Jarrett asked why not just move the line west. Planner Sanford noted the area of the lot is required to be 6,000 sq. ft. for the duplex.
MOTION: Ms. Alexander moved, Mr. Musser seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-06033 with conditions as recommended by Staff. The motion carried 6-0.
B. Growth Policy Amendment Application #P-05020 - (Churn Creek). A Growth Policy Amendment, requested by the property owners and applicants, Churn Creek Partners, represented by Barry
Brown, to establish a “Suburban Residential” land use designation on the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Map for ~ 319 acres. The property is described as the S½ less one acre of Section
29, T2S, R6E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana, and is located east of the Bozeman sanitary landfill along Story Mill Road. (Sanford)
Associate Planner Jody Sanford presented the Staff Report. She noted that typically when a growth policy amendment is approved, an exhibit would be required within 30 days. However,
in this case, it is recommended that the exhibit not be presented until the annexation agreement is signed.
Ron Slade, Slade Architecture and applicants’ representative, stated the primary reason for annexation hinges on preserving the ground water.
Vice President Pomnichowski OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
Steve Zigler, 2531 Whitetail Road, noted the water level in his well is diminishing. He noted he would prefer a development that fits the character of the area. He noted there could
be a negative impact on wildlife, traffic, and viewshed.
Lynn Rugheimer, 1404 Story Mill Road, noted her family owns land just south of the proposal. She noted there have been numerous opportunities to sell their land to developers; however,
they have chosen not to sell to anyone until now. She noted the developers of Churn Creek build good developments. She noted she senses this is the right time for the development of
the property. She noted her family plans to work with the developers.
Vice President Pomnichowski called for further public comment, and hearing none, she CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING.
Ms. Alexander noted she appreciated Staff’s thorough report. She asked how water would be serviced to this property, and how would water reserves be stored – with a water tank, water
tower, etc. Mr. Slade noted they propose to bury a tank. He noted they plan to avoid ridgeline
development of any type.
Ms. Alexander noted this proposal would expand the 2020 Plan boundary. She noted the boundary and the 2020 Plan would be reviewed within the next year and she questioned whether the
Board should look at just one property rather than consider the larger issue of development in the Bridger foothills. She suggested the Board look at how the property should be developed
and how it will affect Bozeman. She said the city needs to have a plan for where development in the Bridger Foothills stop, and she noted that is indicative that the City would not
expand the 2020 Plan boundary if the property wasn’t annexed.
Mr. Hope stated he felt this was close to being leapfrog development. He asked if the applicant was trying to have a hole card to develop in the County if the City doesn’t annex the
property. Ms. Alexander concurred, and noted the applicant presented the proposal almost as a threat to develop in the County.
Mr. Jarrett noted the developer has a goal to develop the property. He asked staff if access to the infrastructure can be successfully done, and should the development be in the City
or in the County. He noted he felt it would be better to have the development done under the umbrella of the City. Ms. Alexander noted the efforts still cost the City staff time and
money.
Ms. Stroup stated she concurred with Mr. Jarrett’s and Ms. Alexander’s comments. She noted the fast growth of Bozeman has led to a need for areas for future growth. She noted the City
is competing with the County and the question is where would it be best to be developed. She asked for further indication on the location of the land. Planner Sanford noted the location
on the 2020 map. Ms. Alexander read the description of “Future Urban” as “a land not expected to be developed.” She noted she can remember only one other proposal where the “Future
Urban” designation was changed to “Residential” – JCD in the southwest quadrant.
Mr. Hope asked if Headlands subdivision came in prior to the 2020 Plan. He noted he was trying to visualize an R-S zoning development on this property in comparison to Headlands. Director
Epple noted Headlands was approved prior to the approval of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He stated Staff is swayed by which developer submits plans and wants to develop next on
a first-come first-served basis. He noted the City has a plan in place for how properties in the City would develop. He noted if the City is ringed by subdivisions not in the City
boundary, but using City facilities and not paying City taxes, the City will go bankrupt. Mr. Hope asked if the applicants went through the County process with wells and septic systems,
could it cause problems with water quality. Planner Sanford noted the Local Water Quality District felt if the property is to be developed, it would be best for the property be to annexed
and connected to City services. She noted GVLT is very interested in getting a trail across the property. She noted the property is within a sewer drainage zone included in the City’s
waste water plan.
Mr. Hope asked if there was any risk if the Board doesn’t recommend approval. Ms. Alexander noted she felt there would be a risk; however, she stated she felt the County and the landowner
could be responsible and do the right thing.
Ms. Alexander asked where subarea plans are defined.. Planner Sanford noted it is defined in the 2020 Plan. She noted the Rugheimer property is a key player as it is the only property
that hasn’t been developed. She noted the City would encourage a subarea plan be developed covering any and all of the properties. Ms. Alexander suggested a group be formed to explore
the impacts of development of these properties, define the plan area boundaries, and write a subarea plan. She noted the plan area might include the city landfill property, as well as
other properties within and adjacent to the 2020 plan boundary that were in the Bridger foothills. She said she felt a subarea plan was especially suitable for this area because of
its highly visible nature, its natural amenities, and its value to the community as a viewshed. She said she hoped we wouldn’t “piecemeal” development of this unique area. Mr. Jarrett
noted the subdivision to the north is a done deal, the conservation easement is a done deal, and the development to the south is happening. Planner Sanford noted the Planning Office
wouldn’t accept an annexation for this property without a subarea plan for it and the Rugheimer property.
MOTION: Ms. Alexander moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to recommend a subarea plan be reviewed along with annexation. Vice President Pomnichowski noted the motion should emphasize that a
subarea plan comes forward; however, it is inappropriate to require it with annexation. Ms. Alexander asked why a subarea plan shouldn’t be required with annexation. She noted the
Growth Policy Amendment (GPA) wouldn’t be adopted unless the property is annexed. She suggested it be approved along with a subarea plan. She withdrew her motion, Mr. Hope withdrew
his second. MOTION: Ms. Alexander moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to require a subarea plan be submitted with the annexation application. Planner Sanford noted Staff would like the see
the big items of streets, parks, trails for the area. Ms. Alexander read the definition of a subarea plan from the 2020 Plan.
Ms. Stroup noted the description is more for a property already within the City limits. Director Epple noted it was applied to the rural area of Bozeman Creek. He noted the issue is
on the timing. He suggested they make a recommendation to City Commission that a subarea plan be presented prior to any development plan being presented. Ms. Alexander noted that having
the plan in advance of annexation and zoning would serve as an aid for the Board and City Commission during the review of these applications.
The motion failed by a 2-4 vote.
Mr. Hope noted he believes the City can do a better job of planning the development and the Planning Development will do a good job in reviewing the development. He stated he would
support the proposal as it stands.
Mr. Musser noted he concurred and would support the GPA as the issues would be aired during annexation and zone map amendment reviews.
Ms. Alexander noted she can’t support the proposal without the subarea plan. Vice President Pomnichowski asked if a sunset date could be added as a condition.
Mr. Hope asked if the applicant were to sell the development with the proposed GPA approved, would they have to come back with another application. It was noted the GPA would run with
the land.
MOTION: Vice President Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to include a time provision of 2 years to Staff contingency #1.
Barry Brown, applicant, noted he is new to applying for this type of process. He noted he has no hole card. He stated he is working to preserve the watershed. He noted he is meeting
with GVLT next week to discuss a trail corridor. He stated they are sensitive to the ridgelines. He stated the City’s Sanitary Landfill is located in the foothills. He noted they
are not looking to going to the County to develop. He stated the property is within 3 miles of the City center, which is closer than developments to the northwest and southwest.
The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Stroup voting against it.
MOTION: Mr. Jarrett moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-05020 with staff recommendations and to add a two year sunset to contingency #1.
The motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Alexander voting against it.
Vice President Pomnichowski called for a ten minute recess. She reconvened the meeting.
Major Subdivision Pre-Application Application #P-05031 - (JCD). A Major
Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, requested by the applicant, JCD LLC, represented by Allied Engineering Services, Inc., to allow the subdivision of ~ 268 acres into 419 residential
lots. The property is described as being a portion of Section 23, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is owned by Jane L. Schaaf & Don H. Miller,
Hope Lutheran Church, David J. & Susan H. Barbisan, Burton L. & Etheleen J. Hoovestol, Mildred Boylan for the Paul Boylan Trust, Shady Lane Ranch LP, and Marshall & Luzann Bennett.
The property is generally located west of South 19th Avenue between Stucky and Blackwood Roads. (Skelton)
In the absence of Senior Planner Dave Skelton, Planning Director Andrew Epple briefly presented the project, noting it had been named Meadow Creek Subdivision and described the location
of the properties.
Greg Allen, applicant’s representative, described the proposal. He noted several modifications which have been made, one of which was to lengthen the western most parkland to the major
street to the south. He noted relatively low densities will be located next to the western most parcels as a buffer to the adjacent agrarian uses.
Don Seifert, 5700 Fowler Lane and south of Blackwood Road, distributed photographs taken from his property and a letter in opposition to the subdivision. He noted the depth of ground
water is 18” below the surface. He stated his concern was the lot design of the western most properties. He stated the perc tests are required by City rules and he has no knowledge
of any test wells in the area surrounding the subject properties. He stated the Millers have been tremendous stewards of the
land as the grove of cottonwood trees has been there for over 100 years. He was concerned that there would be four streets passing through the grove and destroying many trees and displacing
wildlife. He suggested a “hazardous restriction” note be placed on the plat regarding the high ground water.
Chris Seifert, 5700 Fowler Lane, noted she was concerned about the high water table. She noted it would require the dewatering of the land which affects her land by draining water from
her property as well. She noted a headgate is located in the area of the proposed road. She noted the applicant doesn't have the easements for the full width of the roadway for Blackwood
Road. She noted another concern is keeping her cattle out of their property. She suggested a good barrier be put into place north of Blackwood Road to keep her cattle out. She stated
she opposed the proposed roads entering Blackwood Road across from her house.
Mr. Allen noted there was an approximate 60 to 65 foot easement for the trees. They have proposed a park to preserve the trees in the northwestern most corner.
Ms. Stroup asked why the water depth was an issue. Mr. Seifert noted dewatering will destroy the wetlands in the area, and disturb the flow of ground water in the area. Vice President
Pomnichowski noted she would expect a plat notation prohibiting basements. Mr. Allen noted the dewatering occurs along a roadway during construction and is disbursed back into the ground.
He noted the water issues would be discussed during subdivision.
Mr. Jarrett asked where the sewer main would be placed, and how it would be sized. Mr. Allen described the waste water drainage basin as being approximately 2000 acres, and he stated
sewer trunk lines were being designed accordingly.
Vice President Pomnichowski noted the plans didn’t indicate existing vegetation. She suggested the lots backing to and surrounded by the parkland should be eliminated. Mr. Allen noted
the flood plain boundaries have been delineated. He described trees and vegetation that cannot be saved as they are located where streets are proposed. Vice President Pomnichowski
noted there should be neighborhood commercial uses in the area. Director Epple noted a large community commercial area just to the north of this subdivision, and indicated a neighborhood
commercial area would most likely be located in the future at Blackwood road and Fowler Avenue to serve the area better.
Mr. Hope asked how many residents were expected. Mr. Allen noted up to 900 homes, with between 1800 to 3000 people. Mr. Hope asked if he could cut down the trees if they were located
on his property. Director Epple noted he would have the right to do it. Mr. Jarrett noted cottonwood trees tend to have rotten centers if 100 years old or more and fall where not wanted.
Mr. Allen noted trees are an amenity, and would only be removed or pruned where necessary.
Ms. Alexander noted she liked the plan in general. She asked if there would be any offices in the R-4. Mr. Allen noted he didn’t think there was a demand for offices at this time and
the property abuts Genesis Business Park. Ms. Alexander suggested they minimize the number of lots located next to the parks. She suggested the house lots be more rectangular in shape,
and that the
developer limit the amount of perimeter fencing. She asked if the trail would connect through to the north/south trail near South 19th Avenue in D1.6d; Mr. Allen confirmed that it would.
Mr. Jarrett stated he liked fences. Vice President Pomnichowski commended the applicant for working with the neighbors to eliminate as many concerns as possible. She also asked where
a fire station might be located, and expressed her support that it be sited on 19th, for easy access and distance away from homes. Mr. Allen indicated three possible locations for a
fire station.
Mr. Musser asked if the canal would be piped. Mr. Allen noted the intention was to pipe it under the roadway.
The Planning Board’s Pre-Application review of the proposed subdivision concluded.
ITEM 5. UDO REVISIONS – Begin with joint meeting with Zoning Commission following the above project reviews.
UDO Policy Edits requested for further consideration beginning with Edit #180.
The consensus of the Board was to continue the UDO revision discussion to the next meeting.
ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS
None
ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS
None
ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Andrew Epple, Director JP Pomnichowski, Vice President
Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board