Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-05 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Harry Kirschenbaum called the meeting to order at 8:03 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Sarah Alexander Susan Kozub, Planner Dave Jarrett Jami Morris, Associate Planner Harry Kirschenbaum Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Ed Musser JP Pomnichowski Jane Stroup Visitors Present Betty Mulqueen Joe Mulqueen Stan McHann Judy McHann Bryan Nielson Ted Newman Greg Kindschi Fred & Janet Hodgson Jan Brownell Paula Baldus Matt Cotterman Loras O’Toole Michael M. Cole Chris Budeski Deb Stober Steve Schnee Dylan Clarkson Paul Reichert Catherine Koenen Freya Ross Brenda L. McMichael Brad McMichael ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was none. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2005 President Kirschenbaum called for corrections or additions to the minutes of July 19, 2005, and hearing none, he declared the minutes approved as presented. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05027 - (Sunfish). A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, requested by the applicant and property owner, Bozeman Building Traditions, represented by C & H Engineering and Surveying, to allow the subdivision of 1.89 acres into 5 single-household lots and one open space area. The property is legally described as that part of the SW1/4 of Section 31, T1S, R6E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana, described as follows: commencing at the W¼ corner of said Section 31; thence southerly 177° 45' 52", assumed azimuth from north, 299.9 feet along the west line of the SW¼ of said Section 31, to the point of beginning of the property to be described; thence easterly 087° 46' 48" azimuth 399.82 feet; thence southerly 177° 47' 35" azimuth 200.00 feet; thence westerly 267° 46' 48" azimuth 399.71 feet; thence northerly 357° 45' 52" azimuth 200.00 along said west line to the point of beginning. The property is generally located at 780 Manley Road, north of the East Gallatin Recreation Area pond. (Kozub) Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report. She distributed two additional conditions recommended by the Engineering Department. Ed Adamson, president of Bozeman Building Traditions, stated they agree with all conditions. He stated they are building a neighborhood designed to be part of the community. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the GVLT minutes address open space and indicate the construction of a gazebo had been dropped. Mr. Adamson noted they have received no comment or input on the  open space or gazebo. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the open space or gazebo could be placed elsewhere. Mr. Adamson noted the gazebo was proposed to be over the detention pond with perhaps boat storage under it. He noted he would leave the detention area open so a gazebo could be added later if it met requirements. He noted it would be user specific. Mr. Jarrett noted a gazebo wouldn't make sense for the five families; however it could be an amenity for Gallatin Recreation Park if it were in the public park. President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. Ms. Pomnichowski asked why the relaxation for the distance between intersections wasn’t addressing by requiring Turtle Court to be accessed from the access road instead of Manley Road. Planner Kozub noted the 60' access to the Recreation Area is on a different property. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she feared for the people traveling Manley Road and from the subdivision for their safety due to the proposed access separation with vehicles turning into and out of road accesses too close together. She stated she was concerned about the environmental considerations for retaining the stormwater run-off, pesticides, petrochemicals, particulates, and other chemicals flowing into the Gallatin River, possible flood damage to the site, and ‘shoehorning’ the proposal into the area. Matt Cotterman, C&H Engineering, noted the road separation is between their street and Gallatin Park Drive to the south. He noted the retention/detention pond has been changed to a retention pond. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there would be a Home Owners Association (HOA) to control mosquitoes, etc on the pond. Mr. Adamson noted the HOA would be responsible for it. Mr. Cotterman noted the retained water is supposed to percolate into the ground and not sit there. He noted fill would be brought in to bring the pond higher above the water table to eliminate standing water. Mr. Jarrett commended the applicant for proposing a good project. Ms. Alexander noted that given the conditions recommended by WRB and Staff, she is in favor of the subdivision. She asked Mr. Adamson to be proactive with GVLT about options for developing the open space area. Mr. Musser concurred. Ms. Stroup noted it is an interesting area next to the recreation area and that this development could set the tone. She commended the review done by Staff. MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to recommend conditional approval of application #P-05027 with the 25 Staff conditions. The motion carried 5-1, with Ms. Pomnichowski opposing. B. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05035 - (Country Inn and Suites). A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, requested by the applicant and property owner, Bozeman Country Hotel Group, represented by Gaston Engineering, to allow the subdivision of 7.66 acres into 2 commercial lots. The property is legally described as Lot 2, Cape France Minor Subdivision No. 338, and being situated in the SE¼ of Section 26, T1S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located on the east side of Valley Center Road, ½ mile northeast of the Valley Center Road and North 19th Avenue interchange. (Morris) Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report. Ms. Pomnichowski asked why the irregular lot line. Ms. Koenen noted it is to allow for parking. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if an additional access is planned from Valley Center Road, Planner Morris noted MDT has designated the accesses from Valley Center Road and only one shared access is permitted for the site. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there is a possibility for lowering the speed limits on Valley Center Road. Planner Morris noted MDT would probably do a warrant analysis after the developments are completed to determine if the speed limit should be changed. She noted a middle turn lane has been designed with 3 or 5 total lanes. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the parking calculations are adequate for the hotel and the retail center. Planner Morris noted parking would be addressed with site plan review. Mr. Jarrett stated he felt this is a good project; however, he has a conflict and will not vote. Catherine Koenen, Gaston Engineering, noted the applicant is willing to comply with all conditions. She noted the parking required for the hotel would be met on the hotel's lot. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there are setbacks from the drainage ditch. Ms. Koenen noted the ditch is piped most of the way along the north edge of the property along Interstate 90. She noted they plan to pipe the rest of the ditch to the retention pond, which serves the whole development. President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF HEARING. MOTION: Ms. Alexander moved, Mr. Musser seconded, to approve application #P-05035. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if these property owners are participating in the Valley Center SID. She was assured that they were. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Jarrett abstaining. C. Major Subdivision Pre-Application Application #P-05036 - (Oak Meadows). A Major Subdivision Pre-Application, requested by BAM Properties, represented by Allied Engineering Services, to allow the subdivision of 20.1 acres into 57 residential lots. The property is described as being Tract A of COS 2439, and is situated in Section 1, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located on the southeast comer of Oak Street and North 19th Avenue. (Morris) Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Memo. Ms. Stroup asked for the zoning of the development to the west. Planner Morris noted it is R-3 and R-O, and the R-O is yet to be developed. Jason Burke, Allied Engineering, noted the interior north/south road has no apparent reason as it doesn't continue to Oak Street. He noted a pedestrian trail is planned instead. He stated they would prefer to locate the RSL lots in the R-4 area. He asked what the difference is in parkland dedication between modular lots and townhouse lots. Planner Morris noted the difference has yet to be determined by City Commission. She noted the current calculation method is an interim measure until the final method is determined. Mr. Burke stated they feel the 6.7 acres is an adequate park for the area and they are willing to pay cash-in-lieu of parkland for the remainder. He noted they are investigating the location of the east/west street on North 14th Avenue to align it with the proposed street in this subdivision. He noted they are just short of the required minimum access distance on Oak Street from the Kenyon Noble access; however, with the right in-right out access to Kenyon Noble, the distance for the proposed street access could be adequate. Ms. Alexander asked if they wanted feedback on any particular items. Mr. Burke noted they would like comment on the cash-in-lieu of parkland. Ms. Stroup asked why they want to do cash rather than the required parkland area. Mr. Burke noted the proposed park is bound on three sides by streets and the fourth by the trail. Ms. Stroup asked if they are restricted by their RSL lots. Mr. Burke noted they could shrink the R-3 lots to put them there or place them in the R-4 lots. Ms. Stroup asked how the subdivision will blend with Walton Homestead subdivision. Mr. Burke noted they are anticipating similar patterns as those southwest of this property in the Walton Subdivision. Mr. Musser noted he appreciated the parkland being square and functional. He stated he had no problem with cash-in-lieu for the remaining parkland requirement. He asked what other parkland is accessible to the area. He stated this proposal could be very functional. Ms. Alexander discouraged the placement of all the RSL lots in the R-4 zoned area She suggested they mix them with the other unit styles. She noted the alleys in Walton Subdivision seem functional and she suggested incorporating them in the proposed blocks. She stated she couldn't see any reason for cash-in-lieu, and the additional parkland would be needed for the R-4 densities. She suggested a north/south greenway be incorporated over the sewer easement in the middle of the subdivision. Mr. Burke noted he was not sure they could count the greenway/path as parkway since it is over a sewer easement. Ms. Alexander noted the pathway would provide a greenway for employees from the north to access the park and that if a greenway served as some desirable and functional open space, perhaps she would be more supportive of cash-in-lieu of some parkland. President Kirschenbaum stated the new residents in Walton Subdivision have expressed concern with the lack of recreational space in the area. He felt there was a severe lack of parkland. Kade Embry noted the lots will be set up as duplex lots with zero lot lines. In reality he doesn't see the difference in RSL lots and what is proposed. He noted the addition of alleyways would eliminate the open space in the back yards. He described the intent for the different sized lots. Ms. Pomnichowski noted her concern was that none of the lots meet the minimum lot size or width requirements for anything but triplexes or fourplexes or townhouses. Mr. Burke noted they are intended for modular lots. Planner Morris explained the size requirements for modular lots. Ms. Alexander noted modular lots require a buyer to purchase more than one lot and aggregate them if a single household home was desired. Ms. Stroup asked if Lot 11 could be purchased as an SHR lot. The response was negative as the lot width and area wasn't adequate for an SHR. Ms. Pomnichowski suggested the applicants design a mix of housing types rather than force a buyer to purchase more than one lot. There are only four lots in the plat that meet the minimum 5,000 square foot area for single family homes or duplexes. She supported a variety of lot sizes and types throughout the plan instead of stacked, undersized lots. She noted she is in favor of aligning the northern east/west street with the street in Walton Subdivision. She suggested the parkland should be increased to the amount required in order to meet the needs of the density, and supported RPAB's recommendation of a 3.3 acre park and zero cash-in-lieu. She commended the applicant for being within 10' of the access distance requirement along Oak Street. Mr. Jarrett noted the park requirements would probably change before they develop the subdivision. He stated the residents do need an area for recreation. He asked to see the plans for the 40' right-of-way for the eastern most north to south street. He asked what the resulting right-of-way would be for the whole street. He suggested Planner Morris look at the density on the R-4 lots carefully to be sure enough parkland is required. Mr. Burke noted the constructed street will be constructed to 2/3's of a standard street. Ms. Alexander commented that the lot sizes are conducive to a sea of duplexes. She noted the City is looking to create neighborhoods with homes in a variety of sizes. She noted the arrangement tends to create more stable neighborhoods. She suggested aggregating some of the left over acreage from creating RSL lots to create larger lots along side and amongst them that might be suitable for single-family homes. Mr. Musser asked why the particular lot width was chosen. Mr. Embry explained part of the rationale was to allow two car garages. It was noted the UDO has a minimum lot width of 25' for modular lots. Ms. Stroup asked if Walton Subdivision has a sea of duplexes. It was noted it has diversity in household size and is a good mix. Mr. Embry noted they designed the proposed lots for the home owner to own the land, which also makes the lots more marketable. Ms. Pomnichowski asked that the lots vary more in size to ensure a better mix of uses. Ms. Stroup asked if someone would have to combine two lots to construct a single family home. It was noted that was true. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the lots need to be a mix of 5000, 6000, and 3000 square foot lots to ensure diversity and prevent the project from becoming a "Generica". Ms. Stroup asked if the proposed subdivision would give the builder more flexibility in structure sizes. Ms. Pomnichowski noted that these lot sizes restrict flexibility because they do not meet minimum lot area requirements, so only one type of unit can be built. She noted for Ms. Stroup that earlier plats in Bozeman allotted as many as 24 to 28 lots to a city block, as the Story Mansion block had before the lots were aggregated into one. Mr. Jarrett noted in the olden days the sewer and water were installed after the homes were constructed, now the installation is required before the homes are constructed. He stated the requirement made it difficult for developers as they often didn't know at the preliminary plat stage what housing types would be built. Ms. Pomnichowski thanked the applicants for bringing the subdivision pre-application forward for the Board's comment ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS There was none. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Jarrett stated he is frustrated with the planning process. He doesn't know if the Board is doing much planning. He stated he would have liked to have seen the "blighted" area review come before the Board for discussion. He noted he knows of two or three subdivisions in the County that have been sent to the City for review; however, the Board hasn't reviewed them. Ms. Alexander agreed that long-term planning should be a priority for the board, but noted there is a limited ability and time that the Board can devote to "big-picture" planning issues. She noted the UDO Update is the primary concern of the Board at the current time and the 2020 Plan Update is probably going to be the next planning project. Ms. Stroup noted she concurred with Mr. Jarrett that the decisions seem to have already been made by a very astute Planning Staff. She noted the whole "urban blight" discussion was frustrating as the Board didn't have any part in the process. Mr. Jarrett noted Planning Board has no power and the City Commission doesn't listen to the recommendations sent to them He stated he is frustrated with the non-attendance of the City Commission member of the Board. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she concurred with Mr. Jarrett, Ms. Stroup, and Ms. Alexander. She noted the Board's role is more of project review than planning. President Kirschenbaum noted the Board members are always invited to attend the City Government Study Commission meetings. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she has asked Director Epple and Manager Kukulski to renew the Joint Board Coordinating Committee meetings. She noted they should be held every three months and would help the city and county planning boards to know what each entity was planning, especially in light of revised land use designations in the donut. President Kirschenbaum noted he would like to get his teeth into more planning issues even though the Board serves at the whim of the City Commission and review whatever they are directed to review. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City of Bozeman Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Jami Morris, Associate Planner Harry Kirschenbaum, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board