HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-16-05 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 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 7:35 p.m. (due to the lack of a quorum until that time) and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Dave Jarrett Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Harry Kirschenbaum Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development
JP Pomnichowski Carol Schott, Recording Secretary
Jane Stroup
Mike Hope
Visitors Present
Mike Kavasnik
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 on any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda.
Mike Kavasnik, Wallace Avenue, stated he was concerned about the legality of the meeting as he felt he wasn’t properly noticed.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 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 August 2, 2005. Hearing none, he declared the minutes 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 Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05024 - (Cottonwood Condominiums). A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, requested by the applicant
and property owners, Ken LeClair and Delaney & Company, represented by C&H Engineering & Surveying, Inc., to allow the subdivision of 35.2544 acres into 3 lots. The property is legally
described as the Amended Plat of Lot 2A-1, Minor Subdivision No. 338A, Spring Creek Village Resort, and is situated in the SW¼ of Section 10, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin
County, Montana. The property is generally located between Fallon Street and West Babcock Street and Ferguson Avenue and Resort Drive, and is zoned R-O (Residential Office District).
(Morris)
Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the Staff Report.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked if single-family homes were being constructed on Fallon Street. Planner Morris noted the structures are duplexes and part of the approved Cottonwood Condos.
.
Michael Delaney, applicant, stated they concur with all Planning Staff conditions and statements. Ms. Pomnichowski asked how many units are in Cottonwood Condos. Mr. Delaney stated
there are 156 units total.
President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING.
The Board members concurred it is a good project.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to recommend conditional approval of application #P-05024 with Staff Conditions. The motion carried 5-0.
B. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05037 - (Bozeman Mill District).
A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, requested by Thinktank Design Group Inc., representing the owners, Mill District Partners LLC, to allow the subdivision of 0.73 acres
into 2 lots. The property is legally described as Lots 6 – 14, Block 106, Northern Pacific Addition located in Section 6, T2S, R6E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana The property is generally
located at 620 East Cottonwood Street. (Epple for Kozub)
In the absence of Planner Susan Kozub, Planning Director Andrew Epple presented the Staff Report, noting the application is to aggregate 9 lots into 2 lots. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if
adequate noticing had been provided. Director Epple noted the proper noticing had been done.
Ms. Stroup asked why the zoning site plan would be heard by the City Commission. Director Epple noted the applicants have requested several deviations, which can only be approved by
the City Commission.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there would be sewer capacity problems and how inadequate water and sewer will be addressed. Director Epple noted the City Engineering Department will work
with the applicants to make certain these kinds of issues are resolved. Ms. Pomnichowski asked for the width of the alley. Director Epple noted it is a 16’ alleyway. He noted the
applicant is being required to provide an additional 4’ for the alley. Ms. Pomnichowski asked where the storm drain would empty. Director Epple deferred the question to the applicants.
Ms. Stroup asked if the existing structure would be demolished. Director Epple noted it would be demolished, however as part of the site plan not the subdivision.
Erik Nelson, ThinkTank Design Group, described the development as an infill project, noting the subdivision provides for a more orderly design of the projects proposed under the site
plan application with adequate setbacks, etc. He noted Rocky Mountain Engineering did the engineering. He stated the storm water runoff will be handled by a water retention facility
located under the street. He noted the roof tops of the smaller structure and parking garage are “green” and would help filter the storm water. He noted there was no main sewer extension
planned to date.
Mr. Jarrett stated he had no problem with the project, although he noted he didn’t think mixing families and manufacturing uses was good for a neighborhood. Mr. Nelson noted his understanding
of the existing neighborhood is that it is a mix of residential and commercial uses. He stated acknowledged there is a conflict between truck traffic and residential uses, but stated
the safety of the residents in the new development would be just as good as it is today or even better.
President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
Mike Kavasnik, North Montana Avenue, noted the plan didn’t appear to be completely finished. He stated he had concerns about the type of development proposed, how it would actually
look, the loss of the last reasonably priced land in the City, and the maxing out of the water and sewer capacity. He suggested the Board have the full picture of the project before
they make a decision.
President Kirschenbaum called for further public comment, and hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING.
Ms. Stroup noted the area has been designated as a “blighted area,” and she has no problem with the subdivision as it will upgrade the neighborhood.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked why they were proposing diagonal parking. Mr. Nelson noted they could create more parking on the local street. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the increased number
of parking spaces meets the requirements. Mr. Nelson noted they meet the parking requirements for both the commercial uses and residential uses. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the interior
parking on Mill Street is primarily for the homeowners. Mr. Nelson explained. Ms. Pomnichowski noted part of the application was not completed and she suggested it be completed prior
to the public hearing. She asked what the proposed height of the buildings would be. Mr. Nelson noted it was 45’. Brian Caldwell, another of the applicant’s representatives, noted
the roof is proposed at 43’ with a 4’ parapet. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if they have compared the height with other structures in the area. Mr. Nelson gave the building heights in the
vicinity.
Ms. Pomnichowski noted the infill project is great and commended the applicants for submitting an outstanding plan. She noted the character of the Northeast Historic Mixed Use is the
ideal for the project. Her concern was with the inadequate water and sewer cited in the Staff Report. She asked for the benefit of the project, that the City and the applicant look
into the issue.
Mr. Hope discussed the benefits of the TIF district, and noted they will be ahead of the game because of it. Mr. Nelson noted they are fully aware of the issue as is the City Commission.
He stated the hope is that the TIF district will happen in time for them to do their structures.
Director Epple noted the next step in the Urban Renewal process is to create an Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Hope noted the creation of TIF Districts provides an opportunity for infrastructure
improvements.
President Kirschenbaum stated he felt this proposal was a great improvement for the neighborhood.
Ms. Stroup commented that TIF funding can do a lot for the neighborhood and it is a gift from all the other neighbors in the City. Mr. Hope clarified that the monies are collected in
taxes and sent to the State, then redistributed to cities and towns.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Jarrett seconded, to recommend conditional approval of application #P-05037 with Staff contingencies and conditions. The motion carried 5-0.
The meeting was recessed briefly while the Zoning Commission convened and tended to business at hand prior to the joint meeting.
ITEM 5. UDO REVISIONS – Begin with joint meeting with Zoning Commission following the above project reviews.
Planning Board President Harry Kirschenbaum convened the joint meeting at 8:42 p.m.
Mr. Hope asked if Northwestern Energy has a capital improvements plan for their improvements like the City has for the sewer. Director Epple stated he is certain that they do, but it
is not subject to review and approval by the City. He further noted replacement of power poles and upgrades to the system are beyond the purview of zoning review. He noted he made
the determination that those lines are local distribution lines replacing existing lines in existing easements. He noted the appeal will be heard by the City Commission on September
6, 2005. He noted the City would get involved in the establishment of any new easements and facilities at the time of subdivision review..
Ms. Pomnichowski stated the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan was the first neighborhood plan in the City. She noted she felt the City has already taken on the onus of protecting the
neighborhood and this was the first challenge.
Director Epple noted the power companies are regulated by the PSC and national electrical codes. Mr. Chisholm concurred and stated the power company has very strict guidelines.
Director Epple reviewed the Landsgaard Appeal decision by the City Commission.
Prior to Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders beginning the discussion on the proposed UDO edits, President Kirschenbaum reviewed the methodology for reviewing the proposed edits
at the request of Ms. Pomnichowski.
Assistant Director Saunders noted Staff’s comments are provided on the salmon sheets.
Item 180 – Assistant Director Saunders noted Staff supports the proposed edit. Option 1 – Mr. Hope asked if someone has a shared agreement, does it continue with the land. Assistant
Director Saunders noted that is the current language, however that can be overreaching, so the intent of the proposed edit is to limit parking agreements to some extent so there is a
termination provision.
Vote – Action 1 - 7-0
Item 181 – Assistant Director Saunders noted the proposed edit also impacts Edits 183 and 187.
Vote - Action 1 – 7-0
Ms. Pomnichowski clarified that 18.48.050.C.2 is the whole citation.
Item 182 – Assistant Director Saunders noted Staff doesn’t support the edit. Ms. Stroup asked if a change was needed. Assistant Director Saunders stated there wasn’t a need as it is
a design issue.
Straw Vote - Action 1 – 1, Action 2 – 6.
Ms. Pomnichowski noted she had done research at MSU asking how many stalking events had occurred last year. She reported she was told there were over 200. She would support the change
to protect the victims. Assistant Director Saunders explained how site review is completed for pedestrian circulation, and Staff relies on the professional landscapers to design and
implement landscaping with the safety of the pedestrians in mind. Assistant Director Saunders noted the ordinance does not prohibit this standard. Ms. Pomnichowski noted this edit
was suggested by one of those professionals. Mr. Jarrett noted the existing UDO is adequate for screening of parking lots.
Official vote – Action 1 – 1, Action 2 – 6
Item 183 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff doesn’t support the edit.
Ms. Pomnichowski noted 20 feet doesn’t indicate “immediately adjacent to.”
Official vote – Action 2 – 6 for – 1 against
Item #184 – Assistant Director Saunders noted the edit refers to Chapter 18.48.060.B.1 and C.1. Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff supports the proposed edit. Mr. Lutes asked
for the impetus for the change. Assistant Director Saunders noted there was a need for a more clear method to measure landscaping points. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the edit applies to
B.1.d and would alter 060.B.1.a-c, and 060.C.1.
Vote – Action 1 - 7-0
Item 185 – Assistant Director Saunders noted Staff has been unable to find a definition at this time; however, Staff supports the idea. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the definition should
be defined by the folks who proposed the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 4, Action 4 – 3. It was suggested that the applicants resubmit the edit with a definition.
Item #187 – Assistant Director Saunders stated this edit is just a different section of the text to which item #183 referred. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the language could further define
the area to be included for the landscaping in the parking lot, which may not include the boulevard trees due to distance from the parking lot. Assistant Director Saunders noted this
is an optional means to attain landscaping points. He also noted that the boulevard is not part of the lot as it is public right-of-way. He noted Staff doesn’t support the proposed
edit.
Vote - Action 2 – 4, Action 4 – 3
Item #202 – Assistant Director Saunders noted the item was adopted last night by City Commission.
Item #203 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff does not support most of the proposed edits to the signage section as Staff feels the sign program is working well.
Mr. Lutes asked how difficult it would be for a sign applicant to get a variance from the restrictions for a larger sign. Assistant Director Saunders explained how signs can be moved
on the lot, options for deviations, and options for variances. Mr. Hope noted he would vote for the changes as he could use a larger sign in front of his business as people say they
don’t see the monument sign. Ms. Stroup noted she would have liked to have had the edit’s applicant present to discuss the edits. The secretary noted she had contacted the person who
indicated he would be out-of-town. Mr. Jarrett noted the committee that proposed these edits worked diligently on them and the resultant proposed edits are relatively modest. Mr. Chisholm
noted that many sign people feel that a bigger, taller sign is better; however, in his experience on the Design Review Board and private practice, that wasn’t always true. He noted
he is reluctant to modify the sign code as it is working well. Mr. Hope noted a smaller sign could be effective if it is designed well. Ms. Pomnichowski stated if the result isn’t
a better ordinance, tweaking it may not be appropriate. Mr. Hope noted the amendment process is a difficult process for an independent business man to go through. Assistant Director
Saunders noted if Staff had to make choices, the increase in height of a monument sign is the largest issue due to its impact on pedestrians.
Vote - Action – 1 amended option 1 – 5, Action - 4 - 2
Item #204 – Vote - Action 1 – 5, Action 4 - 2
Item #205 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff supports the change within the B-3 district only.
Vote - Action 1 – 4, Action 4- 3
Item #206 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff opposes the edit.
Vote - Action 1- 5, Action 4 – 2
Item #207 – Assistant Director Saunders stated the proposed edit was proposed by Staff.
Vote - Action 1 & 2 – 5, Action 4 – 2
Item #208 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff doesn’t support the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 5, Action 4 – 2
Item #209 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff is neutral.
Vote - Action 1 – 5, Action 4 – 2.
Item #210 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff opposes the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 5, Action 4 – 2
Item #211 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff doesn’t support the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 5, Action 4 – 2
Item #212 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff opposes the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 4, Action 4 – 3
Item #213 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff doesn’t support the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 5, Action 4 – 2
Item #215 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff doesn’t support the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 3, Action 4 – 4
Item #216 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff doesn’t support the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 2, Action 4 – 5
Item #217 – Assistant Director Saunders stated Staff supports Wetlands Review Board’s position on the edit.
Vote - Action 1 – 7
Item #219 – Assistant Director Saunders described Design Review Board’s (DRB) functions. Much discussion followed on the code provisions for the DRB and the role DRB can or should undertake.
Vote - Action 1 - 5, Action 2 - 1, Action 3 - 0, Action 4 - 1.
ITEM 657. OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Pomnichowski stated her view that there isn’t enough planning being done by the
Board. She asked to resume the City/County Boards Coordinating Committee. Director Epple noted a luncheon is being setup with an invite to any City andCounty board member who wants
to come. Ms. Pomnichowski suggested a topic for discussion be the new Bozeman Area Land Use Plan, upcoming subdivisions, etc. She requested an extra hour for the meeting, from noon
to two o’clock. She asked that we request the County contingent to bring the new County Land Use Plan map. Assistant Director Saunders noted the upcoming 2020 Plan update is to begin
after the first of the year.
Mr. Hope stated the Bozeman Improvements District (BID) Association is beginning to look at future development of the downtown in connection with the construction of the parking garage.
The Board/Commission concurred that they want to meet with the whole Recreation and Parks Advisory Board.
Mr. Hope suggested the Board should be involved in the TIF designations.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 778. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to be conducted by the City of Bozeman Planning Board or Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
___________________________________ _______________________________________
Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President
Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board