HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-05 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Harry Kirschenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Dean Drenk Chris Saunders, Assistant Director, Planning & Community Development
Erik Henyon Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Mike Hope Andrew Epple, Director, Planning & Community Development
Harry Kirschenbaum Carol Schott, Recording Secretary
Jeff Krauss
Ed Musser
JP Pomnichowski
Visitors Present
Tom Fellows Ron Slade Steve Wheeler Ted Mitchell
Bryon Dingman Bob Schweitzer John Barkow Peter Rugheimer
Ami Grant Jim Schultz Michael Richards Matt Martincich
Jim Simkins Steve Ziegler Deb Stober Tom Hinz
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. Hearing none, he closed the public
comment portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1 and 8, 2005
President Kirschenbaum called corrections or additions to the minutes of November 1 and 8, 2005. Hearing none, he declared them accepted as submitted.
President Kirschenbaum announced the order of review would be changed and the joint meeting with the Zoning Commission would begin immediately with the review of the Kainz proposal first.
ITEM 5. JOINT MEETING WITH ZONING COMMISSION
A. Informal Application #I-05037 - (Kainz Annex/ZMA). An Informal Application, requested by the property owner, Kainz Family Limited Trust, represented by Vector Group LLC., to allow
the annexation/zoning/subdivision of ~ 160 acres. The property is described as being situated in the SW¼ of Section 26, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The
property is generally located northeast of the intersection of Paterson Road and Fowler Lane. (Saunders)
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Memo.
Mr. Chisholm asked if there would be an advantage for the City to annex the property. Planner Saunders noted in the short term, there would be no advantage. However, in the long term,
water and sewer would be extended south to within a half mile of the property. He noted the property is in a logical growth path, and it is difficult to retro fit individual wells and
septic systems into the City’s sewer system.
Mr. Drenk asked where a logical growth area would not be located. Planner Saunders noted several areas to the northeast and north. He noted the area of current development and the
feasibility of extending the sewer are some of the limiting factors. Mr. Drenk asked if development to the southwest had been proposed. Planner Saunders noted, up until recently, the
University had been reluctant to allow the water and sewer mains to be extended to the south and they hadn’t been extended under Huffine Lane. He noted the Kainz property is not adjacent
to Meadow Creek; however, several landowners to the east have been in contact with the office. He noted the development of land is high risk and high cost. Mr. Drenk asked if there
was any other plan for the area density, green belt, etc. He noted R-S zoning has been used as a holding zone allowing agricultural practices to continue, yet plan for development in
the future. He noted a change in zoning would be requested prior to development. He discussed the Land Use Designation “Future Urban” as denoted in the 2020 Plan.
Ami Grant, Vector Group, noted she is seeking advice from the City on whether or not to annex.
President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING.
Ms. Pomnichowski noted the southwest area containing this proposal is ripe for annexation as it is near the area depicted on the growth plan. She asked the applicants to be sensitive
to the three water courses that pass through the property. She noted she would like to see more density on the northern edge of the parcel and less on the south to better mesh with
the uses to the south. She suggested they include trail and wildlife corridor connectivity. She asked if the property owners would be responsible for paving Patterson Road. Planner
Saunders noted he felt the street would be paved. Ms. Pomnichowski suggested the power supply be buried. She noted there are instances of very high ground water in the area, and suggested
there be plat notations limiting basements and half basements. She also suggested the neighborhood center should be incorporated into this parcel or near it for neighborhood commercial
services.
Mr. Musser concurred with Ms. Pomnichowski about the appropriateness of the annexation.
Mr. Hope concurred with Ms. Pomnichowski except he stated the neighborhood commercial may not be appropriate yet as it takes many homes to support them. He concurred that the property
should be annexed.
Mr. Chisholm noted he concurred that the property should be annexed.
Mr. Henyon concurred with Mr. Hope about the annexation of the property. He stated he thought the neighborhood commercial node should be closer to South 19th Avenue.
Mr. Drenk noted he supported the annexation and he stated he felt it would help minimize sprawl. He noted the annexation would meet the goals of the 2020 Plan. He suggested varying
the density within the property.
President Kirschenbaum stated he felt the annexation would be appropriate and in the direction the City will be moving.
Planner Saunders noted the location of several neighborhood commercial nodes will be discussed with the 2020 Plan update to be taken up next year.
B. Other business for the joint board/commission
There was no other business to come before the joint board/commission.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-05016 - (The Bozeman Gateway). A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat approval, requested by the owners, Mitchell Development Group,
LLC, represented by Morrison-Maierle, Inc., to allow the subdivision of ~72 acres into 60 commercial lots. The property is described as Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College
Minor Subdivision No. 195A and is situated in the NW¼ of Section 14 and the NE¼ of Section 15, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is generally located
between Fowler Avenue and West College Street, south of West Main Street. (Skelton)
Senior Planner Dave Skelton reviewed the Staff Report, using an extensive power point presentation. He described the relaxations requested by the applicant. He distributed a memorandum
discussing recommendations to modify conditions 23 – 32.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked about the storm water facilities located in the front yard along Huffine Lane. Planner Skelton explained how the proposed storm water runoff system would function.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the storm water system would function well with the existing high ground water. Planner Skelton noted City Engineering staff has assured him that this type
of
system has been used elsewhere with conditions of high groundwater and that it would function properly.
Ted Mitchell, Mitchell Development Group, introduced John Davison, Mark Martincich, Greg Stratton, and Randy Stone, all part of the team.
Greg Stratton, Morrison- Maierle, Inc., described the preservation of the wetlands corridors, the relocation of Fowler Avenue, the extension of Garfield Street to South 19th Avenue,
and the trails to be installed all with an extensive powerpoint presentation. He noted a discrepancy between two conditions requiring a 6 foot trail in one and a 10 foot trail in the
other. He asked for clarification between the two conditions.
Mr. Hope noted he had a problem with Chronicle Lane intersecting with West College Street across from the First Interstate Bank drive through.
Mr. Drenk asked if the 29,000 trips a day was accurate. A member of the team noted that figure was from the traffic study at full build-out. Mr. Mitchell stated the number of vehicles
from this development would be about 8,000 at peak hour.
Mr. Stratton noted the streets are raised to account for the high ground water and the condition relating to the placing of the structures two feet above the curb was unnecessary. He
asked to be able to reword the condition with Staff to construct them to curb level. Ms. Pomnichowski questioned the idea. Mr. Stratton noted the roadway would be approximately one
foot above grade.
Mr. Mitchell described the cross sections of Huffine Lane and the open areas, the north parking lot, and a typical open area. He stated nine bridges are planned within the development,
with the most elaborate one being at the entrance to the project on Harmon Stream Boulevard. He described the town center, Technology Boulevard, the landscaping detail, and several
building features.
Mr. Hope asked about the traffic counts and noted he felt they were not accurate. He stated he thought the grocery store alone would create many more vehicle trips. John Peterson stated
the grocery store is estimated to have 18,000 customers in a week. Mr. Hope noted his calculations indicate it would take 500 cars to generate every $100,000.00. He was concerned with
the traffic to be generated on Huffine Lane. Mr. Mitchell noted the projections aren’t anywhere near that amount. Mr. Hope noted providing less than enough parking could be a nightmare
for future tenants.
Ms. Pomnichowski noted pages 9 and 10 of Traffic Study states intersections are performing below standard at this time. She asked where the 6,000 cars pulled from Huffine Land and College
Street will travel. Mr. Stratton noted there would be a pork chop on Garfield Street at South 19th Avenue to control the right-in, right-out movements. Ms. Pomnichowski asked about
traffic movements from Harmon Stream Boulevard onto Huffine Lane. She asked if they have considered doing a parking structure. Mr. Mitchell noted a parking structure doesn’t pencil
out at this time.
He noted they are still working on it. Mr. Stratton noted they are meeting the parking requirements of the City at this time. Planner Skelton noted a parking schedule will be kept
and reviewed prior to completion of each phase that would limit the gross floor area for the latter buildings in order to provide ample parking. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she had a moral
dilemma with the requested parking relaxations. Planner Skelton explained how the parking relaxation would be handled to address the need for adequate off-street parking, as well as
adequate disabled parking facilities.
Mr. Hope asked where they anticipated the customer base for the lifestyle center. Mr. Mitchell noted the lifestyle center is either in phase 4 or 5 and at least four years from being
constructed. Mr. Hope noted this area would operate as a Regional Commercial land use rather than a Community Commercial land use as designated on the 2020 Plan. He noted there are
existing traffic problems on Huffine Lane.
President Kirschenbaum OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Deb Stober, 395 North Valley Drive, stated there would be impacts on Fowler Lane north of Huffine Lane. She asked the Board to consider the effects on that street. She noted the neighbors
have asked if the trails could somehow be aligned with existing trails. She strongly recommended the Board look at the parking provided to be sure there is enough. She noted the height
of the structures has been a concern for some of her neighbors. She requested that the signal be installed at the Fowler Avenue/Huffine Lane intersection sooner rather than later.
She asked the Board to consider moving the access to First Interstate Bank drive through to a different location.
Tom Hinz, Montana Wetlands Legacy, noted the developer had been offered by the Army Corps of Engineers to pay cash-in-lieu of mitigation of wetlands. He displayed photographs of the
area near Three Forks where the cash-in-lieu could be used.
President Kirschenbaum called for further public comment, and, hearing none, he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING.
Mr. Mitchell noted the height issue had been reduced to the heights permitted in the downtown area. He noted they had intended to install the traffic signal this fall, but they have
delayed the installation until the spring of 2006 so as not to have West Main Street/Huffine Lane torn up during the winter months.
Mr. Hope asked Planner Skelton to explain the request for an extension of the usual two year approval for a PUD to 10 years. Planner Skelton noted the number of years is more than usual
for a large PUD and would allow the applicant more time to complete the phasing.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked who would look at the site plans. Planner Skelton noted Staff, DRB, and the Planning Director would review them based on the review provisions outlined in the
U.D.O. Ms. Pomnichowski commented that she was troubled that there might be franchised
architecture rather the high design standards demanded by the City. Planner Skelton noted the DRB and Staff would review and approve the Design Guidelines and site plans.
Mr. Hope noted the pictures look great, but pictures don’t tell the whole story. He noted he doesn’t want the project to end up in a mess. Planner Skelton noted the DRB would have
the same concerns. Director Epple suggested that the traffic study could be re-evaluated prior to, perhaps, phase 3. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the parking should also be re-evaluated
at that time to be sure it is adequate. She noted she wanted the same level of review for each phase as would be done for a phase of subdivision.
Mr. Drenk noted the City needs to be flexible as well as the developers. He noted there would be adjustments made. Planner Skelton noted the Architectural Guidelines are binding.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the development would still be in Mr. Mitchell’s hands to the end of the project and not sold to another developer. She noted she wanted to see each phase
prior to its development.
President Kirschenbaum stated he didn’t know how to manage the predictability for the developer. Mr. Hope noted he still thought of this proposal as suitable for a Regional Commercial
land use and he would recommend denial of the project. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the traffic load on the site are worrisome as the traffic circulation pattern wasn’t adequate. She noted
she couldn’t support the project with phases to be completed over 10 years. Planner Skelton noted if the subdivision wasn’t platted in three years with possibly a one year extension,
then a new application for a preliminary plat would come back before the Planning Board and City Commission.
Mr. Drenk asked if the parking lots would be common lots and not individual lots. He noted the common lots with shared parking easements should be required as a condition. He noted
there is no resolution of the building heights. Director Epple noted a discussion of the lots was within the purview of the Planning Board; however, the building heights were not.
Mr. Mitchell noted if parking isn’t available for phases 4, 5, or 6, then the size of the buildings would be reduced. Planner Skelton noted some of the professional offices in the
southeast could be eliminated to decrease the need for adequate parking facilities. Mr. Drenk noted he thought the parking lots were held in common and couldn’t be owned by an individual
business. Mr. Stratton noted the intention was for common parking areas and the notation on the plat could be changed to accommodate the concern. He continued that the areas cannot
be used for anything but parking.
Discussion followed on how the plan could be amended.
Mr. Mitchell noted they would have a problem with having a review every two years as the frequent reviews would give them no predictability. Ms. Pomnichowski noted for her part, with
the language as presented, she cannot support the application. She stated the process needs to be honored by everyone. Mr. Hope noted he had problems with Regional Commercial uses
in a Community Commercial land use designation. He noted the proposed development isn’t Community Commercial.
Mr. Mitchell noted the proposed development is mixed use with retail, medical, offices, and a small convention center with an 80 room hotel. Mr. Hope noted he doesn’t want a traffic
jam on Huffine Lane. He noted just the grocery store would generate more traffic that they have predicted in the traffic study. Mr. Mitchell noted there would be about 8,000 additional
trips from the development after build-out. He stated he takes offence that the numbers are accused of being inaccurate since they have been approved by the State and City. He offered
to re-evaluate the traffic study after three or four years or after 30% build-out. Mr. Hope noted he would agree to the three year traffic study review. Director Epple concurred with
the three year review of the traffic study. Planner Skelton noted a condition could be added that if the waivers for street improvements and signalization weren’t executed with the
annexation, they could be executed with the filing of the first phase of the subdivision.
Mr. Musser asked if it was fair to require this developer to pay for the improvements that are impacted by other developments. Mr. Mitchell noted they would agree to the waivers.
Mr. Drenk noted there are 22 proposed relaxations of the rules. If all the rules were followed, there would be no problem getting the project approved. He noted he has no idea anymore
what’s going to happen with the project. He stated once approved for the whole project, and if the deal goes sour in phase 3 or 4, then the only way to save the project would be to
construct whatever size buildings anywhere on the lots. He noted the risk is for the City as the relaxations can’t be revoked.
Planner Skelton noted he sympathized with the Board as it is only reviewing the subdivision aspects of the development and not at the zoning elements of the PUD. He noted relaxations
for a PUD are based on better design and a superior standard than what can be achieved with the regulatory standards of the U.D.O. He suggested condition #12 be left in tact with exceptions
for the two proposed accesses points along the street frontages. He suggested striking condition #33 as it duplicates #15; condition #15 be left as is; condition #23 left as written
in the addendum handed out at the meeting; and #26 is to be made clear there is shared parking with all off-street parking facilities. He continued, the additional condition #41 to
update the traffic study every three years, which would be at the time they ask for a one year extension for preliminary plat approval, and add #42 that waivers be executed for improvements
to and signalization of Garfield Street, South 19th Avenue, West College Street, and Huffine Lane.
Mr. Hope noted this design is not innovative as he has seen it elsewhere. He doesn’t want the Board’s naivety to allow them to make the wrong decision. He’d like the City Commission
to look at the project two or three times to review the impact on the community of Bozeman.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to amend condition #23 per Staff recommendation in the evening’s handout. The motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to amend condition #26 to read “all subdivision lots and areas and common areas…owned and maintained…” The motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to strike condition #33. The
motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to add condition #41 to update the traffic study every three years until all phases are platted. The motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Hope seconded, to add condition #42 that waivers of right to protest SID’s for improvements to and signalization of Garfield Street, South 19th Avenue,
West College Street, and Huffine Lane are to be signed and filed if they were not part of the annexation agreement. The motion carried 7-0.
MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Musser seconded, to recommend approval of application #P-05016 with the amendments to Staff conditions. The motion failed on a 3-3 vote, with one
abstention. President Kirschenbaum, Mr. Henyon, and Mr. Musser voting for the motion and Mr. Hope, Mr. Drenk, and Ms. Pomnichowski voting against it. Mr. Krauss abstained.
Mr. Hope commented that he wasn’t against the project, but he wants the City Commission to look carefully at the project and the traffic it will generate. He wished the applicants well.
Ms. Pomnichowski asked that the City Commission consider the PUD application for approval for something other than blanket Master Plan approval. She suggested the review be done with
every phase by City Commission and all other applicable advisory groups. She noted the development could be beautiful; however, she stated she wasn’t willing to say yes to anything
for 10 years.
ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Pomnichowski asked Staff to provide her with the write-up about cash-in-lieu of parkland, an existing parks map, and a copy of the Three Parks Plan for Tuckerman, Gardner, and McLeod
Parks.
ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Pomnichowski asked if there is budget available for the Commissioner, a publication included in their packets as a sample. Director Epple stated he would switch it for the Planning
Commissioners Journal. The Board stated they would rather keep receiving the Planning Commissioners Journal.
ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Andrew Epple, Director Harry Kirschenbaum, President
Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board