Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-15-05 Planning Board Minutes.docTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 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 7:05 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Sarah Alexander Susan Kozub, Planner Harry Kirschenbaum Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Ed Musser Carol Schott, Recording Secretary JP Pomnichowski Jane Stroup Visitors Present Susan Swimley Rob Pertzborn Duane Burkenpas Sandra Torma 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 matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. There was no one who wished to speak; therefore, President Kirschenbaum closed this portion of public comment. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 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 March 1, 2005. Hearing none, he stated the minutes of March 1, 2005 were approved as written. 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 Pre-Application #P-05002– (Weissman) A Minor Subdivision Pre-Application by the applicants, MSR North Association, represented by Gateway Engineering & Surveying, Inc., to allow the subdivision of ~ 3 acres into 5 lots for commercial development. The property is described as Lots 1-32, Block 1, The Imes Addition and is located in the SW¼, Section 6, T2S, R6E of P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is located on the northwest corner of the Oak Street/Rouse Avenue intersection and is owned by Ted Weissman, 3 W’s Corporation. (Kozub) Planner Susan Kozub presented the Staff Memo. Mike Pentecost, Axia Architects, stated the site is ~ 3 acres. He noted the property would be developed as a PUD and subdivision. He noted the brick building would be returned to the original structure with the several additions being demolished. He stated all of the buildings would remain on site. He noted the former steel fabrication facility will become the Lone Mountain Gymnastics facility. He stated there would be a small addition to the structure for an office. He noted the warehouse structure would be renovated into office/retail space. Mr. Musser asked about the location of structures in sight triangles and if the issue would be remedied. Mr. Pentecost noted those situations are existing and they would ask to have them remain. Mr. Musser asked if they would be installing a mirror to help with traffic. Mr. Pentecost noted MDT officials have indicated a signal at Oak Street and Rouse Avenue in the near future. He stated the access onto Montana Avenue will be right-in/right-out only. Ms. Stroup asked if consideration had been given to razing and rebuilding the site. The applicant stated that the property owners want to use the site an structures as an adaptive re-use project. Ms. Stroup asked if the structures would be updated. Mr. Pentecost noted they were open to all suggestions from Staff and the review agencies. He stated they would try to incorporate as many ideas as feasible into their submittal plans. He described how they plan to upgrade the structures while maintaining the historical character of the site. Ms. Alexander asked about the relaxation of the setbacks and if there will be space for sidewalks along Oak Street and Rouse Avenue. Mr. Pentecost noted sidewalks would be installed, however, there wasn’t space to install the standard street trees. Ms. Alexander noted she supported the requested relaxations, and commended the applicant on the idea of mixed and adaptive re-use. She asked if adequate parking was available. Mr. Pentecost noted for the immediate uses, the parking is sufficient. However, the owner is trying to negotiate with Montana Rail Link for the trapezoidal property to the north for future parking needs. Ms. Alexander noted it is a great project and she is excited to see the improvements. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if they have used the newly adopted Design Objectives Plan. Mr. Pentecost noted they are in three entryway overlay corridors and have applied the standards to their proposal. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the setbacks are sacrosanct and she doesn’t support the encroachment into the 25’ setbacks on Oak Street and Rouse Avenue. She also stated that pedestrian walkways all along Rouse have been needed for years and are designed into the entryway corridor requirements and a single site should contribute to the continuity, not interrupt it. She noted the structure on the southeast corner is in the sight vision triangle. She suggested they should honor the sight vision triangle regulations. She suggested possibly moving the structure in the southeast corner out of the required setbacks, or reclaiming building materials from the demolition of the add-ons and reusing them within the project. She stated she likes the traditionally historic “industrial” architectural treatment of the structures. Ms. Alexander noted the structures already exist and nothing has to be done; however, the applicant was proposing to do some major face lifting of the structures. Ms. Pomnichowski said that there is no reason to perpetuate a non-conforming situation, especially one that is contrary to the public safety of the intersection. She noted MDOT might be able to schedule a time for the traffic signal to be installed at Oak Street and Rouse Avenue, but she cannot support the requested variances for the project. President Kirschenbaum noted he shared Ms. Pomnichowski’s concerns. However, he stated he realized the structures are existing. He noted he supported the proposal. Ms. Stroup noted the intersection was dangerous; however, it might not be a concern of this applicant. She noted moving the structure would be a huge step and costly; however, part of it could be removed. Mr. Pentecost noted the installation of the signal will be done with warrants by MDT. Mr. Musser noted it is a good project and the area needs to be renovated. President Kirschenbaum called for public comment, and hearing none, He closed the public comment portion of the meeting. President Kirschenbaum called for a brief recess at 7:30 p.m. while the Zoning Commission was called to order and conducted their business prior to the joint meeting. The meeting was resumed at 7:33 p.m. as a joint meeting with the Zoning Commission. ITEM 5. UDO REVISIONS – Joint meeting with Zoning Commission. UDO Policy Edits requested for further consideration. Susan Swimley asked that the group addressed the definition of “contemporary design” in neighborhood overlay to eliminate the subjectivity of what is expected. She suggested the group either define it or strike it and introduce the elements of design, and she preferred the latter. Her second comment was to capitalize ADR in all places. Her third suggestion was to require ADR, DRB either both or one of them consistently. She proposed that ADR is required as well as DRB. She further suggested that the DRB act as an appeal board for concerns about ADR decisions. Associate Planner Chris Saunders noted Ms. Swimley’s comments concerned Edits 36a and 37a. Karin Caroline, 1446 Cherry Drive, asked that the proposed changes be taken to heart. She noted some of the proposed changes to be discussed tonight are to tie the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan to the UDO. She noted there are some people here to comment on several items as they are discussed if that is appropriate. Edit #8 – Staff recommended Action #4, which included the three Actions above. Vote – Action #4 – 5 to 2, Ms. Pomnichowski stated she supported Actions 1 and 2, but not 3. Discussion by Staff and the members indicated the three Actions are interrelated. It was suggested that two separated tables could be used to depict the data more clearly. Edit #18 – Staff supported the edit as originally submitted. Discussion followed on not having the 5’ setback as recommended by the Historic Preservation Board. Vote – Action #3 – 7-0. Edit #33 – Staff recommended the members strike the reference to #5 as recommended by the INC. Staff doesn’t support the proposed edit and gave the rationale. Ms. Caroline explained the rationale was to increase the building height rather than using more land to create a shorter structure in regional commercial areas. Vote – Action #1 - 6-0, with Ms. Alexander abstaining. She noted this Edit would allow an increase in height of structures in all BP zoning districts and wouldn’t be appropriate in all of them. She stated the opportunity was in the current code. Lowell Springer, Springer Group Architectures, noted there is one area not zoned BP with BP land use designation – Ice Pond Road area. He stated there would be plenty of opportunity to get the height as the Code is written. Second Vote - Action 1-1-6. Edit #34 – Staff noted the Advisory Boards and Staff have advised against the change, and gave the rationale for that advice. Ms. Pomnichowski asked that item #5 from INC be added to the Action list. The group determined that the applicant needs to create the new historic district, which is currently possible under the existing ordinance. The decision was the idea for a Story Mill Historic Mixed Use District is great, however, it should not become part of the UDO through this process. The applicant should do the footwork. Vote - Action #1 –0-7; Action #4 – 7-0. Edit #35 – Staff gave the rationale for the edit, noting the Historic Preservation Board supported Action #4 to Take No Action. Staff supports that vote. Vote - Action #1 – 0-7; Action #4 – 7-0. Edit #36 – Staff gave the rationale for the edit, noting contemporary design is constantly changing, and adding an objective definition could make development in the historic districts difficult. Mr. Chisholm noted an objective code is ideal; however, he stated, a definition of contemporary design would be difficult. He stated the object of historic preservation is not to create a historic looking structure, but to preserve the historic structures in existence. Discussion followed. Vote - Action #2 – 1-6. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the INC makes reference to the completion of Tier II of the Design Objectives Plan as being under development. She asked if were actually under way. Planner Saunders stated the development of the Tier II standards has begun. Mr. Springer noted when one tries to quantify standards, it probably can’t be done. He stated the aesthetic nature just cannot be quantified, and needs to be left to subjective judgment. Staff noted inclusion of the term contemporary design is meant to be permissive in nature. Vote - Action #4 6-1. Edit #36a – Staff described the role of the DRB, and gave the rationale for Staff’s non-support of the proposed Edit. Ms. Alexander asked for explanation of the various edits contained within this edit. Staff noted most are editorial in nature, and not a policy change. Ms. Swimley noted she couldn’t follow which proposals went to ADR staff and which went to DRB. It was noted a reference could be added to each item. Staff noted the criteria are included in the authorizing language for the DRB. Vote – Action #4 – 7-0. Edit #37a – Same discussion as for Edit #36a Vote – Action #4 - 7-0. Edit #38 – Vote – Action #1 – 6-1. Ms. Alexander stated she saw no compelling reason to support the Edit. Ms. Stroup noted beer can be purchased at a grocery store and consumed anywhere. Ms. Alexander noted other countries have many restrictions on alcohol purchasing/consumption and our city should have them also. Ms. Caroline noted one of her groups want to bring the Edit forward for public comment. Mr. Springer noted Town Pump was forced to create two lots for their gas station/car wash and a casino. He noted there is an underlying current that the public doesn’t know how to take care of itself so the government should legislate to protect public safety. Edit #39 – Staff gave the rationale for the Edit. Vote - Action 1 – 7-0. Edit #40 – Ms. Caroline gave the background for the Edit, stating affordable housing projects shouldn’t be given preferential scheduling. Vote - Action #1 - 4-3. Ms. Alexander noted it shouldn’t be eliminated as affordable housing needs have yet to be met. Edit #42 – Staff gave the rationale for its nonsupport of the Edit. Ms. Caroline stated that the UDO group felt the three weeks of DRC review is plenty of time for the public to make comments and shouldn’t be permitted to make comment after the final DRC date. Staff noted either Administrative Staff (Planning Director) or the City Commission makes the decision on a project. Ms. Swimley noted the applicant should receive a reasonable amount of time to respond to the public comment. Ms. Alexander asked if there has been a problem in the past? Neither Ms. Swimley nor Ms. Caroline could think of any instances. Mr. Springer noted a decision on a project at Babcock Street and Fowler Avenue had several conditions added due to the threat of a lawsuit by an attorney. Vote - Action #1 – 2-5. It was suggested a new action be included to add three days for applicant to respond to the public comment. The group suggested legal staff provide comment before the Edit goes before City Commission. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the Action #2 as proposed by INC addresses both parties and she would support it. Edit #44 – Staff gave the rationale for the Edit. Vote - Action #1 - 5-2. Ms. Pomnichowski sated she supported Action #2. She stated she does not support the idea of calculating open space as part of the adjacent required yard setbacks. She noted there currently are problems with yards extending into open space due to lack of delineation. A 5 minute break was taken. Edit #45 – Staff gave the rationale for the edit, stating that staff is opposed to the revision. Vote - Action #1 – 0-7. Ms. Caroline discussed how recreation areas can in fact be retention areas. Mr. Springer noted language in Oregon law allows ice buildup in the retention ponds for skating, etc. After he explained the difference between retention and detention ponds, Clint Litle stated the use of land would be more beneficial to preventing sprawl with the dual use of retention/detention ponds. Ms. Stroup suggested a compromise between the group who suggested the Edit and the City to encourage investigation of dual uses. One member of the group was concern that a muddy bog might be counted as open space. Ms. Stroup suggested a new action item be added to have the Planning Department ask the applicant to submit different materials. A vote on Ms. Stroup’s suggestion indicated support by a majority of the Board/Commission. Planner Saunders noted the City of Bozeman has recently been required to follow Phase 2 stormwater standards, and stated the City Engineering Department is working on a “Best Practices” manual. Edit #46 – Staff gave the rationale for the edit. Vote – Action #2 - 5-2. Ms. Pomnichowski asked Staff to include the definition of condominium in the UDO. Mr. Lutes noted apartments are different from condos, ownership for one, term of occupancy for another. He stated he felt the amount of open space shouldn’t be dictated by the City. Edit #47 – Ms. Caroline gave the rational for the edit, stating it referred to a Master Site Plan. Vote - Action #1 - 4-3. Ms. Alexander noted she was neutral, but suggested a better sentence be written. Edit #55 – Staff gave the rationale for the edit. Vote - Action #1 - 0-7. Edit #60 – Staff gave the rational for the edit, then stated staff is opposed to the edit. Mr. Springer noted there are certain areas in the City where a PUD is required. Ms. Caroline stated her group would agree that the existing standard should remain as it allows for give and take between the City and the applicant. Ms. Caroline stated they no longer supported the edit. Vote – Action #4 - 7-0. Edit #61 – Staff gave the rationale for edits #61, #62, and #63, noting that all apply only to administrative discretion and stating Staff didn’t support the edits. Mr. Litle noted the 2% latitude is very minimal for Staff to make the decision. He suggested at least a 5% basis. Mr. Springer noted that on Stoneridge Subdivision, they had to come back through the process three times for what he considered minor changes. He stated Staff needs more flexibility. Vote – Action #1 - 7-0. Edit #62 – Ms. Caroline noted the comparison was to have minor PUD changes mirror major PUD changes. Ms. Alexander suggested the applicant and Staff work together to rewrite the two or three sentences. Ms. Pomnichowski disagreed with Action #2 and gave the rationale. She noted items named in the existing section, like reduced or reallocated open space, affordable housing units, or changes to the shape and arrangement of blocks are not included in the recommended action, and would like to see them included. Vote – Action #1 - 2-5. Consensus of the group was the edit needs more work. Edit #63 – Staff gave the rational for the edit. Vote - Action #1 - 7-0. President Kirschenbaum noted the hour was nearing 10:30 and suggested the Board/Commission pick up the rest of the Edits at the next meeting. Staff noted increasing project loads and noted holding some extra meetings for discussion of the Edits may be needed to process the edits quickly. ITEM 667. NEW BUSINESS – There was none. ITEM 778. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Board or Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ___________________________________ __________________________________ Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Harry Kirschenbaum, President Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board