HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-10 Planning Board Minute
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:45 p.m. in the
Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Trever McSpadden Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Ed Sypinski Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Chris Budeski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Quinn
Erik Henyon, President
Jeff Krauss
Members Absent:Guests Present:
Eugene Graf, IV Chris Mehl
Brian Caldwell, Vice President Michael Delaney
Ileana Indreland
Heather Higinbotham
Thomas Bitnar
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.}
Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Henyon closed the public comment portion of
the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2010
MOTION:
Mr. Quinnmoved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of June 1, 2010 as
The motion carried 6-0
presented.. Those voting aye being President Henyon, Mr. McSpadden,
Mr. Budeski, Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Krauss, and Mr. Quinn. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Spring Creek Village Resort INFORMAL #I-10009
(Krueger)
Northeast of the intersection of Resort Drive and Huffine Lane
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the development of
~32 acres in three phases as a Planned Unit Development to provide for
mixed use construction in conformance with the Urban Mixed Use (UMU)
District.
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 1
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for Informal
Application and the project had been reviewed at the Development Review Committee level as
well as the Design Review Board. He stated the proposal was for a future formal application for
a Planned Unit Development on the west side of the City. He stated the subject site was currently
undeveloped and was of a size of ~31 acres. He noted which streets bounded the property and
added there were residential uses and business park development adjacent to the site. He stated
the proposal was the first for the new zoning designation of UMU (Urban Mixed Use) in the City.
He stated there was a somewhat new land use designation as well which had been adopted with
the Bozeman Growth Policy. He stated Staff was asking the Board to comment on the proposal’s
compliance with the long range planning requirements as adopted. He stated the review process
would include subdivision and there was intent to create pad sites for future buildings with shared
common amenities. He stated there was some potential for vertical and horizontal mixed uses and
cited examples. He stated the project was proposed to be completed in phases over years and
added there would be a need to request variances from the underlying zoning though those had
not been specifically identified. He stated one of the questions that Staff or other review bodies
were working through was if an avenue other than a PUD could be used to develop the site. He
noted adjacent uses including full residential development to the north and business park type
development to the east; he added Staff felt the location to be appropriate for this type of
proposal. He stated the rectilinear grid was proposed as private streets with 90 degree
perpendicular parking generally everywhere; the primary through aisles would create pedestrian
interest and provide parking though no thorough study had been completed. He stated pad sites
were proposed along Huffine Lane as well as high level interior pedestrian connections. He stated
the second phase included a golfing facility as well as more residential uses on the site. He stated
there was a 50 foot setback requirement for the Entryway Corridor along Huffine Lane. He
stated in general a common area in the center of the site with high density activity around it
created a higher level of connectivity, slower traffic, and an urban landscape. He stated Staff had
included questions at the end of the Staff Report and apologized that the questions were so
vague. He stated he would be happy to answer any technical questions from the Board.
Michael Delaney addressed the Board. He stated he and his wife, Ileana Indreland, were the
owners of the property and had the pleasure since 1987. He stated they had waited to present the
idea until the UMU zoning had been adopted. He stated they liked the comments made by
previous boards/commissions and other professionals. He stated the article in the paper about
creating a “mini downtown” was way off base; a small village was what was proposed to be
created. He directed the Board to the aerial photo of his parcel and added it was very small when
compared to adjacent properties. He stated the development was designed primarily for the
adjacent residents and would be completely different from downtown; the designs had not been
based on what they thought would work and had instead been based on designs throughout the
world that had been found to work. He stated he and his wife had owned property downtown for
20-30 years; their buildings were 100% occupied and they knew what they were doing managing
property and working with the tenants to insure their success. He stated their projects were based
on facts that could be proven to have worked historically. He stated the grid system was a pattern
that worked so that anyone would know where they were within the development. He directed
the Board to the proposed phase differentiations within the proposal; once the buildings in one
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 2
block were 100% occupied they would move to the development of the next block. He stated the
walkability of the neighborhood would increase with each block’s development. He presented a
revised rendering to the Board depicting modifications based on comments from the DRC and
DRB. He stated the tenants would be made known as they were procured.
Mr. Delaney presented a recently revised plan layout. He stated the idea was to create a series for
anchoring smaller buildings on each corner of the plaza to enclose the plaza/recreation area. He
stated there would be a multiplicity of uses during both summer and winter months. He stated the
whole key was to make people feel safer. He stated the amenities would be open for the public to
use though there would be a charge for the golf course. He stated a 50 foot wide
greenbelt/parkway would be included along Huffine Lane and a greenbelt would also be included
around the perimeter of the property. He stated each block would have numerous pedestrian
crossings and all the elevations of the sidewalks would be higher than the parking. He stated
there would be underground parking and would encourage technological advances where
possible. He stated it was intended to be a village and additionally each was an individual lot so
that each tenant could have the opportunity and joy of owning a lot with fewer restrictions; most
other developments of that nature had a single developer owning everything and leasing to
tenants. He stated he hoped people would feel compelled to turn into the site while driving along
Huffine Lane; it had been designed to bring the community to the site. He stated he would love to
hear the Board’s comments.
President Henyon opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public
comment portion of the item was closed.
President Henyon directed the Board to the questions provided by Staff in categories.
Mr. Budeski asked if the southwest corner of the revised rendering would be residential. Mr.
Delaney responded it was proposed as mostly a parking lot and a hotel; the second plan was
changed since it was too close to Huffine Lane to enjoy as a residential feeling as the residential
component that was previously proposed.
Mr. Sypinski asked how the golf course development would be addressed. Planner Krueger
responded the Planned Unit Development could call out more specific uses, but would need to
ask for a relaxation of the requirements. Mr. Sypinski stated the authorized uses had already been
determined with the formation of the UMU Zoning designation and he was uncertain whether or
not is should be allowed relaxations for the first application. Mr. Delaney responded it had not
been their intention to eliminate any recreational components such as a golf course and they had
intended those amenities on the site; the purpose of the PUD was to allow the community the
ability to know what was being proposed for the site.
Mr. Quinn asked Mr. Delaney if he had given any thought with regard to the on-street parking
being reduced and instead a parking garage or facility that would enhance the area be included.
Mr. Delaney responded parking was one of the greatest positives and negatives for development;
the difference was that the best parking arrangement, per their consultant Dan Burden, had been
the design as proposed as it slowed traffic an average of 15 miles per hour; it had been proven to
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 3
work for the last fifteen years. He added the consultant’s had told them that for 85-90% of the
year the surface parking in front of each store would be more than adequate; downtown could
have doubled the parking if 90 degree parking had been considered an option by MDOT. He
stated they had created the opportunity for patrons to enjoy optimum parking relationships for the
community. Mr. Quinn clarified that the interior parking would be plenty for the site.
Mr. McSpadden stated there had been discussion of the possibility of multiple deviations and he
was surprised a PUD allowed those deviations; would it then really comply with the UMU zoning.
He stated in terms of general conformance, the request for so many deviations would bring the
property out of compliance; he understood a PUD was supposed to have some flexibility.
Mr. Budeski stated he liked the concept; especially vertical mixed use. He stated what the Board
would see coming back would be different. He stated the original plaza area would be much more
inviting to pedestrians and he liked the old park style; natural surveillance to allow people to see
through the site. He stated he was concerned with the location of the bicycle lanes behind the
parking as it may cause issues; he suggested angled parking worked very well. He stated he was
originally concerned with the design of the site along Huffine with regard to access and the
revised rendering was an improvement that alleviated some of his concerns. He stated the right in
– right out for the lodge proposed at the end of the road might be problematic. He stated there
were some areas where the orientation of the buildings was not in conformance with the
guidelines, but that tailoring was what a PUD was intended for. He stated he thought the
proposal would make a nice anchor for the west end of Bozeman.
Mr. Quinn stated the proposal seemed to be in general conformance with the UMU zoning
designation and it fit his idea of Urban Mixed Use. He stated the land use on Cottonwood Road
had been set aside for community development in that location and would tie into development
further to the north. He stated he believed the proposal certainly could be an advantage to the
community; he suggested a mass transit stop be instituted on the site to help provide walkability.
Mr. Krauss stated he had voted against the UMU re-zoning and the overall concept. He stated
the golfing activities made it a little more like an urban neighborhood resort. When he thought of
downtown he thought of neighbors hanging out of windows and people walking down the street;
a bit noisy but a good downtown. He suggested vertical integration contain mixed use; two or
three story buildings with considerable opportunity for residential components. He stated he
thought the revision proposed too much parking along Huffine Lane and he preferred the pad
sites as originally proposed. He stated he preferred multiple pads have interior parking that would
be a little more hidden; it seemed contrary to what Bozeman was attempting to do. He directed
the applicant to be dark skies compliant even on the golf course. He stated he liked the idea of
elevated sidewalks and staggered buildings. He suggested when the lodge was built there could
be an understanding that the parking would be more structured parking in the future. He stated
he did like going to Aleworks, but he also liked parking in the Parking Garage downtown and
walking to a restaurant. He agreed with Mr. Quinn that funding for a bus to get to the site should
be included. He stated PUD’s were a deal between the governing body and the developer to
allow flexibility in requirements for something in exchange; superior design. He stated the
applicant’s optimism in bringing the application forward made him feel better about the City as a
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 4
whole.
President Henyon stated he was a huge fan and proponent of the UMU zoning district; he saw it
as an innovation for the City of Bozeman and it would be good for business. He stated the
multiple stories and true residential components are very important to him. He stated he liked the
originally proposed park as it was larger with more open space. He stated recreational
opportunities on the west side of town would be a good draw as they were sparse in that location.
He stated he liked the revised rendering with staggered building faces, but he would not want to
see them staggered too much. He stated he agreed with the suggestion of including angled
parking. He stated he liked the lodge proposed closer to the Ridge and suggested the parking
along Huffine Lane could be mitigated by large evergreen trees and give a feel for looking into the
community. He stated the approval of deviations and relaxations would depend on what was
being proposed; each would be reviewed on an individual basis though some could be easily
accepted by the Board.
Mr. Krauss stated the challenge of downtown was the expense; not everyone could live
downtown. He suggested the alternative was the creation of something similar; previously
referred to by a previous Mayor of Bozeman as the Hamletization of Bozeman. He stated the
closer the applicant adhered to downtown Bozeman, the easier the development of the site would
be.
Mr. McSpadden suggested each phase reflect the small, individual blocks and maintain the unique
development pattern. He stated the design guidelines would dictate how the site would develop
over time.
ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEM
1. Yellowstone Business Partnership Grant
(Heather Higinbotham)
*
Presentation of possible grant opportunities in support of regional
planning. Consideration of a motion to participate.
Heather Higinbotham noted she worked with a nonprofit organization with a regional framework
for sustainable development. She stated they had taken into consideration cultural values,
wildlife, transportation, etc. and had come up with an alternative to LEED certification. There
was a voluntary rating system that communities would participate in for certification as a
sustainable City. She stated there had recently been a new federal partnership developed that
would be dispersing grant monies; the guidelines had been set to determine eligible communities
and the grant would be for local governments. She suggested the Greater Yellowstone
framework document could be used as a template so the premise of the grant could be on a larger
scale with communities putting together model codes in commuter shed areas. She stated the
grant proposal was due on August 23, 2010. Mr. Budeski asked for more clarification of whether
the grant would be for building sustainability or economic sustainability. Ms. Higinbotham
explained the grant was for all types of sustainability and social, economic, environment were all
included.
Interim Director Saunders stated a more holistic viewpoint was being attempted; how is Bozeman
interfacing with other communities, the environment, transportation needs. He stated Staff was
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 5
seeking input on whether or not the grant should be pursued.
Mr. Sypinski stated he saw the grant opportunity as one of the policy actions adopted with the
implementation of the Growth Policy and the grant would be the next step in ongoing
implementation of the Growth Policy.
Ms. Higinbotham stated a consortium would be created with those participating in the grant;
specific funding would be investigated with regard to how transportation, affordable housing, etc.
could be achieved. She stated the Yellowstone Business Partnership would spearhead the writing
and investigation of grant monies.
Interim Director Saunders stated that, as an example, the City and MSU seniors had worked on
drafting a “Best Practices” manual for storm water management which had never been
implemented and could potentially be funded by the grant.
Mr. Budeski stated he had seen a lot of reports come and go; they were written and never
implemented. He stated it was important for him that tax dollars were being used wisely. He
clarified that many communities would participate. Ms. Higinbotham noted which communities
would be working with them. Mr. Budeski asked if the document would be vague and never
implemented. Ms. Higinbotham responded there were two aspects to the grant; they would be
focusing on the implementation aspect of the grant geared toward specific projects. She
described one ongoing project with regard to transportation where the long term goal is to have a
Travelocity type ticket system integrated between each of the participating communities.
Mr. Krauss stated he understood bus systems and bike trails; he would like to apply for the grant
as well, but he didn’t understand what was being discussed. He stated the City had a department
to administer grants and advisory bodies/elected officials to determine which of those grants; he
didn’t understand the need to include other communities nor the need for the funds to be
distributed to the City by the Yellowstone Business Partnership. He stated he was concerned with
stepping outside of the framework of representative democracy and moving into who represents,
who supports these people. He stated he understood Mr. Sypinski’s concerns with regard to the
implementation of the Growth Policy. Mr. Sypinski stated Mr. Krauss had valid concerns and
asked what Ms. Higinbotham wanted of the Board.
Mr. Budeski asked the purpose and membership of the Yellowstone Business Partnership. Ms.
Higenbotham responded there were elected officials, business owners, etc. that were members of
the organization whose purpose was looking at areas greater than just a single community. Mr.
Budeski asked Ms. Higinbotham how funding was procured. Ms. Higinbotham responded
membership dues and fundraisers were used to fund the organization.
Mr. Krauss suggested he wanted to look at a list of members and an annual report of some sort
from the organization; he would be interested in seeing the membership prior to jumping in and
noted he felt a responsibility for how the City takes care of its federal funds.
Mr. Sypinski agreed with Mr. Krauss that information should be provided to the Board.
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 6
Interim Director Saunders clarified that the Yellowstone Business Partnership would be a flow
through collector and the Commission would ultimately decide which projects to pursue with the
funding; the purpose of the funding would be to see how issues flowed through jurisdictional
boundaries and the Commission would retain the final decision.
Mr. Budeski asked if the organization had done any previous reports that he could take a look at
to better know the organization.
President Henyon stated that the remaining issue was whether or not the City wanted to pursue
federal dollars for projects. He stated he was not interested in pursuing federal grant dollars.
Mr. Sypinski clarified that the City of Bozeman was not writing the grant. Ms. Higinbotham
responded Mr. Sypnski was correct.
Mr. Krauss stated it was difficult to make a decision when he was uncertain what was being
promoted; it was too vague a description. He stated the City would participate in their priorities.
Mr. Quinn stated he didn’t want Bozeman to close the mailbox on federal money spent in their
region; it was the community’s money.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
Interim Director Saunders stated there would be a report on the Commission Work Plan on July
12, 2010 which would also be included on the website. Mr. Krauss stated he thought the
Planning Board fit into the work plan and suggested the members review the information; he felt
the Planning Board should take steps to help the slipping local economy.
Interim Director Saunders responded Tim McHarg had been selected as the new Planning
Director and his start date would be sometime in the second half of August.
President Henyon stated he had seven items that needed immediate attention by the Planning
Board. He reiterated meeting with Economic Development Committee, diversity of lots, UDO
amendments, horizon plan for the year, City Commission goals, implementation of the Growth
Policy, as well as recommendations for bonding of completion of projects.
Mr. Krauss suggested a plan be arranged for the rest of the year and suggested trying to invite a
group of retailers/manufacturers or other segment to come in and tell the Board what the City
could do to help.
th
The Board suggested they should hold a work session meeting on the 4 Tuesday of each month.
Mr. Krauss suggested the Board create their own e-mail accounts specifically for Planning Board
members. The Board concurred.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 7
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Henyon adjourned the meeting
at 10:05 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Erik Henyon, President Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 8