Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-10 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2010 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:56 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: Bill Quinn Tim McHarg, Planning Director Trever McSpadden David Skelton, Senior Planner Ed Sypinski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Chris Budeski Erik Henyon, President Members Absent:Guests Present: Brian Caldwell Michael Delaney Jeff Krauss Tony Renslow Eugene Graf Jami Morris Jodi Leone ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {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 general public comment forthcoming, President Henyon closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Budeskimoved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of November The motion carried 5-0 16, 2010 as presented.. Those voting aye being, President Henyon, Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Pre-Application #P-10015 – (Spring Creek Village Resort MaSub) A Major Subdivision Pre-Application in conjunction with a Planned Unit Development requested by the owner and applicant, Spring Creek Village, LLC, and representative, C&H Engineering and Surveying, requesting the subdivision of 31.0275 acres into 95 lots for (UMU) Urban Mixed Use District development and 11 park/open space lots for property legally described as Minor Subdivision #295, Lot 5, Spring Creek Village Resort, Gallatin County, Montana and generally located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue. (Skelton) 112 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting that the proposal was for a development of significant magnitude and scale with much background and history that may be part of the agenda discussion for the evening; he noted Staff and Mr. Delaney had been working on the development of this site for nearly a decade. He stated this would be the first UMU project in the community and because the application was for concept PUD plan review and subdivision pre-application plan review, that no formal motion necessary. That the purpose of the Planning Board considering the proposal was to provide comment and advise to assist the applicant with preparing a formal application for consideration by the Planning Board and City Commission. He stated the two applications would run concurrently with each other during the review process and would give the Planning Board the opportunity to provide points of discussion for areas of concern. He stated that the Planning Office has included comments in the packet provided by local advisory bodies and that those agencies would also be involved in the subdivision review of the Preliminary Plat; he noted that the proposal was also being considered as a subdivision PUD to consider requested relaxations of the Unified Development Ordinance and those aspects of the development that would influence the subdivision requirements. He stated there were two different review disciplines involved with considering the proposal and that part of the difficulty in preparing findings for comment and consideration was that staff’s review was based strictly on the information provided; there was limited discussion and detail provided in much of the application as is necessary in the early stages of the PUD and subdivision review. He suggested the Board provide recommendations on each of the five points of discussion referenced in the Staff Report and any additional concerns they may have and suggested the Board review them one at a time and allow time for the applicant to respond to the comments. He stated if the Board thought a point of discussion had been missed they could indicate the need to discuss the issue further. Planner Skelton stated the UMU designation was established in 2006. He stated that the property had been zoned BP instead of B-2 in an effort to avoid stereotype strip commercial development west of Ferguson and instead encourage the development of a campus like setting with an emphasis on open space and a green edge along the Entryway Corridor; it has been suggested that the market appeared to not promote that type of development and the UMU had developed out of that realization. He stated Staff’s responsibility was to ensure the spirit of the UMU district was carried through with the development of the site. He stated the requirements for this site were identical to that set forth for other properties within the West Main Entryway Corridor regarding the Bozeman design objectives plan. He stated he had included extensive minutes from the Design Review Board meeting indicating the need for revisions to the proposal to achieve the UMU spirit and polices of the design objectives plan for entryway corridors. He stated there is difficulty in reviewing a proposal of this scale, and having a greater sense of seeing the bigger picture along this corridor; when the proposal involves a mix of ninety- five commercial, professional office and residential lots; with the project be a long term, multi-phased project. He stated there were limited physical features and mature vegetation on the property which included the Maynard Border ditch that would be continued as an amenity. He stated phase one of the project was situated at the eastern edge of the property and the intersection of Ferguson Avenue and Huffine Lane would be important with regard to the project’s presentation to the community. He stated a development theme would be implemented with the initial phase and carried through 212 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. the last four phases of the development, and needed to ensure that the initial phase reflected the intent of the community’s first UMU district. Planner Skelton noted that the Board would need to evaluate the proposal and provide recommendations and advise to the applicant to assist with preparing formal applications. He noted that there have been a number of discussions between Staff and the applicant, and with the DRC and DRB; that further clarified by the applicant’s proposal. He suggested the Board include any items they thought Staff had missed and he would entertain any questions the Board needed answered. President Henyon opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed. President Henyon asked Planner Skelton to discuss the resort designation of the property and its affect on the proposal. Planner Skelton responded it would be best for the applicant to address the resort status of the property as the resort designation is not part of the . Michael Delaney, owner, addressed the Planning Board. He stated he and his wife had owned the property for 20 plus years and had been discussing changing the zoning of the property from B-P. He stated the change had been proposed and Staff had been supportive of the UMU district. He stated first and foremost, their application was designed based on real places and living examples that were included in the proposal; the design had proven itself to work and those designs that hadn’t worked had been eliminated. He stated it had always been their intention to create something that people would tell their friends about using designs that had been around for 110’s of years. He stated there were as many ways to design the project as there were cloud designs in the sky. He stated he appreciated comments and recommendations, but had intentionally designed the site. He stated the design was not so urban as to be overreaching to downtown Bozeman; downtown should be the real urban center. He stated urban mixed use could be heavy or light mixed use and that is why they were requesting relaxations to the height requirements. He stated the southern edge of site primarily faced Huffine Lane and buildings too tall on the southern edge would block the sun and shade a large portion of the site. He stated there was a variety of interpretations of Urban Mixed Use and suggested the light to moderate definition of the district be considered. President Henyon asked Mr. Delaney to address the resort designation. Mr. Delaney responded that the State of Montana had approved an application to designate the property as a resort ~15 years earlier. He stated if recreational amenities were included on the site, the State allowed the owner of the property to designate the property as a resort which allowed the property to not be affected by the quota system regarding liquor licenses. He stated the first of the state requirements had been met by the construction of the athletic club, the 25 room hotel would be next for construction, and one of the last requirements would be to build a restaurant that would seat 100 people. Mr. Budeski asked if the 25 foot height request was to the peak of a building and if sloped or flat roofs would be included. Mr. Delaney responded it would be a combination of both roof forms; 312 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. at least half of the buildings would be a flat roof. He stated they envisioned most of the retailers to have the presence of a 25 foot front; there would be grandness to it with 18-20 foot tall ceilings that could incorporate a second floor or mezzanine. President Henyon stated the applicant had mentioned examples and asked for Mr. Delaney to share some of the working examples. Mr. Delaney cited examples of dynamicism and suggested the parking at the Crossroads Building had been suggested by Mr. Burden as a good example with most units being taller than one story. He stated in Scottsville there was a true mixed use example in a previously urban, strip center area. He stated a number of positive developments were in Palm Beach and West Palm Beach Florida which they copied some aspects of while removing other aspects. He stated there had been some developments that were not working; some because of their location, some because of their design, and some because they had tried to bite off too much at once in the development of the property. He stated they wanted to go small instead of gross to focus on the internal main street development. He stated they wanted to start on the first phase of development with the majority of the spaces filled; they’d already filled all but two spaces. President Henyon then deferred to staff’s presentation. Planner Skelton clarified that the reasoning for having to consider two applications that included the need for a Concept PUD review besides the subdivision pre-application, which is not always necessary with subdivisions, was required due to the number of relaxations to the UDO requested with the proposal. Planner Skelton stated the first point of discussion was whether or not the proposal met the intent of the UMU District. He stated Staff noted that many of the buildings depicted on the site plan suggested that they were one story structures; restaurant, grocery story, and the bank and that the application will need to clarify in the formal application what kind of the distribution there would be with multi-story structures as required with the UMU district; including the requested relaxation for building height that may not meet the intent of the UMU District. He directed the Board to a rendering of proposed phase 1 of the development. He stated there had been discussion of what would be the residential component and how it would be dispersed, and noted the locations of the lodge and restaurants; how would mechanical equipment be incorporated with the design if residential units were proposed on a second or third story. He stated Staff was concerned with achieving the vertical intensification of the uses as intended with the UMU district. Mr. Sypinski asked if each phase would be reviewed separately with regard to the intensification of vertical use. Planner Skelton responded it was a good question and noted he thought the key would be how phase 1 was developed and how the initial phase met the spirit of the UMU; Staff would rather see flexibility in future phases on the development. Mr. Budeski stated he thought there needed to be a transitional development as there were all lower profile buildings along the corridor; he stated a five story building on the corner of Ferguson and Huffine would look out of place and he agreed with the applicant that the 25 foot 412 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. height should be allowed as a transition to the taller structures. Planner Skelton responded Staff did not disagree with that concept, but the building at the corner would be important on how the transition from one-story buildings to two and three story buildings was implemented. President Henyon stated that the UMU District referred to the designation as a whole district; when he read the language it included the whole district not just individual phases. Planner Skelton responded President Henyon’s concerns would be discussed with the next discussion item. President Henyon stated he liked the idea of a one story building along Huffine Lane; he recalled discussion of a town center location that could be seen from Huffine Lane. He added the applicant had pretty much written the district and had included the minimum height requirement of 32 feet. Planner Skelton responded Staff had not anticipated all the buildings would be three to four stories though they thought phase 1 should establish the type of development preferred with this UMU district. Mr. Delaney addressed the Planning Board stating the minimum of 32 feet had not been suggested by the applicant and the plan had indicated a mix of 1, 2, and 3 story buildings. He stated the height variation is what made main streets wonderful; a monochromatic flat look would become uninteresting. He stated he felt a 25 foot building was a very large building and cited the Owenhouse Building on Huffine Lane was 18 feet tall. He stated very few cars would be seen from Huffine Lane but the majority of the buildings would be seen. He stated his spaces had been designed for individual owners and should include the flexibility for the merchants to determine how tall their building should be. He stated the most expensive part of phase 1 of the development would be the lodge; if a restaurant bar was included the height would be in excess of 32 feet. He stated the far western portion of the lot would accommodate a restaurant that would also likely be taller than 32 feet. He stated the proposed grocery store might only be 25 feet tall but they did not know that yet. He stated he felt the application complied with all the requirements as laid out in the UDO. Mr. Quinn asked if Mr. Delaney intended to make the lodge condominiums. Mr. Delaney responded the lodge would be daily rented, weekly rented, or as long as they wanted to stay as well as could be purchased. Mr. Budeski asked if phase 1 could encroach into phase 2. Mr. Delaney responded they did not anticipate phase 1 encroaching into phase 2, but they may need to develop part of phase 2 to accommodate overflow parking. He stated the design of the parking facility had mimicked the 777 building. President Henyon stated there had been considerable discussion regarding a dire need in the City for a conference center and asked if Mr. Delaney had considered a conference center with business spaces for lease or purchase; he suggested a conference center would allow more traction in the state and could be a lucrative spot for a conference center. Mr. Delaney responded the same thought had been presented in the past to provide for a performing arts center which had been relocated to downtown Bozeman. He added the most obvious space for a conference center was near rooms; along Baxter Lane near all the existing hotels and I-90; they were looking more toward a performing arts center that could double as a conference center or meeting center. 512 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. Planning Skelton stated the height issue was more than height, but intensification of use as well. He stated it was Staff’s interpretation that the residential component would need to be met for each phase of the development and they had discussed the lodge as a residential component but it would need to be clear how the residential component requirements would be met with the construction of the lodge in the first phase. He stated the UDO required dedicated parkland through the subdivision and PUD provisions to serve the residential components of the development. He stated the RPAB and GVLT had considered the proposal and had recommended a reasonably sized area be included for both organized and unorganized activities instead of the linear parks; typically a parkland requirement or cash in lieu would not be required with a commercial subdivision unless a residential component is to be provided, keeping in mind that the UMU district is more than just a commercial subdivision. He stated the RPAB had been concerned regarding the use of the plaza area and the level of use that would be made available to the general public; he stated the requirement for dedicated parkland was found in two separate chapters within the UDO. He stated the applicant was requesting a waiver from Workforce Housing requirements and would need to bring documentation before the advisory board that he would not be able to meet the provisions set forth for workforce housing before the board would support the waiver. Mr. Sypinski stated the Board had recommended putting the Workforce Housing ordinance on hiatus and asked how it would affect the proposal. Planner Skelton responded there had been consideration of putting the ordinance on hold; however, currently it is still a requirement of the UDO and will need to be formally addressed. Director McHarg responded the item was up for discussion by the Commission and Staff was awaiting the decision, at the discretion of the Mayor, for placing the item on an agenda; until that time the ordinance is still in full force and affect. Planner Skelton stated there had also been discussion regarding the first floor having a percentage of commercial development; the applicant would need to address the residential component with phase 1. Mr. Budeski stated he viewed the site as a community that would not likely have families with young children so he could see the trail on the perimeter as a passive recreational area. He stated the detention basins seemed like the biggest wastes of land as those areas could be used for active recreational areas. He stated the detention area on Fallon Street could be used as an active recreational area as well; he suggested the area should be allowed to be parkland. Planner Skelton stated the key to that would be if that would work in that location given the soil, percolation rates, etc. Mr. Budeski responded that in Durston Meadow Condos there was a park component with a detention basin. President Henyon stated he 100% guaranteed that the perimeter trail system will be used as a park due to the proximity of the athletic center. Mr. Delaney stated he concurred with President Henyon regarding the use of the perimeter trail system. He stated he felt the lodge would meet the residential component requirements for phases 1-3 which had been done intentionally to allow someone to have retail on the ground floor, an 612 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. office on the second floor, and a residential unit on the third floor. He stated he concurred with Mr. Budeski regarding the parkland dedication and added he was shocked at the refusal of the RPAB to allow the linear park to be included. He stated the majority of the linear park was along Huffine Lane and could not be used as a contribution either open space or linear park. He stated if both linear parks were added the minimum mandates in any residential zone would be exceeded. He stated they had gone to the CAHAB meeting with their attorney and they did not think they were subject to those requirements as it was pertinent to residential lots instead of commercial lots. Mr. Quinn added Mr. Delaney would run into difficulties with regard to the residential requirements as this was the first development in the UMU zoning district and was the first time the City had “skinned the cat”. Mr. Delaney responded UMU was 80 % commercial zoning. Mr. Quinn responded the district did not say it was strictly commercial. Mr. Quinn asked if the 20% residential requirement was in square feet. Mr. Delaney responded the entire lodge would be the 20% requirement for phases 1-3. Mr. Quinn asked if the required commercial and residential percentages were for square footage. Mr. Delaney responded the requirement was for square footage. Mr. Sypinski clarified the 20% was based on the gross building square footage and asked if the 20% would be met with the construction of the lodge in phase 1. Mr. Delaney responded that they will have complied with the residential component requirements in the first phase of the development. Director McHarg suggested the Board way in on what was defined as a residential use; the language could be interpreted in many different ways – at what point is a hotel, extended stay lodge, or fractional ownership a residential use. Mr. Budeski stated he was going to ask the same question. Mr. Delaney responded the lodge units would be individually owned and would have to have a homeowners association; he added there was no ruling or definition and one should not be defined after the application has been submitted. Director McHarg stated he disagreed and suggested that weighing in on the issue was appropriate. Mr. Delaney responded that as a point of law, if it isn’t what is represented as a definition the court will decide for the widest interpretation. Mr. Budeski stated it was unknown what percentage of the units would be owned or rented out full time. Mr. McHarg responded that if the issues were not clear and a lot of relaxations were being requested, it might behoove the Board and Staff to modify the language of the ordinance. Mr. Budeski asked if extended stay lodging was allowed within the UMU District. Director McHarg responded it was a principal use within the district and it was the residential language that he had concerns with due to the lack of a list of allowable residential uses. Planner Skelton suggested the Board discuss the residential component requirements. President Henyon suggested a short break be taken and suggested the remaining items could be opened and continued to the next meeting of the Planning Board. President Henyon stated if the residential unit had its own individual utilities on a separate meter it would be a separate residential use. Director McHarg stated he had asked the question as it was different scenario if it was a nightly rental in an existing development; the Board may feel it 712 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. appropriate to say whether or not the nightly rental met the residential intent as a lot of resort areas would struggle in case the rooms weren’t rented for one reason or another and people in those units would be the most important issue. President Henyon asked Mr. Delaney how many mixed use developments successfully included residential units. Mr. Delaney responded in most of the developments in Florida there were strong residential components that worked well; it had been defined what a residential dwelling unit was in the UDO. He read the definition of a dwelling and added that the duration of a dwelling was typically longer than 30 days and may exist in many configurations. He stated a variance may have to applied for unless it as referred to an apartment building; he suggested the UMU should allow the flexibility of the lodge to allow that use. Mr. Quinn stated he would be in favor of getting development going in the area but he didn’t think that trying to squeeze a lodge and hotel will work with the rules as written. Mr. Budeski asked if the relaxation could be requested through the PUD process. Director McHarg responded the relaxation could be requested but the new zoning district should be as well written as possible to avoid a stack of relaxations that would be more difficult for the Planning Office to administer and to provide more clarity to the developer. President Henyon stated some flexibility should be considered and learned from so the code could be modified to reflect a working ordinance. Director McHarg responded that avoiding the PUD process would be beneficial to the community in general. Mr. Delaney stated that the importance of defining the residential component was paramount as one little problem could cease the project during development. Mr. McSpadden added that one of the things the applicant was tasked with as showing that the project and its components would provide a significant community benefit; some of those typical pitfalls could be avoided. Director McHarg added the amount of relief requested should be balanced by the amount of public benefit. President Henyon stated additional data would need to be provided regarding the residential component of the proposal and suggested the real question was what was going to be considered residential. He stated he agreed with the applicant that the zoning district was primarily commercial and suggested if the UMU was seen as commercial, the residential component should not include Affordable Housing requirements. Director McHarg responded that if the ordinance was put on hiatus, the requirements would not be pertinent to the proposal and summarized the rest of the speaking points. President Henyon asked the Board’s opinion on the proposed parkland. Mr. Quinn suggested picking up height and linear park. Director McHarg suggested discussing the height relaxation and suggested the Board consider the big picture and the site as a district with differences between phase 1 and phase 5; phase 1 would be allowed to defer some of the requirements to future phases. He suggested it would be possible to defer some of those items to allow the developer to catch up in future phases. Mr. Budeski stated he would like to see transitional heights with lower buildings in the first 812 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. phases transitioning to taller heights in the future phases. He stated he supported the idea of allowing the linear trails as parkland dedication and open space as the applicant had suggested he would be including pocket parks as well. Mr. McSpadden stated he agreed with Mr. Budeski with regard to the proposed building heights; he liked the individual lot set up. He stated Director McHarg had hit on his concerns regarding the timing of the development but there was likely an administrative process in place to address the phasing. He stated the applicant had users of the site in mind already and he saw no reason to read the building height to the letter. He stated he agreed that the linear parks should be counted toward open space requirements. Mr. Sypinski stated he concurred with Mr. Budeski and Mr. McSpadden though the phasing was a concern; he was not comfortable with the requested relaxations and he thought there was something wrong with the language as written. He stated the Board was attempting to answer questions they did not have enough information to answer. He stated the development was not residential in his mind and it would be similar to the Big Sky Resort. Mr. Quinn stated he had no problem with the proposed building height as Mr. Budeski had suggested. He stated the height could be conditional and suggested the UMU designation terms could be resolved up front. He stated he was alright with the linear park being counted toward open space requirements. He stated he did not think a lodge was a residential use and added he did not know if the 20% was the right percentage. President Henyon stated he felt there was sufficient park proposed with the application and was supportive of counting the linear park as part of the requirements. He stated the UMU District should be amended to reduce the number of relaxations that would be requested. Director McHarg asked for clarification of how the phasing of the amenities would be completed. Mr. Delaney responded that phasing was anticipated and stated the code did not allow the use of the linear park unless a variance could be obtained. He stated phase 1 would have the most open space and each phase of open space would be completed with the phases of the development. President Henyon clarified that it would be 10-15 years until the perimeter linear park would be completed. Mr. Delaney responded he hoped it wouldn’t be 10-15 years but instead a more optimistic 3-5 years; he suggested the balance of the linear park could be completed after phase 3 of the development. Mr. Budeski suggested building the golf course next. Mr. McSpadden asked if the applicant would be opposed to the possibility of conditions of approval tied to phases of the proposal such as the balance of the linear park being completed after phase 3 of the development or any similar conditions of approval. Mr. Delaney responded he would be supportive of a condition for the balance of the linear trail completion after phase 3 of the development. Mr. McSpadden asked if Mr. Delaney was aware of encumbrances to the property in the future because of the conditions of approval; he added it was possible that PUD approval might not allow sketch plan review instead of site plan review. Mr. Delaney responded that he had not found the Planning Department to be unreasonable after PUD approval. 912 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. Mr. Budeski stated the best laid plans would probably change; what was proposed had a high potential of changing and he thought the Board needed to keep that in mind. Mr. Delaney responded people had been living in societies of reactivity instead of proactivity in America. Mr. Budeski stated he would like to see the Board give specific direction for concept instead of phasing of the development. Mr. Quinn stated he was in favor of the proposed phasing of the project. Mr. Sypinski stated he agreed with Mr. McSpadden that the conditions of approval for the formal application should include language to address the phased completion of improvements to the site. Mr. Delaney responded all perimeter boundaries would be landscaped with a lawn and a buttress around it; they couldn’t afford the negativity of leaving the site uncompleted. President Henyon asked if there had been any discussion of bonding the site improvements. Mr. Delaney responded the site as a whole could only be bonded at $50,000,000 but each phase could be bonded if those improvements could not be completed in a reasonable period of time. Planner Skelton stated the Design Review Board had played a big part in discussion item #4 regarding the entryway corridor and the design objective plan, how the proposal presented itself to the community and how it embraced the West Main Street entryway corridor. He stated the DRB had expressed concerns that the proposal would not be interconnected with the Entryway Corridor or the community. He stated that a number of advisory bodies had expressed concern with the perpendicular parking and the potential conflicts between bicycle/vehicular/pedestrian circulations; the hierarchy of the site with regard to the layout, open space, plazas and public areas was in question as well considering the proposed uses. He stated recommendations included incorporation of the refuse and service areas into the design instead of along the perimeter of the site and fronting onto the West Main Street entryway corridor. He stated the pocket parks and public spaces along the main street of the development were not depicted and more detail regarding landscaping and furniture features would be required with the formal submittal. He stated there was a lot of concern regarding the lack of amenities in exchange for approval of the requested relaxations. He stated the DRB had suggested creating a sense of transparency along the entryway corridor and inviting people to experience the development by opening the public entries off of West Main Street into the development. The DRB also recommended bringing more buildings to the edge of the development along the entryway corridor so it was not dominated by off-street parking. He stated the majority of the advisory bodies were uncomfortable with the bike lanes as proposed and the applicant had suggested the removal of the scored bike bath; BABB had suggested relocating the bike paths between the sidewalk and the parking area and recommended angled parking instead. He stated Staff felt there was a concern that the proposal had not indicated the superior design expected when this number of relaxations were granted and when the UMU already had built-in relaxations to the UDO to allow for flexibility and maximum build out of the site. He suggested a conscious look at the UMU language should be taken as opposed to granting a great number of relaxations, and instead considering amendments to the UMU district if the current district does not encourage its true intent and purpose of urban mixed uses. 1012 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. Mr. Delaney presented an aerial photo of Carmel California to provide a working example of the proposed parking layout. He described that the layout would provide the pedestrian a greater elevation and a feeling of greater safety. He stated he agreed that the bike lanes behind the parking would be eliminated but bike lanes in front of the parking would work no better; he added angle parking would not work on the site. He stated he knew the parking as proposed worked as pedestrians would be superior, which was their goal. He stated the north/south/east/west directional planning gave people a sense of safety because they knew where they were going. He stated only two small lanes were included along Huffine Lane and was not a sea of parking such as the mall has. He added Huffine Lane was approximately eight feet higher in elevation so the amenities would not be visible; the fence would be included for the purpose of defined, safe space and had been a careful consideration in the design of the proposal. He stated the more activity generated on the sidewalk, the safer the development. He stated he felt the relaxations as proposed were appropriate and no zoning district could accommodate a project of this size without relaxations. Mr. Budeski stated Mr. Delaney had addressed some of Staff’s concerns in his letter submitted prior to the meeting. Mr. Delaney responded he had made a mistake in his letter and was convinced that the perimeter fencing should be included to provide for public safety; there would be a major portal looking right into the plaza area. Mr. McSpadden asked if there were specific design standards being addressed. Planner Skelton responded that the Design Objectives Plan had specific design standards and he did not think the proposal addressed many of the Entryway Corridor criteria as did the DRB. Mr. Quinn stated he agreed with Planner Skelton regarding the presentation of the rear of the proposed buildings and those service areas. Mr. Budeski stated he agreed with Planner Skelton regarding the guidelines of the Design Objectives Plan and the sites presentation to the Entryway Corridor; he stated the plan did not address those items in detail. Mr. Delaney responded the deliveries would occur on each of those north/south streets would be included to provide deliveries to each business and the semis could park in those locations while there would still be enough room for a vehicle to pass. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Henyon adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ 1112 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010. Erik Henyon, President Tim McHarg, Planning Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 1212 Page of City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010.