HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-11 Planning Board MinutesPLANNING BOARD MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Pro Tem Krauss called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 8:45 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:
Bill Quinn Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Trever McSpadden Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Ed Sypinski David Skelton, Senior Planner
Jodi Leone Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Adam Fruh
Erik Garberg
Eugene Graf
Jeff Krauss
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Chris Budeski
Tom Fink
Joe Dahinden
ITEM 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
President Pro Tem Krauss called for nominations.
Mr. Quinn nominated Mr. Sypinski as Board President, Mr. McSpadden seconded. Mr. Sypinski accepted the nomination.
Mr. Graf nominated Mr. McSpadden as President, Mr. Sypinski seconded.
President Pro Tem Krauss asked each candidate to present their qualifications for consideration by the Board.
Mr. McSpadden stated he did not know how to campaign for the position and either way one of them would end up running the meeting as the other would likely be the Vice President.
Mr. Sypinski listed his positions as an officer on other advisory agencies. Mr. McSpadden stated Mr. Sypinski was better qualified for the position.
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. McSpadden seconded, to appoint Mr. Sypinski as President. The motion carried 7-1. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem Krauss, Mr. Quinn, Mr. McSpadden,
Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being Mr.
Graf.
MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Ms. Leone seconded to appoint Mr. McSpadden as Vice President. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. McSpadden,
Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none.
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 Sypinski closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
ITEM 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2010
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Garberg seconded, to approve the minutes of December 7, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn,
Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Preliminary Plat Application #P-11001 – (Meadow Creek MaSub Phase 2) A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application with Variances requested by the property owners, Flathead Bank
and Shady Lane, LLC, and representative, Madison Engineering, requesting the subdivision of 34.966 acres into 82 residential, single household lots, 2 residential, multi household lots,
including 1 neighborhood center and workforce housing lot with the remaining area as streets, alleys, open space and parkland for property legally described as Minor Subdivision #235,
Document 2057476, SE ¼, Range 5 East, Township 2 South, Section 23, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana and generally located on the west side of South 19th Avenue between Enterprise
Boulevard and Blackwood Drive. (Skelton)
Senior Planner David Skelton addressed the Planning Board and congratulated President Sypinski and Vice President McSpadden on their officer appointments. He presented the Staff Report
noting the formal recommendation would be forwarded to the City Commission and suggested two actions would need to be taken at the end of the proposal; one for the variances requested
and one for the subdivision preliminary plat application. He noted the zoning designation for the property was R-3 and a mix of land uses would be controlled by the size of the lots.
He stated the parcel had been planned with a six phase development plan that would move from the south to the north on the site; there was no guarantee the phases would be filed sequentially
but infrastructure would be required. He stated the majority of the proposal was for residential, single family lots with two multi-family residential lots as well as workforce housing
lots and park/open space areas. He stated 2 landowners were dealing with the development of the property. He stated Staff had encouraged the owners to bring in the proposal at the
same time and noted the desire of the southern landowner was not to move forward as quickly as the
northern landowner. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal with the conditions as outlined by Staff in the Staff Report. He stated the original Preliminary Plat approval had
expired and there were some changes since 2005. He stated he had asked Mr. Budeski to provide exhibits of the phasing of the original approval for Meadow Creek Subdivision. He stated
the discussion for this evening’s hearing was for that section of the subdivision along South 19th Avenue. He noted the middle section of the subdivision that was not platted and not
part of this application, but had on the impact on the applicant’s request for variances to the UDO. He noted the existing physical features on the property and added that they included
an un-named watercourse that would require 50 foot setbacks as well as development permits. He stated the infrastructure was already installed with phase 1 of the development and would
somewhat dictate the design of the subdivision; the applicant had chosen to stay the course with the original design that had been approved in 2005. He stated there were three variances
being requested with the application.
Planner Skelton directed the Board to a rendering of a rough layout of what the streets would be. He noted portions of the right of way would be on the subject property while portions
would be off the property along the west side which was the reason Staff was supportive of the requested variances. He stated the park plan was being met with two parks being proposed;
one adjacent to South 19th Avenue and one along the west edge of the property. He stated there was plenty of parkland in phase 1 to meet the requirements for that phase. He noted the
locations of other parks planned for the site and noted the orientation of the current proposal to Miller Park. He stated the vision for the active parkland was Miller Park which was
still the vision for the entire subdivision as a whole; required parkland was proposed to be met with the first phase of the development. He stated the applicant was negotiating with
Meadow Creek Partners for a public parkland easement on the property so that improvements to Miller Park could begin. He stated the applicant had agreed to seed and maintain the area,
but would not provide irrigation until it was determined what would happen to Miller Park. He stated there were no unusual recommended conditions of approval with regard to parkland
or trails.
Planner Skelton stated the RSL requirement was no longer in affect for the development, but affordable housing would still be in effect. He stated the applicant was proposing an individualized
plan to meet their affordable housing requirements; their proposal being to donate the lots to someone to build out. He stated Staff was supportive of the individualized plan and CAHAB
had suggested the requirement be met within the first or second phase of development.
Planner Skelton stated Staff was supportive of the block length variance as requested as a 400 foot block length was typical in Bozeman and it wasn’t until closer to 800 feet in length
that another street should be considered. He stated South 23rd Avenue was part of the dilemma as portions of the right of way were on an adjoining owner’s property. He stated the
street on the north and south ends of the site could not be extended at the required width except for the sidewalks and Staff’s position was that there was really not a need for sidewalks
and the circumstance would be too much for the applicant to complete. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. He directed the
Board to condition of approval #4 and suggested striking the language “along South 19th Avenue”, in conditions #12 & 13 he suggested striking the language “phase 2A” and replacing it
with “subsequent second phase”, and he suggested that in condition #6 striking the language “Edward Drive” and
replacing it with “Nicole Drive”.
Chris Budeski addressed the Board. He congratulated the President on his position and welcomed new members to the Planning Board. He stated Planner Skelton had gone through the application
thoroughly and suggested the owners could introduce themselves.
Joe Dahinden, President of Valley Bank, stated he was the unfortunate developer of the subdivision, not by choice, and they wanted the subdivision to continue had originally been intended.
Tom & Nikki Fink, owners of Shady Lane, LLC, stated they had thought they had sold the property but it had defaulted back to them. He stated they felt they could afford to develop 1/3
of the property with the hopes they could develop the remaining property in the future. Mr. Budeski added the applicant was in agreement with all conditions of approval with the exception
of #21 limiting street loaded lots to 30%.
President Sypinski commended Mr. Budeski on his individualized plan for the Workforce Housing requirement. He asked if there were any concerns with high ground water or floodplain levels.
Mr. Budeski responded the ground water is high in that location, but storm water mains had been put in and a note would be included on the plat to keep crawl spaces out of the water.
Mr. Garberg stated that conditions #7 and #18 were contradicting each other with regard to the grade above curb. Mr. Budeski responded he would prefer to remain consistent with the
phase 1 plat and the dimension it indicated.
Vice President McSpadden asked if the applicant foresaw any concerns with the phase 1 Home Owners Association and its relation to the proposed phase 2. Mr. Budeski responded they had
attempted to contact the HOA and had intended to combine with them.
President Sypinski opened public comment period. Seeing none forthcoming, the public comment period was closed.
MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Krauss seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission and having heard and considered public comment, to adopt the findings
presented in the Staff Report for P-11001 for the requested variances to the following sections of Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code: 1) Section 18.42.040.B - “Block Length”, to
exceed the maximum block length of 400 feet for Blocks 15-21, 2) Section 18.44.010.A - “Relation to Undeveloped Areas”, to allow the construction of South 23rd Avenue southward to the
southern boundary line of Phase II to full City standards, and 3) Section 18.44.050 - “Street and Road Right Of Way Width and Construction Standards”, to allow construction of a section
of South 23rd Avenue to the southern boundary of Phase II within a right-of-way less than 60 feet wide. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn,
Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none.
MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Krauss seconded, to strike Staff condition of approval #21.
The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay
being none.
MOTION: Mr. Krauss moved, Ms. Leone seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Preliminary Plat Application #P-11001 having heard and considered public
comment, to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for P-11001 and move to approve the preliminary plat application for Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 requested in application
P-11001 authorizing to subdivide 34.966 acres and create 82 (eighty-two) residential, single household lots, 2 (two) residential, multi-household lots, 1 (one) neighborhood center, including
2 (two) workforce housing lots and the remaining area as parks, open spaces, streets and alleys subject to the conditions listed on page 4-7 of the Staff report as amended by Staff and
the Planning Board with the removal of Staff condition of approval #21. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms.
Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 6. DISCUSSION ITEM (IF TIME ALLOWS.)
1. Staff recommendations for changes to approval structure. (Saunders)
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated the item was based on an earlier request from the Planning Board to modify the UDO. He stated there were 134 separate points discussion
decision making processes; a number were required by statute, some were already distributed to the Planning Director or City Engineer, and the rest were possible modifications. He noted
which projects had been suggested for consideration. Mr. Quinn asked how Staff wanted the Planning Board to weigh in and if they should just provide input on Planning Director decisions.
Assistant Director Saunders responded that Staff had prioritized the recommendations and was seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Commission.
Mr. Garberg stated the amount of work to create the list was impressive and he commended Assistant Director Saunders for his efforts.
Vice President McSpadden asked for clarification of whether or not the document was the culmination of Planning Board Work Sessions and if a recommendation was being sought during the
evening’s meeting. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was the result of the Work Sessions and Staff was comfortable forwarding the document to the City Commission as presented
if the Planning Board agreed.
Mr. Krauss asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify some of the included language. Assistant Director Saunders explained the item in question and the standard process currently
required; medium meant a medium priority for amendment.
Mr. Graf stated they had seen the document for awhile and he did not see any recommended draft language. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff did not want to draft alternative
language until they had determined which sections would be affected. Director McHarg added the amendments would all be compiled as specific code amendments that would be brought to
the Planning Board for recommendation to the City Commission.
Mr. Quinn asked for clarification of #52 as far as approval for holding tennis tournaments with restrictions on hours of operation and asked how it was a priority. Assistant Director
Saunders responded the priority was high value due to its ease of completion and the issue had not come up in 20 years.
Mr. Krauss asked if the City Engineer made a decision about partial street construction that the applicant didn’t like, what would happen afterward? Assistant Director Saunders responded
that any administrative action would be subject to appeal and would be reviewed by the City Commission. Mr. Krauss clarified that every time someone wanted to appeal it would take them
30 days to be heard. Assistant Director Saunders responded noticing requirements would need to be met as dictated by State statute and it would take close to 30 days. Mr. Garberg added
the appeal could include multiple items and would not take 30 days for each item being appealed. Director McHarg responded that valid findings would need to be made for the decision
and possible litigation from the appeal. Mr. Krauss responded he was still looking for a “red button” that would allow an applicant to be heard by the City Commission. Director McHarg
responded a request could be made to the Commission and would take roughly the same time as the thirty day statutory appeal requirement. Mr. Krauss cited the Rialto as an example and
noted the applicant had abandoned the project due to getting the run around by so many review agencies. Director McHarg suggested that, from his perspective, he thought resolving how
applications are reviewed by advisory boards would need to be fundamentally reviewed. Mr. Krauss stated that when an applicant was stuck, they got the opportunity to present the application
to the City Commission for review and approval with the possibility of an option that was not presented by either Staff or the applicant. Assistant Director Saunders responded an application
could get hung up both directions and the appeal process would still be valid. Director McHarg responded that many of the review processes required advisory board recommendation; something
could be written into the code to request the City Commission to waive or override the advisory board requirement for specific projects.
Mr. Graf stated he thought the purpose of the review was to figure out why any application was taking a certain amount of review time; review by the same advisory body multiple times
might be a correction that could be made to expedite the review process. Director McHarg suggested one of the best ways to ensure consistency is not to have multiple public hearings
for every project; he added it was not an effective use of the City Commission or Staff’s time. Mr. Graf suggested the Board could forward a recommendation to proceed with Staff’s recommendations
as presented; he suggested investigation of something like a “red button” to allow review by the City Commission.
Mr. Krauss stated that one of the things they were seeking was making sure the clock starts when the application is submitted and shortening the review time frame. Director McHarg stated
he thought Mr. Budeski would believe that Staff had already begun streamline the review process. Mr. Budeski responded the comments had already begun to be sent to the applicant prior
to the meetings but other agencies would need to be contacted. Director McHarg added the Meadow Creek application had been reviewed by advisory boards in a timely manner. Mr. Budeski
concurred and added Staff had been great in moving the application forward.
Vice President McSpadden stated it appeared that many of the high and medium priorities dealt with zoning issues that would affect site plan review. He suggested a recommendation for
Staff to move forward with the high and medium recommendations and return at a future date with the lower priorities. Director McHarg stated he and Assistant Director Saunders had discussed
their top ten code amendments and had grouped them together; if the Board wanted to bundle site plan issues into one set of UDO amendments that would be fine and Staff would likely bundle
those amendments anyway in the interest of efficiency. Vice President McSpadden stated it sounded like the site plan items had always been on the radar.
MOTION: Vice President McSpadden moved, Mr. Krauss seconded, to forward a recommendation to direct Planning Staff to single out site plan components listed in the Staff Report and return
to the Board with a UDO text amendment.
Mr. Garberg suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include the flowchart modifications as well. Director McHarg responded it was more of an operational issue than a flowchart
issue and other Departments would need to be involved. Mr. Garberg withdrew the amendment. Vice President McSpadden stated he felt comfortable forwarding the recommendations without
including Mr. Garberg’s amendment.
The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay
being none.
Mr. Krauss stated he would like to see Mr. Kukulski, or other members of City Staff, come in to help the Board take a look at the recommended changes as well as an Engineering Department
representative. Director McHarg responded direction could be given to him or the City Manager so legwork could be done in advance.
MOTION: Mr. Krauss moved, Mr. Graf seconded, to direct Staff to request the City manager and a representative sample of the DRC join the Planning Board to discuss UDO amendments that
would streamline the review process within the statutory limits. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone,
Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none.
Mr. Fruh asked if things with a high priority were perceived deficiencies or were people just being a part of the established review process; people feeling like they’re being drawn
through an ordeal when they are actually just a part of the review process. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Attorney Luwe had suggested that sometimes it would be best to
deny a proposal that had too many issues; it would shorten the time frame if a proposal were not patched together or repaired while during meetings for project review. He stated sometimes
the applicant gets stuck in the middle of two differing advisory board opinions which is the reason advisory bodies are not the approval authority. Mr. Krauss responded the advisory
body was appointed to provide advice to the City Commission or Board of Adjustment so that they can make their decision; advisory board recommendations had to be balanced by the Commission.
President Sypinski stated the advisory boards sometimes provided clarity to the applicant. Mr. Krauss added the City Commission weighed those comments.
Mr. Fruh asked if they were discussing removing advisory boards from the process. Director McHarg responded Staff was investigating the possibility of removing advisory boards from
the review process; the actual review should be delegated to Staff unless there was a question regarding the adopted policy documents. President Sypinski stated a good example was the
Historic Preservation Advisory Board which had helped write the ordinances that could be used as policy guidelines.
Mr. Quinn complimented Planning Staff on the document and their efforts to improve and streamline the review process; even though the Board didn’t make decisions he thought it was a
step in the right direction. He suggested he would have been supportive of all 21 high priority items being revised at once.
Director McHarg stated the City Commission had been going through their annual goal setting process and there would be ongoing discussions that would determine the Planning Department’s
goals.
Mr. Krauss suggested a motion be made to prioritize the Planning Board decision to have Staff bring forward UDO amendments to help better streamline the review process. Director McHarg
responded he would be happy to carry the Board’s recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Krauss responded he would prefer to see the request in the minutes and that the Planning
Board ask that Board recommendations be a priority to the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Fruh seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City Commission to make streamlining the review process a priority as recommended by Staff and as outlined
in the document presented by Staff.
Mr. Garberg asked if that would focus the City Commission discussion on site review. Mr. Quinn responded the center ring would be site review. Director McHarg responded it was in the
collective best interest of Staff as well as the community to make those recommendations a priority. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice
President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none.
Mr. Graf asked if every motion needed to be made a priority for review by the Commission. Mr. Krauss responded he made every effort to forward recommendations to the City Commission,
but when there was no support it was not worth it.
ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Sypinski adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m.
Ed Sypinski, President Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman