Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB-050713 MinPLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President McSpadden called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 6:05 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, President Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager  Carson Taylor Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development  Julien Morice Sally Thomas, Recording Secretary  Paul Neubauer   George Thompson   Carl Tange      Members Absent: Guests Present:  Adam Fruh Matt Ekstrom, Morrison Maierle, Inc.  Erik Garberg Jim McCleod, Ferran Group   Lisa and Clint Sly      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.} No public comment. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2013 Mr. Taylor noted corrections: Change to instances of “Carson” to “Mr. Taylor.” MOTION: Mr. Neubauer moved, Mr. Taylor seconded, to approve the minutes of April 2, 2013 as amended. The motion carried 5 - 0. Those voting aye being President McSpadden, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Neubauer, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Tange. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Taylor welcomed new member Mr. Carl Tange to the Board. Mr. Neubauer: Most new subdivisions all common spaces and lawns are irrigated. Is there a metric about limiting water use for these common spaces other than soccer fields etc? Mr. Taylor: The Integrated Water Resources Plan will cover this issue and encourage use of treated water. Mr. Neubauer is strongly opposed to an increase in the use of treated water for landscaping. President McFadden recounted an instance where a subdivision needed to augment groundwater with treated water. President McSpadden suggested that this might be a future agenda item. At 6:20 pm President McSpadden recessed the meeting until 7:00 pm. At 7:00 p.m. President McFadden reconvened the meeting. President McSpadden then recused himself due to a conflict of interest. President Pro Tem Taylor then proceeded with Item 5. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat - #P-13003 (Legends @ Bridger Creek II Phase II) – A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application with a variance, as requested by the property owner Guinness Partners, Inc., 430 N. Ryman Second Floor, Missoula, MT 59802 and represented by Morrison Maierle, Inc., PO Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771, requesting the subdivision of 9.05 acres into 26 residential single household lots and remaining area as streets and common open space. The subject property is legally described as being a portion of Tract 2 shown on film 12, page 825 records of Gallatin County situated Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 6 East, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana and is known commonly as the Legends at Bridger Creek II Subdivision, Phase II. (Krueger) Planner Krueger introduced himself and the application. The property is NE of Bozeman, on the way to Bridger Canyon. It is zoned R-1, bound by County property and City Property, and the Mt. Baldy subdivision and more agricultural land to the north. Residential on Future Land Use Map. North Boundary is Bridger Creek. He described other City subdivisions in the area: Legends at Bridger Creek I, and further east Legends II, then the Creekwood Subdivision. Large area in Legends at Bridger Creek II, Phase I is a 5-acre park. Variance has been requested to allow the level of service at the intersection of Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive to operate below the required standard. The traffic study determined it does have movement at that intersection that makes it substandard. The Montana Department of Transportation(MDT) has jurisdiction and will not allow mitigating improvements to be installed at the intersection that puts the applicant in a catch 22 where they cannot meet the City standard. The proposal is to add 26 lots. Northview is the primary access street. Extend a small portion of Boylan Road and an extension of an alley to provide secondary access to the lots in this location. Middlefield Street is proposed for legal access to all new lots. The proposed open space would be operated by the Property Owner’s Association with public access, required mid-block pedestrian connection would act as a block delineator. MDT would not approve Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive improvements but recommended a dedicated left-hand turn lane for residents turning into the subdivision at the Northview Street Bridger Drive intersection. Must add 6 - 8 feet to accommodate that turn lanes. It is a four-legged intersection and the turn lane would improve the safety to that intersection. There is enough easement to accommodate this turn lane. Dedicated Parkland: .78 acres are required. The 5-acre park exceeds this requirement and is a “positive balance” for this subdivision. Parks & Rec Advisory recommends the City accept this for the parkland requirements. Area was originally planned for a community center. Parkland includes a trail corridor that begins at Story Mill Rd and continues to Creekwood. Might be advantageous to get an easement along that corridor but is not a requirement tonight. As future phases are developed the trail corridor will connect. The trail area is not in an area required for platting. Mr. Thompson: Neighborhood center, would it reduce the openness of that parkland? Krueger: The original PUD plan showed a neighborhood center, but that center is no longer being proposed. It is a developed lot zoned R-1, could be subdivided, could be parkland, could be a single household residence, but it would probably be best utilized as dedicated parkland and the Parks Dept would have authority as to what woud be built. Mr. Thompson: Soccer field? Planner Krueger: Can only place one soccer field in that area due to size. Most is vegetated watercourse setback and not open, flat turf. If the additional lot were added to the parkland additional playfields might be able to be added. Noted the Parks & Open Space Planting Plan, mid-block crossing, and blvd. trees areas. Walkway does goes through the open space had not been included in previous phase. Along Medicine Wheel Lane, the lots are accessed by an alley and no pedestrian walkway currently exists to the lots. Similar to the previously constructed area to the southwest a walkway is now proposed through Open Space 10 to provide access to the lots.. The sidewalk there is maintained by the HOA. Did receive quite a bit of public comment on the walkway and character in Open Space 10 prior to the submittal of the preliminary plat, and the comments are mixed. Some want natural open space without a pedestrian connection, while others preferred a more maintained area with connectivity. The owners along Medicine Wheel would have to extend their sidewalks to connect, but City has responsibility to require safe pedestrian access. Gallatin Land Trust were willing to help maintain connector trail along Bridger Creek if developer would dedicate easement. That area is within Lot R, a remainder lot, and per condition must come to the City for further approvals, and in turn, does not require any further infrastructure. City is recommending approval of the variance. Staff found criteria is met. Conditional approval of the plat application is recommended. Final decision of the CC and hope the Board will forward a recommendation to the Commission. Invited questions for Planner Krueger. Mr. Neubauer: Catch -22 conflict between the City and MDOT. Indications that MDT would support the four-way stop. There is another condition that speaks of MDT required approval. Mr. Neubauer. Boylan Rd will be continued. Most concern on Story Mill. When will Boylan go through? Planner Krueger: No longer a phased sub, and if receive a development proposal to the east they would look at the extension then. Mr. Morice: Level of service: When does MDT require a light to go in there? Who would be required to put the light in? Planner Krueger: MDT analyses the intersection, then the applicant would complete a traffic study and level of service, then MDT has a rigorous review to determine if the intersection meets signal warrants and it would be then placed as a project condition. Then who would construct and pay for the signal would be addressed. There is a state-funded roadway project in 2016 under design and right of way acquisition from this intersection all the way to east main street. They will be analyzing and designing the street, and then would probably be a state and federally funded project. Mr. Morice: Temporary alley and turnaround. When are they required on primary roads vs. access? Planner Krueger. The alley is functioning as secondary access. All-weather surface and they are required to maintain it. Sanitation Superintendent stated during DRC that the current turnaround is not being maintained as it should because of parked cars. The turnaround must function as it should. It will be policed by the folks who use that area. Mr. Taylor: Alleyway. Anticipated that it would be built up to another subdivision to the east? Story Mill question regarding potential traffic signal. We give approval but have not control about the intersection. Planner Krueger: Can’t think of a development that has been denied based on the level of service. Deficient level of service does not mean that it is an unsafe intersection. Both MDT and the City say it is safe, although the waiting times could be improved. Taylor: In this situation it is common to approve this level of service? He read that all of the lots have rights to protest an SID. Planner Krueger: SID is a public process that assess owners for improvements, typically for road infrastructure. If the state wasn’t going to be funding infrastructure along Bridger Drive an SID would be a potential funding tool. Mr. Taylor: Trail: Pay attention to this but we can’t do anything about it. Planner Krueger: Would not feel comfortable applying a condition. Requiring a Lot R remainder lot with restriction prevents the unorganized extension of the City. Based upon the plat language for lot R the City would not require any public infrastructure beyond the existing limits of this phase. Mr. Taylor: They don’t get parkland credit for the greenway? Planner Krueger: The City can accept wetland and naturalized corridors as parkland. Mr. Taylor: How can influence sidewalks in Openspace 10? Planner Krueger: Had heard public comments on this. If we do deviate from the plan and end up with a trail in the center of the open space then do we have spur connections that cut up the entire north side of the open space rather than building property connections to the property lines to the hookup as necessary. Mr. Taylor: In the City and this PUD we must have pedestrian access, but he understands that there’s an alleyway that doesn’t have sidewalks, which is why the pedestrian access is required behind Medicine Wheel Lane. Planner Krueger: All the new lots have pedestrian access to their lots on Midfield Street. In the application, some homes are turned to alley. Mr. Taylor: Dwelling units per acre? Planner Krueger: R-1 to R-3 Zoning requirement based on the net area, pull out parkland and streets = 5.25dwelling units per acre. Mr. Thompson: Alleyway on south side: turnarounds but no connection to a road and is very tight. Will muni employees have to back up a half mile and maybe have an accident? Planner Krueger: The Sanitation Superintendent has said that parking must be rigorously enforced to preserve the safety of this alleyway. This alley is a 30’ platted alley which is far larger than anything in the downtown area. As this area develops there is adequate room for vehicles to back out, and access lots. Mr. Thompson: What is the size of the sidewalk? Planner Krueger: Does not have that information at this time. Mr. Thompson: What are the setback requirements for the back of the lot? Planner Krueger: Typical residential yard requirement is 20’ setback in rear. Mr. Ekstrom: This exact layout was platted in 2006, not one lot line has been moved. Has been approved by City Commission before. The plat ran out of time. On Medicine Wheel Lane. Was done through PUD process. It is a City standard street. It is not an alleyway. It does not have a sidewalk. The alley will be a 16’ paved surface with shoulders is 20’. Eventually the alleyway will run the entire length of the development. Had not had a lot of time to comprehend the staff report, particularly the HOA covenants. Will work with Planner Krueger and if there are conditions they will work with the City Commission to meet them. Mr. Taylor: Other than those conditions are you agreeable with the other recommended conditions? Mr. Ekstrom: Yes, but still need to review the Property Owners Association covenants. Mr. Tange: High density of area struck him. Makes the road situation very important. He didn’t like the feel of the heavy density there. The surprising feature was the high-end houses in the middle of the more modest sizes? Why? Mr. Ekstrom: Was originally 6 dwelling units per acres required, even higher than they are now. Had RSL designations (affordable housing), and those lots had to be interspersed within the other homes. Mr. Tange: Seems mismatched. Are there size restrictions on the houses? Mr. Taylor: Property Owners Association could create the size restrictions. Density of scale. Can’t build the infrastructure and make it pay. Mr. Tange: Can limit the amount of lots that can be purchased in the development? Mr. Ekstrom: No regulations against it. Mr. McLeod: Legends I could buy several lots and aggregate them. Mr. Taylor: We do have the Unified Development Code which we follow. Mr. Morice: An assessment for the lighting district? Mr. Ekstrom : There is an existing Special Lighting Improvement District. Lights proposed at Northfield and Midfield, midblock on Midfield and where Midfield intersects Boylan. Mr. Taylor: How high are the lights? Mr. Ekstrom: 16’. The one on Bridger Canyon Drive must meet MDT Requirements. Mr. Taylor: Does it comply with the Dark Skies regs? Mr. Ekstrom: Yes. Planner Krueger: Interior lighting is 22’ and the Bridger Drive light is 30’. Mr. Neubauer: When Boylan might go thru will traffic mitigation be required at the Creekwood egress? There was a fatal accident at Northview Street and Bridger Drive Once Boylan goes through what will happen at the Creek wood egress? Mr. Ekstrom: Creekwood had done a traffic study, but they weren’t required to make any sort of mitigations at that time. Planner Krueger: The 2005 traffic study did look at that intersection, the Engineering Department may require another more recent study with the further development of the Legends at Bridger Creek II subdivision. Mr. Neubauer: Parking lot at the soccer field? 23-stall off street parking lot--where will that be? Planner Krueger: That was proposed for the community center and the park with the now expired PUD. There is not a strict requirement for parking lots in parks. Due to Bridger Creek, wouldn't want to extend the public street through the watercourse to gain frontage Mr. Tange: Access off the alley at Midfield Street? Mr. Ekstrom: The houses along Midfield Street have both alley and street access. Mr. Thompson: Seems that having the houses that face both the alley and the street is uncohesive. Planner Krueger: This occurs in many developments throughout the City. There are advantages to both forms of access. Mr. Morice: There is Valley West, the heritage by Sundance that have similar access. It is all over town. Public Comment: Mr. Clint Sly: 1762 Medicine Wheel: Traffic is especially hard during ski season at the intersection of Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive, Story Mill is a very popular way to access town. Need another traffic study. Medicine Wheel has been called a road, it is not. When cars are parked on both sides of the road it is really an alleyway, and is very narrow. The sidewalk is really in the open space. Can’t picture asking his parent to park and walk to his back door in the dark. There’s no parking, tight, congested. This should have a parking area set up. The sidewalk doesn’t solve the problem. Is there a 20’ easement or right at the lot line? Planner Krueger: 20’ is the rear setback on the Medicine Wheel lots. Not a specific easement. The landscape plan was adopted with the original first phase, and showed the pedestrian access in Open Space 10 would be in close proximity to the lots along Medicine Wheel Lane.. Mr. Sly: Walk on sidewalk to get to the house? Planner Krueger: This is a secondary way to access your house. Mr. Sly: Sidewalk is going be used as a trail: a stream of people behind their place. Would rather have a gravel trail and have it pulled to the center of the Open Space 10. Mr. Morice: Would you rather have a maintained sidewalk plowed in the winter? Mr. Sly: Does not see that it is access to the homes, but is a trail. Also, when this was developed there should have been a light at the mailboxes. Mr. Taylor: Sympathizes but nothing to be done. No rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Neubauer: Is their interest in the sidewalk to meet the interests of the City? Mr. Ekstrom: Must meet City requirements and homeowner requirements too. Planner Krueger: There is a Code standard that states that the mid block crossing must be a concrete facility. Cannot be eliminated without a variance. Mr. Neubauer: Would sidewalk lead to nowhere? Planner Krueger: Pedestrian facility must be a concrete sidewalk and it does connect to other area within the subdivision and vicinity. Discussion: Mr. Neubauer: Agrees with homeowner: It is a trail and not access. Perhaps the concrete walk could meander. Mr. Thompson. Agrees. Trail is on property line in the west. Pull away from property line and install plantings. Not down center of space. Mr. Taylor: Idea of a sidewalk in the back yard seems odd, but people must have known there would be a sidewalk there. People treat the back of their house difference than the front: privacy issues. Who would pay for an maintain the plantings? Doesn’t have a hard-and-fast opinion. Must be useable. Mr. Neubauer: Where would someone park to access Mr. Sly’s house? Mr. Morice: There should be a pedestrian walk where kids can come and go, off the street. Mr. Taylor: Public comments were mixed on sidewalks. MOTION: Mr. Neubauer moved that having reviewed the application materials, considered public comment, and the staff analysis, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for #P-13003 and move to approve the requested variance to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code Section 38.24.060.B.4 “Level of Service” to allow the Level of Service at the intersection of Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive to operate below the minimum level of service allowed. Mr. Morice seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 - 0. Those voting aye being Pro Tem President Taylor, Mr. Morice, Mr. Neubauer, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Tange. Those voting nay being none. President McFadden resumed his position on the board. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President McSpadden adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Trever McSpadden, President Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager Planning Board Department of Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman