The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB-090313 MinPLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President McSpadden called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and took attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Trever McSpadden, President Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Division Manager Julien Morice Doug Riley, Associate Planner George Thompson Paul Neubauer Guests Present: Carson Taylor Mike Delaney Pamela Bussie Carl Tange Ileanna Delaney McKenzie Sacry Jerry Pape Jami Morris Kevin Sacry Judy Weigan Julie Hielwig Members Absent: Morgan Hinesley Natalie Long Erik Garberg Stephanie Edwards Jamie Upschulter Branden Edwards Terese Bricker Alex Smith Christie Rasmussen Gary Metcalf Tyler Rasmussen Sandie Metcalf Jennifer Penigen Kellie Schramm Kate Tounley John Noufer Chris Tounley Jason Schramm Andy Rowe ITEM 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE ITEM 3. 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 4. MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2013 A motion to accept the minutes of August 20, 2013 was moved, seconded and approved unanimously. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Lot 4 Spring Creek Village Resort MaSub Prelim. Plat with Var #P-13021 Resort, Huffine and Fallon * A major subdivision Preliminary Plat application with a subdivision variance for block width for Block 5 by owner Spring Creek Village LLC, 101 East Main Street Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715, applicant Delaney & Co., Inc., 101 East Main Street Suite D, Bozeman MT 59715, and representative Jami Morris, 2440 Etta Place, Bozeman MT 59718, to create 22 commercial lots on 20 acres addressed as west of Resort Drive, north of Huffine Lane and south of Fallon Street, Bozeman MT. The subject property is legally described as Lot 4, Minor Subdivision No. 295, The Spring Creek Village Resort, Sec. 10, T.2S, R.5E, P.M.M. (Riley) Planner Riley presented the application. This property has undergone extensive review of lot and street layout/connections. He outlined the request for a block width variance for Block 5. Block 5 also has a separate site plan that is currently being reviewed which incorporates two secondary emergency access provisions into the site design at the request of the Development Review Committee and Fire Department. At the suggestion of the Development Review Committee and Staff the applicant also incorporated a north-to-south pedestrian easement through the block, which is also why Staff supports the block width variance. No written public comment was received. An agency review comment was received from the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee, concerning the shared-use pathway to extend to Ferguson Road creating a connection from Cottonwood Road to the MSU campus. The City Engineering Department recommends that presently unfinished subdivision sidewalks be finished as this project moves forward unless the Commission determines otherwise. Staff recommends conditional approval of the preliminary plat with the variance. Board questions for Planner Riley included: the general purpose of a 400-ft block width, emergency vehicle access, common/open spaces/stormwater retention ponds, bike/public access easement, past vs. present design, urban streetscape, and MDT approval of Park Avenue access points off Huffine, and the traffic study/traffic controls. There were no questions for applicant representative Jami Morris. Public Comment: Cottonwood Condominium Homeowner Association Treasurer Judy Weigan said they now have 74 residents, many of whom are elderly, who frequently walk their dogs on Fallon Drive. The Association cannot accept the proposal without some sort of eastbound traffic out onto Huffine. Applicant representative Jami Morris explained the traffic analysis of the area. A motion was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the application with Staff-recommended conditions. Discussion included the requested variance, Cottonwood Condominiums/eastbound traffic flow, Huffine traffic as the City develops westward, the shared-use pathway condition and final unit occupancy. The motion was approved unanimously. A motion was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the block width variance to Block 5. Discussion included emergency vehicle access, and the design of the pedestrian facility through the block. The motion was approved unanimously. A motion was moved and seconded to recommend approval of the subdivision. The motion was approved unanimously. 2. Lot 1 Block 4 Laurel Glen Phase 1 GPA #P-13024NW corner Laurel Pkwy and Annie St * A Growth Policy Amendment application by the owner Manhattan Bank, 2610 West Main Street, Bozeman MT 59718, applicant Great Western Investments, 4721 Glenwood Drive Unit D, Bozeman MT 59718, and representative Caddis Engineering and Land Surveying PC, PO Box 11805, Bozeman MT 59719, to change the future land use designation from Community Commercial Mixed Use to Residential on 4.4928 acres addressed at the northwest corner of the intersection of Laurel Parkway and Annie Street. The subject property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 4 Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 1 - S1/2. Sec. 4, T. 2.S, R. 5E. (Saunders) Planner Saunders presented the policy-level application. He gave an overview of the City’s Community Commercial Mixed Use designation. A fair amount of public comment was received on this project: 14 individual transmittals of concern (all in opposition), with one of those having an attached petition with a very large amount of signatures on it. Planner Saunders reminded the Board that because the application is a Growth Policy Amendment there is not a Petition for protest in the review process so the petition does not advance or hinder an application the way that it can under the zoning laws, a growth policy is separate authority. It is valid public comment, but no analysis is done for proximity to the project. The Development Review Committee determined that the infrastructure adjacent to the project is adequate for growth policy designation as is or if it is changed. Staff then reviewed it and recommended it for approval, although it is a light rather than strong recommendation. As noted in the Staff Report, one of the real challenges of this application is that it is seen in isolation. Thirteen of the 14 public comments were received after the Staff Report was written. Many of the public comments were concerned about height, traffic, and intensity of development. In response, Planner Saunders then compared and contrasted the existing B-1 zoning with R-4 zoning (it is not the only option if it were to be rezoned, but it is the most intensive of the City’s residential zones). There was a request for additional time to read through the new comments. Questions to Planner Saunders included: site size policy purpose and adequacy, status of present adjoining area, general mixed use on collector and arterial streets, zoning approval process, comparison to S. 3rd Avenue and Kagy development, R-1 on just the western side, present and future neighborhood development, 160 acres residential, and dividing the lot north/south commercial/residential. Applicant representative Matt Cotterman of Caddis Engineering gave a presentation to explain the reason behind the request, including the history of the property, street access, and a request for a favorable recommendation from the board. Questions for Mr. Cotterman included: confirmation that the property is owned by the bank and has been for sale for 10 years and the past impact of the B-1 zoning on potential buyers. Applicant Morgan Hinesley, managing member of Great Western Investments LLC. He and his wife Jennifer are the sole owners of Great Western. The application property is currently in the sole ownership of Manhattan State Bank. Great Western Investments has a contract to purchase the property subject to the removal of the neighborhood commercial overlay. The property is essentially valueless as B-1 property. If the commercial overlays are removed then the property has significant value as multiunit residential property. Laurel Parkway is a poor collector especially as Oak Street is connected and will not draw traffic except from Laurel Glen subdivision. He does not believe that Laurel Glen is capable of supporting a commercial center. Mr. Hinesley stated that the issue is actually not the use of the property but the timing of the use. If it remains zoned as is the likelihood that the property will be developed during the next 10 to 15 years is very low. He spoke with one gentleman who signed the petition who acknowledged that as the property currently stands development is very unlikely in the near future. Much of the resistance that he’s seeing is aimed at keeping the property vacant rather than controlling any use. The City of Bozeman has a great need for multi household housing and it is his motivation to provide it. He understands that there are future concerns and he respects the Board’s decision. He concluded that allowing the property to remain vacant until it may become viable for commercial use will rob the bank of the opportunity to sell the property. Questions for Mr. Hinesley included: his prior affiliation and experience with Laurel Glen, comparison on unit density between the two zones (Planner Saunders helped to answer this question, saying that all-residential development would be hard to make the finding that it complies with the Growth Policy), Mr. Hinesley relation to the developer for the other pieces of property (the developer is his father), and whether the primary restriction in the overlay is the 5,000 square foot building footprint limit or the number of units and possible mitigation ideas including a facility that could accommodate a daycare. Public comment included: Gary Metcalf: streets are fairly narrow now (two-way driving is difficult), This has all been looked at before, a lot of young families have invested in a house, ultimate issue is who stands to lose money, high-density housing is not popular because of the kind of people it attracts and it will likely devalue the existing property values. Sandy Metcalf: Ditto. Kelly Schramm: grandparents were homesteaders and she has lived her whole life here. Purchased home based on City’s Master Plan. Now looks like a jigsaw puzzle. John Noufer: this proposal totally deviates from the City’s Master Plan. Roads are dangerous, little kids. No more apartments. McKenzie Sacry: Neighborhood needs and wants a mix in uses. Proposal does not follow Growth Plan. Kevin Sacry: Ditto. Christine Rasmussan: Opposed. Wants it to stay the same. Tyler Rasmussan: Opposed. We’re looking forward to a commercial development across them. Their house has been vandalized. Andy Rowe: Built Locksley Drive. Consistency and fairness. There are other uses other than small businesses. Branden Edwards: Doesn’t fix deficiencies in the Growth Amendment. He believes there is no shortage of high-density developments in Bozeman. Taking away commercial will force the neighbors to drive to services. He’s never seen a sale sign or been approached by anyone. Mr. Hinesley responded that commercial is a good idea, but having a designation on a piece of property just prevents the best and highest use of the property which is multi unit density. No representative from Manhattan Bank was present. Planner Saunders commented on live/work businesses in B-1 zoning. Additional comments (speaker unknown): At 7:30 am a student was walking a big pit bull, that’s what this proposal would bring to the neighborhood. A motion to recommend approval was made and seconded. Discussion included: Larger apartment buildings clumped into existing residential neighborhoods destroys property values. Live/work environment: there is risk when you buy. Distinction between what neighbors want and what they don’t want, and the economy isn’t ready to support small businesses yet. There is a long list of things that may happen and the candidate has been very candid about what may happen; what is best is different from what is not wanted there. Planner Saunders added that it was not a planned unit development originally. Looking at the area now it would be a struggle to make a business viable, although it may become more viable. Bozeman needs affordable housing, but this is not the best place for it-- does Streamline even go out there? Board member was dismayed that the bank is the applicant and not present for the meeting. People make decisions on zoning, but neighborhoods change. There is a limit to the promise of what zoning is. Where is the parkland going to come from? At what point does no building on this property says it’s time to change? It may never have been a good idea to put this designation in this spot. Try to think of Oak and Durston as busy as Huffine then it would be a great location for a coffee shop. Bigger idea is putting an effective PUD through zoning. Looking at subdivisions that aren’t full or even close to full. Laurel Glen is not the best spot to put B-1, but not all businesses need to be on high-traffic streets. Residential goes first, the commercial follows. Don’t dismiss the current plan. The Planning Board is only an advisory board to the City Commission, so this is not a final decision. The motion was opposed unanimously. Further comment should be sent to Planner Saunders not later than September 25. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS September 23rd at 4:00 p.m. there will be a bus tour with the City Commission on infill and subdivisions that didn’t quite turn out as planned. It is a public meeting and there is room on the bus for the general public. Call Stacy Ulmen for reservations. Discussion on Zoning Commission and Planning Board dual membership, and the need for additional volunteer Zoning Commission board members. ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT Trever McSpadden, President Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Division Manager Planning Board Department of Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman