HomeMy WebLinkAboutVillage Homesites Planned Unit Developwemnrt Major_13
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Lanette Windemaker, AICP, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: Village Homesites PUD Major Subdivision Preapplication, #P-07008
MEETING DATE: Monday, April 23, 2007
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission provides advice and recommendation on
application #P-07008 in preparation of the preliminary plat application for Village Homesites
Major Subdivision.
BACKGROUND: This is preapplication review for Village Homesites Major Subdivision to
subdivide ~ 17 acres into 20 lots; 19 for single household dwellings and 1 for the existing Village
Lofts building. The property is located on both side of Village Downtown Boulevard, which is east
of Broadway Avenue at East Mendenhall extended. The subject property is zoned “R-4”
(Residential High Density District).
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As discussed in staff report.
• Connection of Village Downtown Boulevard to Front Street.
• Level of Service at North Broadway Avenue onto East Main Street.
• Wetlands Preservation.
• Park Frontage & Parking.
• Pedestrian Access.
• Project Design in accordance with code.
• Relaxations.
• Impact on the Village Downtown Lofts PUD Approved Final Plan.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased
property tax revenues from new development, along with increased costs to deliver municipal
services to the property.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Lanette Windemaker at lwindemaker@bozeman.net if you have any
questions prior to the public hearing.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
130
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT #P-07008
VILLAGE HOMESITES MAJOR SUBDIVISION PREAPPLICATION
Item: Application #P-07008 – Preapplication review for advice and
comment in preparation of the preliminary plat application for
Village Homesites Major Subdivision.
Owners: The Village Investment Group, 101 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT
59715
Representatives: C & H Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1091 StoneRidge Drive,
Bozeman, MT 59718; and
Bitnar Architects, 502 S. Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Date/time: Before the Planning Board on Tuesday, April 3, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main
Street, Bozeman, MT; and
Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, April 23, 2007, at
6:00 p.m. in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311
West Main Street, Bozeman, MT.
Report by: Lanette Windemaker, AICP; Contract Planner, Planning and
Community Development Department.
Recommendation: Review and provide advice and comments.
PROPERTY LOCATION
The property is located on both side of Village Downtown Boulevard, which is east of Broadway
Avenue at East Mendenhall extended. The subject property is zoned “R-4” (Residential High
Density District). Please refer to the vicinity map below.
131
PROPOSAL & BACKGROUND
Application has been made for a Subdivision PreApplication review of Village Homesites to
allow the development of 20 lots; 19 for single household dwellings and 1 for the existing
Village Lofts building. This application is being reviewed in conjunction with a PUD
Preapplication Plan.
The applicant intends to request the following relaxations from the BMC:
• Section 18.16.030.A, Lot Coverage. To allow lot coverage greater than 50 percent instead
of the maximum of 50 percent lot coverage.
• Section 18.16.040.A, Lot Area and Width. To allow a minimum lot area of 4,152 square
feet instead of the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet.
• Section 18.16.040.B, Lot Area and Width. To allow a minimum lot width of 40 feet
instead of the minimum lot width of 50 feet.
• Section 18.16.050, Yards. To allow a minimum 4 foot side yard setback instead of
minimum 5 foot side yard setback.
• Section 18.16.050, Yards. To allow a 10 foot rear yard setback instead of minimum
requirement of 20 feet with alley opening doors.
The purpose of the Subdivision Preapplication review is for discussion of the applicant’s
proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and
applicable standards and policies, as well as offers the applicant the opportunity to identify major
problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned “R-4” (Residential High Density District). The intent of the R-4
residential district is to provide for high-density residential development through a variety of
# P-07008 Village Homesites Major Subd Preapp Staff Report 2 of 6
132
housing types within the City with associated service functions. This will provide for a variety of
compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community’s residents. The net
density, as defined in Chapter 18.80, BMC, for new “R-4” developments shall be 8 dwellings per
acre or greater. The 19 single household lots in the Village Homesites project have a net density
of 8 dwelling units per acre. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject
property:
East: M-1; Undeveloped
South: R-4; Village Lofts, a portion of Lot 3 and Lot 5, Broadway Minor Subdivision
West: M-1; Industrial uses
R-3A; Vacant and residential dwellings
North: M-1; Industrial uses
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The property is currently designated as “Residential” in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan.
The R-4 (Residential High Density District) zoning designation is consistent with the
“Residential” land use designation of the property.
Residential. This category designates places where the primary activity is urban density living
quarters. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low
intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. The residential
designation also indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal
boundaries which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density
expected within this classification varies. It is expected that areas of higher density housing
would be likely to be located in proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the broadest range
of feasible transportation options for the greatest number of individuals and support businesses
within commercial centers. Low density areas should have an average minimum density of six
units per net acre. Medium density areas should have an average minimum density of twelve
units per net acre. High density areas should have an average minimum density of eighteen units
per net acre. A variety of housing types should be blended to achieve the desired density with
large areas of single type housing being discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence of
constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for
development at a lower density than normally expected within this classification.
All residential housing should be arranged with consideration given to the existing character of
adjacent development, any natural constraints such as steep slopes, and in a fashion which
advances the overall goals of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The residential designation is
intended to provide the principal locations for additional housing within the Planning Area.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The City Commission reviews the submittal, and provides conceptual advice and comment. Key
areas of discussion may include but are not limited to, the following issues:
# P-07008 Village Homesites Major Subd Preapp Staff Report 3 of 6
133
1. Front Street Connection. Village Downtown Boulevard should be improved to Front Street
with Front Street improved to the west. According to information received from MRL, the
City of Bozeman’s Front Street right of way is senior to the MRL easement. Some
proponents of cul-de-sacs support them for safety reasons. Review of literature has found that
well-connected streets with plenty of foot traffic and many highly visible dwellings provide
the safest locations. The safest cul-de-sacs are short and straight, with many highly visible
dwellings, and have direct connectivity to through streets. Village Downtown Boulevard is a
long, curved cul-de-sac. If these improvements are not proposed, the following relaxations
must be requested.
• 18.44.010.A, Relation to Undeveloped Areas. To not extend Village Downtown
Boulevard to the property line.
• 18.44.010.B, Relation to Developed Areas. To not provided for a continuation of
Front Street to Village Downtown Boulevard.
2. Level of Service. The left turn movement from North Broadway Avenue onto East Main
Street operates at level of service less than “D” at certain times of the day. If improvements
to correct this issue are not proposed, the following relaxation must be requested.
• Section 18.44.060.D, Level of Service Standards. To allow the East Main Street and
North Broadway Avenue intersection to operate at level of service less than “D”.
The following condition was a requirement of the Village Downtown Lofts project:
“Applicant shall be responsible for up to two (2) warrant analysis, the timing to be
determined by the City Engineering Department in consultation with MDOT. If the warrant
study indicates that signalization is appropriate prior to full build out, no further building
permits will be approved until the signal is installed”.
3. Wetlands. To make use of the wetlands in lieu of a park land dedication, the applicant must
request waivers of the Sections 18.50.100.A and B, Waiver of Required Park Dedication. To
accept the critical wildlife habitat and natural resources (wetlands) as land within a PUD
permanently set aside for park and recreation uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons
who will ultimately reside in the development. The following relaxation would have to be
requested in conjunction with the waiver request.
• Section 18.50.060, Frontage. To allow land accepted in lieu of park land to have no
frontage on a street.
4. Park Frontage. Visibility, public parking and pedestrian access from the public street to the
proposed public wetlands park are all issues that need to be considered. Pursuant to Section
18.50.060, when public street frontage along a park is reduced to less than 100 percent, there
are usually conditions that additional land area be provided in exchange for parking along
frontage, and that an off street parking lot be constructed. With no frontage on a public street,
it may be appropriate to condition the future proposal that all on-street parking shall be
reserved for the public and that pedestrian access is provided from the street to the wetlands
trail.
a. Per Section 18.50.060, a trail system around the perimeter of the park land shall be
constructed by the subdivider to provide direct pedestrian access to the perimeters
without street frontage.
# P-07008 Village Homesites Major Subd Preapp Staff Report 4 of 6
134
b. Per Section 18.50.060, the subdivider shall provide the additional land for a parking
area based on lot frontage The additional land for the parking area may not be
counted towards the final park land dedication. If the frontage of the park changes,
this number will be recalculated. The exact calculation is impossible to determine
with this informal submittal but the amount of parking required in lieu for just the
west side of the wetlands park is about 24 parking spaces, based on a calculation of
560 feet of frontage x 14 feet for 7,840 square feet of parking area.
c. Per Section 18.50.060, the subdivider shall either develop the parking area or in lieu
of the constructed parking area, an equivalent dollar value of non-parking
improvements within the park are provided according to the individual park plan.
5. Pedestrian access: While the P&RABSRC has always been supportive of preserving these
wetlands as park land, the support has always been subject to the provision of perimeter
pedestrian access with education and viewing opportunities. The proposed design of the lots,
alley and drainage facility appears to impede the perimeter pedestrian access. A 25’ wide
public access easement will need to be established for all trails.
6. Watercourse Setback. The watercourse setback must be shown on the site plan and plat. No
impervious surfaces are allowed in the watercourse setback. The alley adjacent to Lot 3J
appears to encroach into the watercourse setback. Lot 3J will need to be reconfigured to
move the alley out of the watercourse setback.
7. Design of Lot 3J. Lot 3J appears to encroach into easements or right-of-way. In addition, the
current design configuration will require a front yard setback adjacent to the Front Street
right-of-way.
8. Restricted Size Lots. A minimum of 10 percent of the buildable net acreage shall be
dedicated to Restricted Size Lots (RSLs). Options for addressing this requirement are found
in §18.42.180, BMC.
9. Relaxations.
• Section 18.16.030.A, Lot Coverage. To allow lot coverage greater than 50 percent
instead of the maximum of 50 percent lot coverage. The applicant will need to request
a maximum lot coverage.
• Section 18.16.040.A, Lot Area and Width. To allow a minimum lot area of 4,152
square feet instead of the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet.
• Section 18.16.040.B, Lot Area and Width. To allow a minimum lot width of 40 feet
instead of the minimum lot width of 50 feet.
• Section 18.16.050, Yards. To allow a minimum 4 foot side yard setback instead of
minimum 5 foot side yard setback.
• Section 18.16.050, Yards. To allow a 10 foot rear yard setback instead of minimum
requirement of 20 feet with alley opening doors.
10. Impact on the Village Downtown Lofts PUD Approved Final Plan. The trail location shown
on the Village Downtown Lofts PUD lots appears to eliminate two or three on-street parking
space counted towards the required minimum number for the Village Lofts. The applicant
# P-07008 Village Homesites Major Subd Preapp Staff Report 5 of 6
135
will need to address how they are going to address that issue. The Village Lofts PUD will
need to be amended to reflect the trail as shown and a 25’ public access easement
established.
cc: The Village Investment Group, 101 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715
C & H Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1091 StoneRidge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718
Bitnar Architects, 502 S. Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
# P-07008 Village Homesites Major Subd Preapp Staff Report 6 of 6
136
1
** MINUTES **
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD,
COMMUNITY ROOM, GALLATIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE
311 WEST MAIN STREET
TUESDAY, APRIL 3RD, 2007
7:00 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice President Dave Jarrett called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM and directed the secretary to record the
attendance.
Members Present:
Dave Jarrett, Vice President
Brian Caldwell
Randy Carpenter
Bill Quinn
Caren Roberty
Steve Kirchhoff, Commission Liaison
Members Absent:
JP Pomnichowski
Ed Sypinski
Erik Henyon
Staff Present:
Andy Epple, Director of Planning and Community Development
Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Tony Renslow, Village Investment Group
Kimerick Hayner
Kathy Hayner
BJ Cope, Allied Engineering
Don Pilotte
Jason Burke, Allied Engineering
Don Bachman
Carla Healy
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not
scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there was none, Vice President Dave Jarrett closed this portion of the meeting.
137
2
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MARCH 20TH, 2007
Bill Quinn moved to approve the minutes of March 20th as written. The motion was seconded by Brian
Caldwell. Those in favor being Bill Quinn, Dave Jarrett, Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell, Randy
Carpenter, and Steve Kirchhoff. All in favor, motion passed 6-0.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-07008 (Village Homesites) - A Major Subdivision Pre-
Application on behalf of the owners, The Village Investment Group, and representatives, C
& H Engineering and Bitnar Architects to receive advice and direction to allow the
development of 20 lots; 19 for single household dwellings and 1 for the existing Village
Lofts building. The application is being reviewed in conjunction with a PUD
PreApplication Plan. The property is located on both sides of Village Downtown
Boulevard, which is east of Broadway Avenue at East Mendenhall extended.
(Windemaker)
0:01:24 [19:02:06] Staff Report
Contract Planner Lanette Windemaker gave the staff report. She noted this is a single family residential
proposal involving 19 lots. The applicant is requesting five relaxations; The applicant intends to request
the following relaxations from the UDO; First is from Section 18.16.030.A, regarding Lot Coverage.
They are asking for lot coverage greater than 50 percent instead of the maximum of 50 percent lot
coverage. Second is from Section 18.16.040.A, regarding Lot Area and Width. The applicant is asking for
a minimum lot area of 4,152 square feet instead of the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. Third is
from Section 18.16.040.B, regarding Lot Area and Width. Ms. Windemaker stated they are asking to
allow a minimum lot width of 40 feet instead of the minimum lot width of 50 feet. Fourth is from Section
18.16.050, regarding Yards. The applicant is requesting a minimum 4 foot side yard setback instead of
minimum 5 foot side yard setback. Fifth and last relaxation requested is from Section 18.16.050,
regarding Yards. The Village group is asking to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback instead of minimum
requirement of 20 feet with alley opening doors.
Planner Windemaker stated this application is running concurrently with a PUD plan which is currently
being reviewed. The property is zoned R-4, and noted this project will have a net density of 8 dwelling
units per acre. She noted the applicants are requesting several waivers; One is to use the wetlands in lieu
of park land dedication and to accept a park that has no frontage to a street, second is to not provide for a
continuation of Front Street to Village Downtown Boulevard, third is to allow the East Main Street and
North Broadway Avenue intersection to operate at level of service less than "D". Planner Windemaker
stated these were just a few of the waivers requested.
She noted no public comment has been received to date. Planning Staff sees numerous issues with this
proposal that will need to be resolved. Connection of Village Downtown Boulevard to Front Street, level
of service at North Broadway onto Front Street be improved to Broadway, pedestrian access, wetlands
preservation, and the overall project design in accordance with the City's code. She closed her report by
noting this proposal is to identify solutions prior to making formal application.
138
3
0:09:08 [19:02:17] Applicant Presentation
Tony Renslow representing the Village Investment Group noted this is the final portion of the Village
Downtown. Their firm has chosen to revamp the Village Terraces plan a little bit and are quite excited
about the changes. Mr. Renslow stated they are moving the trail around to enable them to allow parking in
a number of different areas. They are working on how to resolve parking issues. This proposal is not
finalized yet. As part of the preliminary submittal they are planning on doing a large model of this area.
These lots are all roughly 40 feet wide and narrow, long lots. There is no availability to be able to design
a building in the downtown area which allows for walk-ability and this is why we are choosing to move
away from the Village Terraces concept and move to the Village Homesites.
0:11:55 [19:10:13] Public Comment
Ted Lange representing GVLT stated they have been looking at the wetland area for many years as one of
the most unique wetlands in the City because it creates a great bird habitat. He noted they are supporting
the waiver. Mr. Lange stated they like the trail in this project and commented the pedestrian connectivity
is good and justifies that wetland becoming a park. If this wetland becomes a public park, it would be an
outstanding experience. They think this is well worth the granted waivers and relaxations. He noted there
are some parking issues, but this is a well loved area for decades. People walk and bike from the
neighborhoods, but there are some parking issues that need to be resolved here. Mr. Lange stated they
would like to see a bike/ped connection. This would provide connectivity not available now. The trail
would allow one to use Frontage Street. This is an important trail link.
0:16:04 [21:01:26] Questions for Staff and Applicant
Brian Caldwell asked if the intent is to utilize R-4 as single family detached residences. Mr. Renslow
concurred and added they want to continue with the architectural theme of the Village Downtown. Mr.
Caldwell wanted to clarify that there are going to be 19 units for 2/3 of an acre of parkland. Mr. Renslow
confirmed that and also noted they have ample parkland. He added the Parks/Recs board supported this
project with its wetlands and has been well received. Mr. Renslow stated the tennis courts will be counted
as open space and is part of the Village Homesite application.
Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff asked the applicant if they have addressed the issue of RSL's. Mr.
Renslow replied there are four or five RSL lots at 5,000 square feet or under. Mr. Kirchhoff stated this
subdivision is a 'rich people' habitat and stated this is contradictory to having RSL's within this project.
He asked how this will work. Mr. Renslow responded stated they are working with Bitnar architects to
provide different floor plans to help address some of these concerns. They are working on providing
architectural guidelines as part of their preliminary plat submittal. He stated the front doors will be off the
boulevard and have rear entry. They plan on using brick, but also incorporating other materials so they
can follow the current design of the Village Downtown.
Steve Kirchhoff stated that in October 2001, the Mayor's design council in San Diego reviewed this
proposal and they commented what should be done is to build a bunch of bungalows. This is not what
happened and this is a good thing with handsome buildings. He asked if there is any room for a middle
class type of housing. Mr. Renslow replied they are trying to cater to the middle class with this latest
proposal. The reason why they steered away from the Village Terraces, was they were producing a
product that was similar and felt it was best to not compete with themselves. He noted there is a high
desire for affordability in downtown Bozeman.
139
4
Randy Carpenter asked Mr. Lange to give his opinion on the lack of having a boardwalk in that
area. Ted Lange responded this has been a matter of great debate amongst several advisory groups. Some
Randy Carpenter asked Lanette Windemaker to explain the relaxations. Planner Windemaker noted the
applicant is requesting five relaxations: First is for allowing lot coverage greater than 50 percent instead
of the maximum of 50 percent lot coverage. Second is to allow a minimum lot area of 4,152 square feet
instead of the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet. Third is to allow a minimum lot width of 40 feet
instead of the minimum lot width of 50 feet. Fourth is to allow a minimum 4 foot side yard setback
instead of minimum 5 foot side yard setback. Fifth and last is to allow a 10 foot rear yard setback instead
of minimum requirement of 20 feet with alley opening doors.
Dave Jarrett asked the applicant what they plan on doing to Front Street. Mr. Renslow noted that they
currently have use of Front Street for emergency access use only. He noted there is quite a bit of truck
traffic going through that area and do not want the trucks to use Village Boulevard as a cut through.
Randy Carpenter asked Planner Windemaker to clarify how this project design and lack of connection
with Front Street relates to the UDO requirements. Ms. Windemaker responded the UDO states that roads
be extended to undeveloped property lines. Mr. Renslow stated the DRB support not connecting Front
Street. His plan is to bring forward a large model of how their plan will look to give everyone a better
idea of how the narrow homes will fit on these lots. There is quite a bit of work to be done.
Bill Quinn asked if their plan is to make this residential area level with the wetland. Mr. Renslow stated it
will be level somewhat. They have quite a bit of earth work to do on this project.
Dave Jarrett stated the boulevard is too long to be considered a cul-de-sac. He stated they need to
reevaluate the wetlands because it seems there are a substantial amount of cattails in that area. The public
park area they have designated looks like a bunch of bushes and not like a park area. He suggested maybe
some enhanced trails around that area. He questioned the ability of the homeowners association being the
responsible party for the maintenance of the park. Mr. Jarrett asked Ms. Windemaker if the City
Engineers conducted a traffic study. Planner Windemaker stated the applicant will have to come forward
with another traffic study in the Preliminary Plat package. She noted that Bob Murray in Engineering is
requiring they do a warrant analysis study in their next proposal. Mr. Renslow stated they did conduct an
updated traffic study. Mr. Jarrett asked if they plan to sell the lots or build them. Tony Renslow stated the
initial plan is to sell the individual lots. Mr. Jarrett stated he is hopeful they can come up with a good
design on the RSL lots.
Caren Roberty asked if the changes to the UDO reflected a new square footage of RSL lots to be 5,000
square feet or less. Andy Epple stated they still need to be amended and adopted, but will look up the
code as it pertains to RSL lots.
Bill Quinn asked how critical the 10 foot rear yard set back is compared to a 20 foot rear yard. Ms.
Windemaker stated it is a private enforcement issue and they currently do not have a problem with it. This
area has a strong homeowner's association. The issue is there are current residents who are parking in
front of their garages. Mr. Jarrett stated this is a problem because he drove by there today and saw two
cars parked in front of their garages, the residents should have a 20 foot rear setback so they do not block
their garage. Ms. Windemaker noted that in light of this, the City should re-evaluate this so it will not be a
problem.
Caren Roberty asked about the trail in the park. Planner Windemaker noted the City wants a circular trail
going around the wetlands, however we will not be supportive of not having a boardwalk put in. The City
does want a circular park it has always been a requirement to have a trail going all the way around the
wetlands regardless of the bird watchers.
140
5
four feet. The ten foot rear setback instead of twenty will not work in his opinion because one needs to be
able to park a small car outside the garage. As far as the park is concerned, Mr. Jarrett stated it is
of the parks/recs boards have stated their concerns as well. GVLT and the Audubon Society is willing to
give up the board walk because there are strong feelings that the installation would cause significant
habitat impacts. Mr. Lange closed by stating they are comfortable with the project as it is proposed.
0:52:23 [19:13:06] Discussion
Brian Caldwell stated that wetland area should be a public park. He noted the alley could be a private
street and this could give the applicant the street frontage needed. If they plan to build individual lots, a
public park would be feasible. Mr. Caldwell added they should allow for a 50% street frontage and then
have the trail circle around the park. He noted if this were a public park, it would more than satisfy the
parkland requirements and enhance the wetlands. Mr. Caldwell stated this area is a disregarded portion of
town and having an enhanced trail network would be a great benefit to the community. The Northeast
Neighborhood is adamant about having parkland and this 10 acres should be given regardless. He stated
the opportunity lies in making the alley a private street which could help the potential parking issues. He
also suggested the applicant lighten up the exclusivity of this area and let it be for public use.
Caren Roberty commented she likes Mr. Caldwell's ideas a great bit. It covered most of her concerns.
Bill Quinn noted he agrees that there is no need to connect to Front Street other than emergency traffic or
a bike trail because it can serve no other purpose than that. He stated that not having that connectivity to
the boulevard seems to be rational in his opinion. He concurred with Mr. Caldwell's comments regarding
the proposal of getting additional parking with the private street.
Randy Carpenter stated it is his understanding that these wetlands were not going to be part of the
required parkland. He would not support that when it comes forward. In terms of the rear setback, he was
concerned with the cars parking in the alley. Mr. Carpenter also noted the issue of access and stated this
needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Kirchhoff stated the City has encouraged the applicant to follow a PUD path. He noted the
board has heard a lot of good comments tonight like those of Mr. Caldwell's that make great sense. At the
suggestion that the tennis court area become part of the park land makes good sense. Mr. Kirchhoff noted
the alleyway conditions and added they need to provide enough area for someone to park in the alley and
this will no longer be a problem. He stated he is not sure why some people think that Front Street could
not be a viable access someday. He noted he does not think we should let present conditions state that
factor. He is open to the idea that it could be a good connection at some point in the future. The Northeast
neighborhood has worked with Simkins in reducing traffic. The parking, the level of service, the frontage,
the RSL size, lot coverage/lot size are not problems in his opinion, but he would like to see the applicant
make good on the RSL's. Mr. Kirchhoff stated they should meet the intent of the RSL's to provide some
sort of moderate income homes and noted this would be a bonus. He closed by noting the comments
provided tonight would help provide enhancements to the community.
Dave Jarrett addressed the relaxations. He noted that regarding lot coverage, allowing someone to use a
smaller footprint could still allow them to have an architecturally good product. He stated he was not
concerned with the width of the lot, but added they will need to get enough of the lots to meet the 5,000
square foot requirement. Mr. Jarrett stated he was concerned with the four foot relaxation on the side
yards. He noted that is just too close and six feet on each side would be better and will not support the
141
6
currently a private park unless the developer allows access to the trail. He suggested they put in a parking
area so guests could use it or the Audubon Society can get over there and look at the birds. He further
commented the boulevard is great, but should expand the lots around this property to make an alley in the
middle, this will give the residents better connectivity but the developer could end up losing a couple lots.
It is important that the public has access to this park. Dave Jarrett stated the applicant will have to deal
with Front Street. The culvert is in the floodway and in the watercourse setback, regardless of whether or
not it is an emergency access, it has to be dealt with and needs to be larger than 10 feet wide. He noted
their traffic study will lend some insight towards what would happen to Main Street or Broadway. The
impact will be on Main Street. He closed by stating he hopes the board has provided the applicant with
some good input.
2. Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application, #P-07012 (South Towne Square). A
Preliminary Plat Application for a Minor Subdivision requested by the owner and applicant,
Kailo Design and development LLC, and representative, Allied Engineer Services Inc., to
subdivide 4.97 acres of land into a Second or subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of
Record to create one lot for a commercial condominium subdivision. The subject property is
generally located at 2000 South 3rd Avenue and is legally described as Lot 3, Block 4 of
Thompson’s Addition #3 Subdivision, SW1/4, Sec. 18 T2S, R6E, PMM, City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger)
1:09:45 [19:54:19] Staff Report
Andy Epple introduced Brian Krueger to the Planning Board. He noted he came from Park County where
he had planning experience as well as worked in Seattle as a planner. Mr. Epple stated he is the liaison to
the Design Review Board and took Jami Morris's place in the Planning Department.
Planner Brian Krueger gave the staff report. He noted the applicant wishes to create one lot for
commercial condominiums. The subject properties were originally platted as a lot for a church building.
Now, the applicant would like to develop the site as a neighborhood mixed use development with retail
and office uses. Mr. Krueger noted this area is currently zoned B-1 (neighborhood business district). The
intent of the B-1 district is to provide for smaller scale retail and service activities frequently required by
neighborhood residents on a day to day basis, as well as residential development as a secondary purpose,
while still maintaining compatibility with adjacent residential uses.
Planner Krueger stated that during the pre-application review, the development review committee (DRC)
voted to grant two of the requested waivers. He noted additional development on this parcel may have
some impacts on the Figgins Creek watercourse corridor. A City standard a 50 foot setback on the
watercourse should provide adequate space for the corridor to function as a travel corridor for wildlife
while providing a functional buffer area for the watercourse and mitigating any potential impacts. Planner
Krueger noted the Wetland Review Board has recommended conditions that affect the site planning of the
parcel, these recommended conditions will be considered with the site plan application. He stated this
condo development is for commercial uses and has no residential component.
Planner Krueger noted there has been no public comment received to date and the applicant has been
working with the community. They have had significant contact with the neighborhood. He stated GVLT
would like to see a more direct connection of the trail and this could be taken care of during the Site Plan
review. The UDO as this application is currently proposed would make the director be the decision
maker, however we do have the ability to have the City Commission review the site plan in certain 142
7
circumstances. Mr. Krueger commented the Planning Director has taken this to the City Commission and
has not heard how they plan on dealing with this application just yet. The Wetlands Review Board met
and reviewed this proposal and stated they are concerned that the loading area because it is too close to
the wetlands, and if they need to keep it, maybe the applicant should put a low fence in to keep animals
from straying into that area. Planning Staff did discuss this with the applicant.
The amount of vegetation in that corridor along with the required vegetation from the applicant would
make this a thick area and we are not sure people would be straying that far. Trash flowing into that area
would be mitigated because they would be responsible for the upkeep of those areas per the owners
association and would not let the area adjacent to their site become unsitely. He closed by stating
Planning Staff recommends conditional approval subject to the conditions listed on pages 7,8 of the staff
report.
1:23:55 [20:11:47] Applicant Presentation
Jason Burke, a Professional Engineer representing Allied Engineering stated they are happy with the level
of community involvement that his client has sought. A good chunk of this property is taken up by
Figgins Creek and with that, they are trying to make the best use of what is left. Mr. Burke noted they are
asking for City Commission review of this project to ensure there is as much public input as possible. He
commented this project is intended to be retail and commercial.
Mr. Burke stated this site fits well with the existing zoning and the 2020 plan as far as complementing the
neighborhood needs. They appreciate the feedback from staff and the issues that did come up were
expected and can be dealt with. He noted the floodplain and associated wetlands were an issue for City
Engineering and Bob Murray pointed out they would need a floodplain permit to build that trail. Mr.
Burke stated that WRB's comments were forwarded too late and this timeframe did not allow them an
opportunity to address their issues. As far as the army corp. of engineers is concerned, he noted they felt
the wetlands did not need any permitting because there is fairly heavy vegetation in there and there would
not be many people varying from the trail because of the heavy vegetation in that wetland area. They plan
to install strict association rules regarding these wetlands. Mr. Burke stated that maybe a fence is not
necessary because of the heavy vegetation.
Jason Burke stated there will be room to negotiate how the entrance on Third will look. He noted the only
times they have seen this area's traffic backed up is in the morning due to the schools. Traffic at this site
will be spread out during the course of the day. He commented there will be restricted access to this site.
Mr. Burke stated that the DRC was concerned about lighting and security of the trail to keep citizens safe.
He commented they need to do this, but in a manner that will not create a nuisance to the neighbors in the
R1 district to the south of this property. Keeping that trail safe is a concern. He closed by addressing his
concerns for the advisory board's comments as to what would be a course of action for this.
1:35:30 [20:12:02] Public Comment
Ted Lange representing GVLT noted his three concerns were human nature, safety, and public
enjoyment. The trail is critically important to help serve this area for bicyclists and pedestrians. This route
will allow them to get there safely on foot. Mr. Lange stated the human nature of people it to cut the
corner and make
their own path that goes straight through to the other end of the trail. Therefore, cutting the trail into a
triangular section around building number 5 is not ideal. He stated the willow tree behind building 5 is 143
8
Vice President Dave Jarrett stated he thinks this is a good project. He noted his dislike in having the
one of the nicest amenities to this site.
Carla Healy lives at 2017 South Tracy, right behind this development. She stated she is concerned of the
impact to her home. There is extreme vegetation in that area, and there may need to be a buffer in the
areas where it is not that thick so as to not disturb the residences south of this development. Ms. Healy
noted the truck loading area would be noisy. She stated in her experience, she has never been on trail that
was lit. It just does not need to be lit. She was not sure of the traffic impact on South Tracy. Her
suggestion was to maybe add speed bumps. She closed by stating there should be some provision that
states in the future they should be required to do something about the potential traffic increases in that
neighborhood.
Kimberick Hayner lives at 1 Hill Street. He noted the applicant is requesting to not meet with the school
district because this is a commercial development and not impact the school traffic. However, they do not
know this until they meet with the school district. Director Epple stated that from a traffic standpoint, the
school district should be consulted. Mr. Hayner stated he would like to get a copy of the waivers because
the applicant is also requesting to be excused from meeting with the historic preservationist and feels this
needs to be addressed.
1:45:27 [20:26:30] Questions for Staff
Brian Caldwell asked Planner Krueger to give more detail on the importance of the wetlands in this
proposal. Mr. Krueger responded the UDO addresses wetlands adjacent to watercourse corridors and
when the applicant had this area delineated, they found these wetlands are isolated according to the
federal government. Both the wetlands in this area are isolated and there is no specific setback
requirement regarding this.
Caren Roberty stated this is a commercial development and is not sure what they can press as a
requirement.
Dave Jarrett noted his concern is with the trail and connectivity. There is adequate area to use for this.
Jason Burke stated they will take GVLT's comments and move the building forward about ten feet and are
accepting that as a viable option.
Caren Roberty suggested the applicant take the turn off of 3rd and put the access ways somewhere else.
Bill Quinn stated he likes the way this looks and is hopeful that the trail will continue down to the Allison
and Figgins subdivisions.
Randy Carpenter stated he has no comments about the plat itself, but regarding some site issues. He noted
GVLT made some good points regarding connectivity and stated if the developer does not provide for
connectivity, they will end up having a path going back there whether they like it or not. He noted the
fence does not seem to be that big a deal. He suggested that they could separate the parking lot from the
trail with some nice landscaping and this could be a good idea.
Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff stated his concern is this potential drive through bank. The building would
discourage cut through traffic. That drive through has consumed so much space that this now causes the
applicant to have to put another building in the back of this property. He closed by suggesting they
remove the drive through.
144
9
backs of these buildings facing Kagy. Mr. Jarrett suggested the applicant take GVLT's comments into
consideration in regards to the trail. He is hopeful they will resolve the design of the rear of the building
so they look good. He closed by noting he concurs with the other comments.
1:57:20 [20:38:19] Motion and Vote
Randy Carpenter moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat Application #P-07012 with the
conditions as listed by Planning Staff. The motion was seconded by Steve Kirchhoff. Those in favor being
Randy Carpenter, Caren Roberty, Brian Caldwell, Bill Quinn, and Dave Jarrett. Those against being Steve
Kirchhoff. Motion passed 5-1.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Andy Epple commented the County Growth Policy Master Plan proposal may come before the Planning
Board. He stated the County and City Staff are working on this and at some point, the City and County
Planning Boards will be reviewing this.
Randy Carpenter stated he put together a slide show and would like to present this at some Planning
Board meeting in the future regarding the new growth policy. Mr. Epple noted it was enlightening. The
Planning Board members were all in agreement to either put this on the agenda as a future item or to meet
on their own time to review Mr. Carpenter's presentation.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
Vice President Dave Jarrett adjourned the meeting at 9:04 PM.
___________________________________ _____________________________________
Dave Jarrett, Vice President Andrew Epple, Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
*City of Bozeman Planning Board meetings are open to all members of the public.
If you have a special need or disability, please contact our
ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).
145
Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
1. Name of Project/Development:
2. Property Owner Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
3. Applicant Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
4. Representative Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
5. Legal Description:
6. Street Address:
7. Project Description:
8. Zoning Designation(s): 9. Current Land Use(s):
10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation:
146
Page 2
(Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03)
11. Gross Area: Acres: Square Feet: 12. Net Area: Acres: Square Feet:
13. Is the Subject Site Within an Overlay District? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14
13a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor
14. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes No
15. Application Type (please check all that apply): O. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan
A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands P. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan
B. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site Q. Planned Unit Development – Final Plan
C. Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 R. Planned Unit Development – Master Plan
D. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development, Amendment /COA S. Subdivision Pre-application
E. Special Temporary Use Permit T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat
F. Sketch Plan/COA U. Subdivision Final Plat
G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use V. Subdivision Exemption
H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA W. Annexation
I. Preliminary Site Plan X. Zoning Map Amendment
J. Preliminary Master Site Plan Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment
K. Conditional Use Permit Z. Zoning Variance
L. Conditional Use Permit/COA AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment
M. Administrative Project Decision Appeal BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment
N. Administrative Interpretation Appeal Other:
This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s), number of plans or plats, adjoiner information and materials, and fee
(see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½-
by 11-inches or larger than 24- by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8½- by 14-inches. If 3-ring binders will be used,
they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are 5:00 pm every Tuesday. This
application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted.
As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development, approved by the
City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by
the approval authority. Finally, I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project.
I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
147
148
149