Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-07 Packet_Norton Major Subdivision Preapplication #P-07020_13 Report compiled on June 20, 2007 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner SUBJECT: The Norton Major Subdivision Preapplication, #P-07020 MEETING DATE: Monday, June 25, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission considers the recommendations from staff and the Planning Board, and provides the applicant with comments to assist them in preparing a Preliminary Plat application. BACKGROUND: Big Sky Land Consulting, LLC on behalf of Norton Properties, LLC has submitted a Subdivision Preapplication for the subdivision of 47.77 acres into 36 detached single-household lots, 3 attached multi-household lots, 106 townhouse lots, 11 condominium unit lots, and 1 community center lot on property located east of Laurel Parkway and between what would become extensions of West Babcock Street and Fallon Street. The property is annexed with a zoning designation of R-4 (Residential High Density District). The Planning Board reviewed this proposal at a public meeting on June 5, 2007. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 1. Street Connectivity to the east to provide access to R-4 zoned property west of Baxter Creek. 2. Applicant proposes 20’ wide, 1800 square foot townhouse lots at the southeast corner of the plat. These lots are not in compliance with the lot standards for townhouse lots. The applicant argues that they would be more affordable. The Planning Board would support a deviation for lot size if the lots were affordable and subject to the workforce housing requirements. Staff has concerns that the lots as configured may not provide functional off street parking and vehicular circulation. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased property tax revenues, along with increased costs to deliver municipal services to the property, when the property is developed. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please feel free to email Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net if you have any questions. APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Staff memo, dated 6-20-07 Memo from RPAB, dated 6-1-07 Aerial photo Applicant’s submittal Minutes of the Planning Board’s 6-5-07 public meeting Master Plan Exhibit 238 planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Bozeman City Commission FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner RE: The Norton Major Subdivision Preapplication, #P-07020 DATE: June 20, 2007 Big Sky Land Consulting, LLC on behalf of Norton Properties, LLC has submitted a Subdivision Preapplication for the subdivision of 47.77 acres into 36 detached single-household lots, 3 attached multi- household lots, 106 townhouse lots, 11 condominium unit lots, and 1 community center lot on property located east of Laurel Parkway and between what would become extensions of West Babcock Street and Fallon Street. The property is annexed with a zoning designation of R-4 (Residential High Density District). The Norton Property (approx. 241 acres total) was master planned at the annexation stage. A copy of that map will be available in the power point presentation at the meeting. The Commission at the time of annexation did note that you would consider accepting a large wetland area within this phase as dedicated parkland. The Development Review Committee, Planning Board, and Recreation and Parks Advisory Board reviewed the application and provided the following summary comments: PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS The Bozeman Planning Board reviewed this proposal at a public meeting on June 5, 2007. They provided the applicant with the following comments: 1. There is a deficiency in connectivity to the adjoining properties to the east. 2. Consider connecting “A” Street through to Laurel Parkway. 3. The Board would support the applicant’s proposal to meet the workforce housing requirements. 4. The Board would like to see how this proposal will connect to future phases in terms of road ways, trails, and parks. 5. The Board supports the staff recommendation for the applicant to provide a greenway and trail in lieu of the east/west alley. 6. The Board would be able to support lots smaller than allowed if they would be affordable and subject to workforce housing. 239 Page 2 7. The Board suggested that the applicant provide photographs and site plans with a demonstration on how the townhouses will be configured on the 20’ wide lots (sub 3000 square foot lots). 20’ wide lots may be too small. 8. Affordable housing lots should be inner mixed with the more traditional lots. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS Project-Specific Comments 1. The applicant has not requested any waivers from the Additional Subdivision Preliminary Plat Supplements outlined in Section 18.78.060 of the UDO. 2. Planning staff recommends removing condominiums as a specified use directly on the plat. The applicant should state in the preliminary plat application that condominiums may be anticipated throughout the plat if that is the subdivider’s intention. 3. Block numbers shall be provided. 4. Planning staff recommends removing the north south alley depicted between Lots 72, 73 and Lots 74, 75. 5. The trail depicted east of Lots 4-20 should be eliminated. A boulevard sidewalk shall be provided in its place. 6. Planning Staff recommends that the north south trail provided along the east side Lots 151 and Lots 143-150 be eliminated. The main north south trail will be located in the watercourse corridor located in the property to the east. A boulevard sidewalk shall be provided in its place. Lots 143- 150 should front onto “G” Street. 7. A trail connection should be provided from the .47 acre pocket park to the east pedestrian walkway. 8. The lots specified as townhouse lots, Lots 4-55, do not meet the minimum lot size required for townhouse lots, which is 3,000 square feet. Revise lots to meet the standard. Modular lots are not acceptable. The corner townhouse lots along Fallon Street shall be larger in size in order to accommodate a corner side yard on those lots. Lots 55, 54, 21 and 20 shall be larger in size in order to accommodate a corner side yard on those lots adjacent to the pedestrian walkway, see standard code provision #5 below. 9. Planning staff recommends that the subdivider remove the through access of “E” Street between lots 154 and 155 to West Babcock Street. The street that does provide through access should line up with the future street to be provided along the west side the masterplan wetland/park to the north. 10. The east/west walkway and alley ways that bisect the single household residential and townhouse lots in the center of the plat should be a 30’ wide meandering pedestrian walkway only and not a vehicular alleyway. A trail connection should be provided from this walkway to the trail around the wetland park. 11. RSL lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.42.180 of the BMC. 12. The lots along West Babcock Street, Laurel Parkway, and Lots 76, 75, and 72 along Fallon Street shall have double-front architectural features facing those roads as found on the front of the dwellings units, for example; covered porches, varied roof lines, multiple façade materials, varied façade plane, and decorative lighting. These architectural requirements shall be addressed and demonstrated in the covenants/development guidelines. 13. The subdivider shall provide a neighborhood gathering place (pavilion, community building, wetland interpretation and viewing platforms, etc.) and playground equipment in the Community Center 240 Page 3 (neighborhood center) in addition to the standard requirement for boulevard street trees, irrigation, seeding, sidewalks, etc. 14. There should be no utility easements on park land. All sewer and water should be in the streets. 15. As much park land as can be identified as required at this stage should be dedicated with this phase, including any future phase park land to help preserve the boundaries of the northeast corner. 16. The subdivider in consultation with MDT, the City of Bozeman, and Streamline Transit shall locate, design, and construct a transit stop with seating, lighting, a bike rack, and a shelter at the Community Center per section 18.44.120 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. 17. The subdivider in consultation with the City of Bozeman and private utility providers (Northwestern Energy, phone, cable, etc.) shall consider providing a 30’ alley right-of way in order to accommodate private utilities in the alley and public utilities in the 10’ front yard utility easement. 18. All lots that have access to an alleyway shall use the alley for access to the lot, no driveway access from the street is allowed. This access restriction shall be addressed and demonstrated in the covenants/development guidelines. 19. The applicant should provide the calculation and allocations for parkland dedication with the preliminary plat application. 20. A parks master plan should be developed and submitted with this first Phase of the subdivision. The subdivider shall consider dedication of the masterplan/wetland park with Phase I. 21. The Preliminary Plat submittal and supplements shall correctly depict the requirements of Sections 020, 040, 050 and 060 of Chapter 18.78 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. 22. All infrastructure plans and specifications shall comply with the current version (including all addenda) of the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy and the City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications Fifth Edition that have been adopted at the time of approval of the plans and specifications. 23. A Stormwater Master Plan for the subdivision for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants from the runoff from the private and public streets and all lots must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The master plan must depict the maximum sized retention/detention basin location, and locate and provide easements for adequate drainage ways within the subdivision to transport runoff to the stormwater receiving channel. The plan shall include sufficient site grading and elevation information (particularly for the basin sites, drainage ways, and lot finished grades), typical stormwater retention/detention basin and discharge structure details, basin sizing calculations, and a stormwater maintenance plan. Any stormwater ponds located within park or open space shall be designed and constructed so as to be conducive to the normal use and maintenance of the park or open space. Storm water ponds shall not be located on private lots. Detailed review of the final grading and drainage plan and approval by the City Engineer will be required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process. 24. The location of and distinction between existing and proposed sewer and water mains and all easements shall be clearly and accurately depicted, as well as all nearby fire hydrants and proposed fire hydrants. 25. The Developer's engineer will be required to prepare a comprehensive design report evaluating existing capacity of water and sewer utilities which must be provided to and approved by the City 241 Page 4 Engineer. The report must include hydraulic evaluations of each utility for both existing and post- development demands. The report findings must demonstrate adequate capacity to serve the full development. The report must also identify the proposed phasing of water and sewer construction. If adequate water and/or sewer capacity is not available for full development, the report must identify necessary water system and sewer system improvements required for full development. The Developer will be responsible to complete the necessary system improvements to serve the full development. The sewer mains for this development shall be connected to a lift station which shall accommodate the sewer capacity of the full development. The lift station will be owned and operated by the City. Maintenance costs will be paid for by the homeowners by way of a surcharge on their sewer bill. 26. Any easements needed for the water and sewer main extensions shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width. In no case shall the utility be less than 10 feet from the edge of the easement. All necessary easements shall be provided prior to final plat approval and shall be shown on the plat. Wherever water and/or sewer mains are not located under or accessed from improved streets, a 12 foot wide all weather access drive shall be constructed above the utilities to provide necessary access. 27. The applicant shall provide a copy of the agreement regarding use of the Billion property sewer capacity. Indicate how sewer capacity from the development is to be handled during the period of the agreement and afterward. 28. If this phase of the subdivision is to be served by a lift station in the future, indicate the location of the future lift station. Any infrastructure necessary in this phase to connect to the lift station shall be shown. 29. The applicant is advised that any sewer mains to the lift station are to be installed within streets instead of parkland. 30. Water and sewer main stubs are to be provided to the adjacent property, i.e. phase boundaries. 31. If water and sewer mains are necessary in Laurel Parkway from Fallon Street to West Babcock Street for service to future phases, they are to be provided in this phase. 32. All street names must be approved by the Gallatin County GIS Office and City Engineering Department prior to preliminary plat and final plat approval. 33. No direct access from lots to West Babcock Street and Laurel Parkway will be approved. 34. Any public street rights of way which are within the boundaries of this subdivision and for which easements were provided with the Norton East Ranch Annexation Agreement shall be dedicated to the City on the Final Plat for this subdivision. The applicant shall also dedicate any public streets within the development. 35. The applicant shall indicate with the preliminary plat submittal the intended typical section for all streets and alleys, and include paving details, driving lane widths, on-street parking accommodations, pedestrian facilities and proposed bike lanes and also provide details regarding utility location, garbage service, drainage, snow removal and maintenance responsibilities. Streets within the subdivision shall be City standard width. City Standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be provided along all streets in the subdivision. Detailed review of the street and intersection design and approval 242 Page 5 by the City Engineer will be required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process. 36. The applicant is advised to show the relationship of this development to the existing street network, particularly Laurel Parkway, West Babcock Street and Fallon Street, and to provide the distance from the development to Cottonwood Road along West Babcock Street and Fallon Street. 37. A detailed Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by a qualified Traffic Engineer registered in the State of Montana shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The Traffic Impact Analysis shall address level of service evaluations for the following intersections: Cottonwood Road/West Babcock Street and Cottonwood Road/Huffine Lane. The Report shall include recommendations for any necessary off-site roadway improvements. 38. Cottonwood Road is designated as a Principal Arterial in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. The applicant is advised the remaining half of this facility along the entire frontage of the development, from West Babcock Street to Fallon Street, would be required to be constructed prior to development. 39. The applicant is advised this development may be subject to paybacks for signalization improvements to the Cottonwood Road and Huffine Lane intersection and improvements to Cottonwood Road. 40. Modify the accesses shown on W Babcock Street to meet the full access standards in Section 090.D.3 of Chapter 18.44 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. As shown on the plan, the separation between E Street and F Street meets the criteria for partial access but does not provide the 330’ minimum for full access. 41. If construction activities related to the project result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre of natural ground, an erosion/sediment control plan may be required. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality may need to be contacted by the Applicant to determine if a Stormwater Discharge Permit is necessary. If a permit is required by the State, the Developer shall demonstrate to the City full permit compliance. 42. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained prior to Final Site Plan approval. Code Requirements The preliminary plat shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Unified Development Ordinance. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a deviation or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The following requirements are standards of the Unified Development Ordinance and shall be addressed with the preliminary plat application: 1. Per Section 18.16.040B, most Residential zoning districts require a minimum lot width of 50 feet, except for townhouse lots, measured in a straight line between side lot lines at the points of intersection with the required front building line. With the preliminary plat application, please ensure that all lots have adequate lot width. 2. Per Section 18.38.060.C.1, all buildings located on a corner lot shall provide a corner side yard. Please ensure that all corner lots are large enough to provide an adequate building envelope. 243 Page 6 3. Per Section 18.42.030.D, corner lots shall have sufficient width to permit appropriate building setbacks from both streets and provide acceptable visibility for traffic safety. Further, homes on corner lots shall have the same orientation as homes on lots on the interior of the block, unless otherwise approved through an overall development plan. Covenants shall contain information regarding the orientation for all corner lots. The preliminary plat shall indicate the orientation of all corner lots. 4. Per Section 18.42.040.B, block lengths are not to exceed 400 feet. 5. Per Section 18.42.040.D, yards adjacent to pedestrian rights-of-way less than 30 feet wide shall be treated as corner side yards. Yards adjacent to pedestrian rights-of-way 30 feet wide or greater shall be treated as side yards. The following lots will require corner side yards along the pedestrian rights- of-way: Lots 1 and 2, Lots 54, 55, 20, and 21. 6. Utility easements shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.42.060. The required 10-foot front yard easement is required for all lots unless written confirmation is submitted with the preliminary plat from ALL utility companies providing service indicating that front yard easements are not needed. 7. Per Section 18.42.120, if mail delivery will not be to each individual lot within the development, the developer shall provide an off-street area for mail delivery within the development in cooperation with the USPS. It shall not be the responsibility of the City to maintain or plow any mail delivery area constructed within a City right-of-way. 8. The preliminary plat will need to demonstrate how the requirements of Section 18.42.180 (Provision of Affordable Housing) will be satisfied. 9. Section 18.50.06 requires that parkland have street frontage along 100 percent of its perimeter. The City Commission can consider decreased frontage when necessary due to topography, critical lands, the provision of pedestrian access, and the provision of parking. However, park frontage can never be less than 50 percent. 10. Per Section 18.50.090, executed waivers of right to protest the creation of special improvement districts (SIDs) for a park maintenance district will be required to be filed and of record with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, unless that was already with the annexation. 11. Section 18.78.050.H requires that any noxious weeds be identified and mapped by a person with experience in weed management and knowledgeable in weed identification. A noxious weed management and revegetation plan, approved by the County Weed Control District, shall be submitted with the preliminary plat. 12. Section 18.78.060.F requires that the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks review the proposed subdivision. Written documentation must be submitted with the preliminary plat that verifies that FWP has reviewed the proposed plat, lists any FWP recommendations, and outlines any mitigation planned to overcome any adverse impacts. 13. Section 18.78.060.G requires that the State Historic Preservation Office review the proposed subdivision. Written documentation must be submitted with the preliminary plat that verifies that SHPO has reviewed the proposed plat; lists any SHPO recommendations; outlines any plans for inventory, study and/or preservation; and describes any mitigation planned to overcome any adverse impacts. 14. Section 18.78.060.M requires that the preliminary plat application be accompanied by a written statement from all relevant utility companies indicating that service can be provided. 15. A draft copy of the covenants, restrictions, and articles of incorporation for the creation of a homeowners’ association shall be submitted with the preliminary plat application for review and approval by the Planning Department and shall contain, but not be limited to, provisions for assessment, maintenance, repair and upkeep of private streets, common open space areas, public 244 Page 7 parkland/open space corridors, mail delivery areas, stormwater facilities, public trails, snow removal, and other areas common to the association pursuant to Chapter 18.72 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. 16. A complete preliminary plat application shall be submitted to the Planning Department within one calendar year of the date the Planning Department dates, signs and places preapplication comments in the outgoing mail. RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY BOARD, SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE 1. There is concern on the part of RPAB that assigning parkland for this very large project where the density is unknown and the phasing has yet to be developed leaves the City open for considerable difficulty down the road. 2. We favor the aggregation of parkland. 3. We recommend that the E-W greenway trail along A St be moved to the North side of A St where it would connect the .47 acre park with the 4 acre wetland/park. A 10’ or 12’ shared use path would replace the sidewalk. 4. We think that the 25’ Alley would be better as a pedestrian greenway. 5. There is no trail connection to the Community Center; it is essential that this be addressed in later phases. A multi-use trail-in-lieu of sidewalk could be introduced along Laurel Parkway, improving this connection. ATTACHMENTS Memo from the Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, dated June 1, 2007 Applicant’s submittal MAILED TO Big Sky Land Consulting, PLLC. 5530 Burnt Road, Belgrade, MT 59714 Norton Development, Inc., 2464 SW Glacier Place, Redmond, OR 97756 245 ¯ 1 inch equals 283 feet Norton East Ranch Subdivision CottonwoodDurston Huffine Bronken Park Subject Property Legend Streams Streams Trails WetlandsConservationEasementsLoyalGardenBillionPUDLaurelGlenValleyWestBaxter Creek246 1 **MINUTES** CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD, COMMUNITY ROOM, GALLATIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE TUESDAY, JUNE 5TH, 2007 7:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President JP Pomnichowski called the meeting to order at 8:36PM. She announced our new Commission Liaison and new Mayor as Kaaren Jacobson. Ms. Pomnichowski then reminded all board members to make declaration of any conflicts of interest or disclosures prior to the presentation of any projects on the agenda. She then directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present: JP Pomnichowski, President Dave Jarrett Caren Roberty Bill Quinn Brian Caldwell Randy Carpenter Erik Henyon Ed Sypinski Kaaren Jacobson, Commission Liaison Staff Present: Andrew Epple, Director, Planning & Community Development Martin Knight, Planner Brian Krueger, Associate Planner Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Bill Louis Susan Kozub John Sheady Karen Sheady Jim Secor Bonnie Secor Chris Murphy Melissa von Borstel Chris Nixon Rob Pertzborn Tom Henesh Kevin Jacobsen Jeanne Wesley-Weise 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 were no members of public wishing to come forward with any public comment, President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 247 2 ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 15TH, 2007 Seeing there were no changes, additions, or corrections to the minutes of May 15th, 2007, President Pomnichowski noted the minutes will stand as written. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Growth Policy Amendment Application #P-07016 (Schroeder) – A Growth Policy Amendment Application on behalf of the owner and applicant, Schroeder Homes, Inc., and representative, Intrinsik Architecture, Inc. to amend the growth policy by changing the land use designation, as shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, from Industrial to Residential for 7.388 acres. This property is legally described as lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Block 3, Cattail Creek Subdivision Phase 3, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Knight) 0:02:18 [20:38:45] Staff Report Planner Martin Knight gave the staff report. The applicant is proposing to amend the growth policy by changing the land use designation, as shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, from Industrial to Residential for 7.388 acres. The subject property is currently annexed and vacant. Planner Knight stated this property is located in phase three of the Cattail Creek subdivision. Mr. Knight noted the subject property currently has a M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) zoning designation. He added the following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: To the north is vacant, annexed and zoned B-2 (Community Business District). To the south is also vacant, annexed and zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). To the east is Costco and Commercial uses which have been annexed and zoned B-2 (Community Business District). To the west is more vacant land and residential uses that have been annexed and zoned R-0 (Residential Office District). Planner Knight stated that if successful in obtaining this growth policy amendment, the applicants will likely move forward with a zone map amendment to obtain a zoning designation of R-O. He added Planning Staff has found this is more conducive for a mixed use purpose than just industrial. Staff finds approval of this application would provide a growth policy designation that would better provide for a community in the Cattail Creek subdivision. He noted there has been no public comment received. Mr. Knight closed by stating the applicant is ready to come forward with an application for an R-O zoning request. 0:05:07 [ ] Questions for Staff JP Pomnichowski asked if the adjacent parcel also designated as an M-1 zone. Planner Knight noted that was included in the neighborhood commercial Growth Policy Amendment and it is still zoned M-1 right now, but there will be an application that will come forward to amend that designation. Erik Henyon asked if the parcel below this proposal is also M-1. Planner Knight concurred. 0:06:13 [20:42:45] Applicant Presentation Susan Kozub representing Intrinsik Architecture stated the only thing her firm would like to add is that in 1999, prior to the adoption of the Bozeman 2020 Plan, the design team for Cattail Creek decided to move 248 3 towards an M-1 zoning designation to protect the big boxes like Costco from the residential area. Since then, the land use designations have changed in the surrounding areas. Ms. Kozub noted the property to the west is zoned R-O and has developed into a strong residential community with nice street scapes. She closed by stating with the new bus stop, residential uses would be more appropriate. 0:08:40 [23:04:33] Questions for Applicant JP Pomnichowski asked if the lot directly to the south is zoned B-1 or M-1. Ms. Kozub responded that lot is zoned B-1. Ms. Pomnichowski asked to clarify that the property across the road and south of the property is zoned R-O. Ms. Kozub concurred. 0:09:45 [ ] Public Comment Seeing there no members of the public willing to come forward and give comment, JP Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 0:10:11 [20:46:26] Discussion Bill Quinn noted this is a good use of a growth policy amendment and added this policy change to R-O from Industrial is a more appropriate and better land use. Erik Henyon asked Planning Staff what the current inventory of industrial zoned properties. Director Epple responded the City has a sufficient amount of industrial property and have recently just designated a large area of land as industrial up in the Mandeville property and it will bring more industrial land to the City. JP Pomnichowski stated she had great reservations at first when the application wanted to change from industrial to R-O, but this is much more compatible with the surrounding areas. She closed by stating she will be in support of this application. 0:12:28 [20:46:47] Motion and Vote Bill Quinn moved to recommend approval of Growth Policy Amendment #P-07016 with contingencies as stated by staff. The motion was seconded by Ed Sypinski. All in favor, motion passed 9-0. 2. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-07020 (Norton) - A Major Subdivision Pre-Application on behalf of the owners, Norton Properties, LLC, and the applicant, Norton Development, Inc., and the representative, Big Sky Land Consulting, PLLC to receive advice and direction to allow the development of 157 lots consisting of 36 single household lots, 3 multi-household lots, 11 condominium lots, 106 townhome lots, and 1 lot for a community center. The property is legally described as NE ¼ SW ¼, NW ¼ SE ¼ of Section 9, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger) 0:13:32 [20:49:59] Staff Report Seeing there were no conflicts of interest or disclosure from the board, Planner Brian Krueger gave the staff report. He noted Big Sky Land Consulting, LLC on behalf of Norton Properties, LLC has submitted a Subdivision Pre-Application for the subdivision of 47.77 acres into 36 detached single-household lots, 3 attached multi-household lots, 106 townhouse lots, 11 condominium unit lots, and 1 community center lot on property located east of Laurel Parkway and between what would become extensions of West Babcock 249 4 Street and Fallon Street. The property is annexed with a zoning designation of R-4 (Residential High Density District). Planner Krueger noted the Norton Property (approx. 241 acres total) was master planned at the annexation stage. The Commission at the time of annexation did note that they would consider accepting a large wetland area within this phase as dedicated parkland. Mr. Krueger noted the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and provided several summary comments at the May 30, 2007 meeting. He added that phase one of this pre-application is zoned R-4 and noted the applicant is calling this phase the 'first 48' because it will be the very first 48 acres of land (47.7) that will be developed. He closed by noting there are no RSL lots proposed and this has been suggested by Planning and City Staff. 0:26:51 [20:50:13] Questions for Staff Brian Caldwell asked what the zoning was of the property to the East (the Billion property). Planner Krueger responded he thought it was approved for R-4 and would keep consistent with proposal. This property would keep to the connectivity plan of current streets and trail corridors. Ed Sypinksi asked if Laurel Parkway is being planned to be north/south connectivity to Huffine Lane. Brian Krueger noted Laruel Parkway is shown to connect to Huffine and all the way to the north in the future master plan of this Norton Project. This will carry the majority of the traffic through this property. There will also be another larger connector to the West. Erik Henyon asked what Laurel Parkway's street standard is currently. Director Epple noted it is considered to be a local right now. He noted that in the future, it will be designated as a 90 foot collector status. Randy Carpenter asked about the wetland running northeast to the southwest of this property. Planner Krueger responded this has been deemed as non-jurisdictional wetland. He noted the WRB was aware of this and reviewed the master plan to which they provided a recommendation to protect the center portion of this master plan as wetland and be retained through the parkland process. Dave Jarrett asked if the applicant needs to provide a street layout in the master plan. Planner Krueger noted there are some proposed trails and proposed streets, but Staff does not have that detail yet. Staff may not have an additional detailed master plan than what was approved by the City Commission. Director Epple noted a master plan is generalized and the Commission has approved their master plan. Mr. Jarrett noted his concern is where the street crosses the wetland. Mr. Epple responded this is to reduce the impact to the wetlands. He added this was deemed adequate as a master plan and as each phase comes forward, the applicant will supply more detail. Erik Henyon asked what will become of A street and the possibility of connecting to the west into the parkway. Planner Krueger replied that would have some impact to the wetland areas. Dave Jarrett asked if they need the short skinny trail running north/south as part of their parkland requirements. Planner Krueger noted staff has suggested they dedicate parkland to the north instead of piece meal parkland so they should remove that skinny trail. 0:39:50 [21:03:48] Applicant Presentation 250 5 Tom Henesh representing Big Sky Land Consulting noted he appreciates the board's input and thoughts. He agreed with Mr. Jarrett's comments about removing the long skinny trail. He noted they are trying to minimize the impact onto the other collectors in this design. Mr. Henesh noted they brought forth the streets that were asked for in the annexation agreement and would tie into the Valley West flexibility to the north. Mr. Henesh noted he agrees with Planner Krueger to move the park along A street to the north. He added the lower townhome lots to the south of this property will be designated as affordable housing to fill a need to build affordable homes on these small lots. With the east/west alley through the middle of the blocks, Mr. Henesh noted the through-way would be more of a walk way or path to the wetland park. Kevin Jacobsen stood before the board as the applicant and noted he has specific designs for the affordable housing lots. He added they will be bringing forward pictures to the City Commission at the time this project is front of them that will show what great homes can be built on these smaller, restricted size lots. Commissioner Jacobsen encouraged Mr. Jacobsen to bring those photos forward at the time they are ready to present to the commission. As far as the street connectivity is concerned, Mr. Jacobsen noted they started on a plan, but it has already changed. He added the reason they have not connected every north running street to Babcock is so they can connect E street. If they run it through to the northern piece of this property, it will add more property to the park. He noted this will change what would be a small park to a much larger park with soccer fields. JP Pomnichowski noted the extreme importance of connectivity. 1:09:21 [21:19:20] Questions for Applicant Erik Henyon asked what kind of deviations or relaxations are the applicants asking for. Mr. Tom Henesh responded they are asking for a 20 foot lot width deviation for workforce housing. Mr. Jacobsen noted his company has workforce housing in other cities as well. He added if the lots are smaller, the cost of a house is cheaper. They are trying to accommodate the workforce housing aspect in this proposal. He noted his design is working in the other cities. Caren Roberty responded the applicant should comply with the entire workforce housing ordinance instead of applying for a deviation. Kevin Jacobsen noted the cul-de-sacs were his design. In the Creek Side development, it allowed for more parking. Randy Carpenter asked what net density they were looking at. Mr. Henesh replied they were looking at about 348 on 22 acres. These units include the multi-family. Mr. Epple noted that with the smaller and larger lots combined; this would bring the net density to 15.8 units per acre. Brian Caldwell suggested the applicant not concentrate all the affordable housing units in one place, but rather put a design together of pods in other places in the subdivision. Mr. Henesh noted the thought process on that cluster is the 0 lot lines. He added he is willing to try that in the next proposal. Dave Jarret asked about water and sewer connections on each of the 20 foot lots. Mr. Henesh confirmed there will be those connections in place. Mr. Jarrett asked if there was any way he could put some of those together, joint trench those lots. Mr. Henesh responded his team could definitely look at that possibility. Mr. Caldwell noted that with these small lots, there would not be any room for boulevard trees in that area. He also added there needs to be connection of either E or F Street to Babcock. 251 6 JP Pomnichowski asked why D street does not it go the extra 15 feet to connect to Babcock. Tom Henesh stated it is so it creates less traffic along the park area. Ms. Pomnichowski noted the fact there is a road network gives her great pause. She added this is dangerous. Though she could see the rationale for A street, she noted it just seems there are numerous questions about the street networks. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she liked the north/south layout of all the homes, but there's a requirement that there be 100% street frontage to parks. Planner Krueger responded the Engineering department has a spacing standard there and could possibly put an accessway in that area. He noted Engineering did not seem supportive of having more than two connections without a deviation from the City standards. JP Pomnichowski asked the applicant if they have done a wetland delineation or flood plain delineation. Mr. Henesh replied they did not because it is non-jurisdictional, it does not show up on this property based on the Valley West maps where they did the flood plain delineation. Brian Krueger noted the flood plain is farther to the east of this property. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she is assuming the flood plain does not cross over lots. She suggested to the applicant that before going any further, they should invest some time and effort to delineate. She asked the applicant if the ditch belongs to them or the Farmer's Canal. Mr. Henesh noted it is an old drain ditch that the owners made themselves. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if Fish and Wildlife has looked at this yet and Mr. Henesh responded they are fine with us filling those ditches in. She noted she concurred with the DRC comments. Ms. Pomnichowski stated she did not like the alleyways running east/west. Mr. Jacobsen noted this is a safety issue as to why that walk way is necessary in other cities. He noted they do not need to provide this if the board does not want to see it. JP Pomnichowski noted the requirement for townhouses is a 30 foot lot width. Dave Jarrett commented their intention is to do more than just workforce housing. He added there will have to be workforce housing in this project. JP Pomnichowski responded she appreciated the intent of this proposal. Kaaren Jacobson stated she would encourage the applicant to come before the commission with the photographs of Mr. Jacobsen's ideas that seem to work so well in other cities. She added this should be part of their affordable housing plan. Mr. Jacobsen noted and when you come forward with the affordable housing plan, bring those with this of what works in other cities. Randy Carpenter asked about their storm water management plan. Tom Henesh responded their only plan to date is that they will be moving it to the north. 1:09:43 [21:47:11] Public Comment There were no members of the public wishing to comment on this agenda item, therefore President Pomnichowski closed this portion of the meeting. 1:10:00 [21:47:34] Discussion Brian Caldwell stated there is a deficiency in connectivity to adjoining properties. He added the concentration of putting the affordable housing in one location should be broken up within this subdivision and they should be inner mixed with the more traditional lots. Mr. Caldwell the east/west alley way should be more of a greenway, then a city standard street width should be applied to this mid- block crossing. Erik Henyon noted there has been a lot of discussion tonight between staff and the planning 252 7 3. board, but the one thing he would like the applicant to be very cognizent of is the affordable housing and it should be mixed up a little more. Mr. Henyon noted the applicant should try to come forward with as few deviations and relaxations as possible. Caren Roberty noted she liked both suggestions of breaking up townhome lots, and if the 20 foot lot widths would allow for an effective affordable housing plan, then she would be in support of that. She encouraged the applicant to follow through with their plans to produce nice looking, affordable homes. Ed Sypsinki noted he did not see a trailway along Laurel Parkway around the other side of the wetland. He noted he would like to see that in this proposal. Bill Quinn stated the only comment he has is he liked the idea of the alleyway running east/west through the middle section of the center blocks. He added it makes sense for safety reasons. Dave Jarrett noted the little park on G street should be removed because it does not make much sense when you could put homes in there. He commended the applicant on the possibility of making workforce housing. He would recommend they delineate the future park and suggested they need the connectivity to the east. Randy Carpenter noted he agrees with just about every comment staff and board members have made. He suggested the applicant disperse the townhome lots and requested they follow Kaaren Jacobson's request in bringing forth the photographs of how they made this work previously could make a good point as to how the alleyways would work. Mr. Jarrett added this has the potential to be a real mess in terms of the number of cars in the area because each of these homes are going to have two to three cars. Mr. Carpenter stated the concentration of metal and steel in that area and could possibly make this an unattractive corner in this area. He disagreed with Mr. Jarrett's comment by noting pocket parks are important. He would not get rid of that smaller, corner park, but maybe utilize that space better and urged them to go to GVLT and get their recommendations. He noted he is hopeful they will provide more context when bringing the next formal project forward. Mr. Carpenter noted the lack of a detailed master plan bothers him in terms of planning and would like to see more detail to get a better picture of what they plan on doing. Commission Liaison, Kaaren Jacobson stated she had nothing further to comment on. JP Pomnichowski concurred with most board members. She noted the connectivity to the east is a requirement. She added the trail on the east side does not satisfying anything. Instead of that trail, Ms. Pomnichowski noted she would prefer to see sidewalks. She further commented that connectivity to the future phases of this project is important and the City Commission will need to see how this is interconnected with the rest of the project. Ms. Pomnichowski replied if they are doing street parking in front of each of the smaller lots and only a 20 foot alleyway, she asked they drive down Michael Grove Avenue and see what a bad project looks like. People in this city drive 22 foot vehicles and alleyways should accommodate this. She closed by stating the affordable housing portion of the code could work to their advantage with a great proposal. President Pomnichowski noted this application will go before the City Commission on June 18th, 2007. Growth Policy Amendment Application, #P-07019 (Baxter Creek). A Growth Policy Amendment Application on behalf of the owner and applicant, Floweree Family, 253 8 LLC, and the representative, Think Tank Design Group C/O Eric Nelson to amend the growth policy land use designation, as shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, from “Business Park” to “Community Commercial” on approximately 18.23 acres. This property can be legally described as a parcel of land in the W ½ SE ¼, SE ¼ of Section 9, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton) 1:26:48 [22:04:32] Staff Report Brian Caldwell noted he had a conflict of interest on this project as his company is representing the applicant in this proposal. He respectfully stepped down. Andy Epple, director presented the staff report. He noted the applicants are requesting to amend the growth policy land use designation on approximately 18.23 acres of undeveloped land in the southwest quadrant of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. This application would amend the growth policy land use designation as shown on the Future Land Use map from "Business Park" to "Community Commercial". Director Epple noted there are no existing residences, structures, or agricultural buildings identified on this property and is immediately west of the J.C. Billion Auto Plaza. He noted Planning Staff found this proposal does not satisfy all of the required review criteria and is recommending denial of the growth policy amendment. He closed by stating there has been no public comment received. 1:36:04 [22:05:00] Questions for Staff Ed Sypinski asked if there would be competing interests with a community commercial designation. Mr. Epple responded there would be an overlap and Staff did not see the need to add another community commercial node in that area. Bill Quinn asked if there was a neighborhood commercial node just north of Cottonwood and Babcock. Director Epple replied there is one planned just north of this and it's a total of 20 acres. Randy Carpenter asked Staff to explain the careful placement of neighborhood and community commercial and how they could be contrary to the principle. Director Epple noted the first point is careful placement of these nodes, the idea is to have neighborhood commercial nodes within walking distance and yet to be distinct from Regional Commercial development. He noted the City feels community commercial areas within the city are adequate to accommodate the commercial needs of the community without adding anything further. Mr. Epple stated this property is currently zoned B-P, it's just not service or retail oriented. He added Staff does not see there's a deficiency in community commercial nodes. B-P zoned areas are meant to be a campus like setting. Randy Carpenter noted that urban density notes this should not be an argument. He asked Mr. Epple to explain that staff report statement. Mr. Epple noted the principle use is intended to be over a large scale project. In a B-P designation, you cannot do a residential component. The City has lots of land for apartments and residential development. In other words, that could not be a reasonable argument. Mr. Carpenter asked about the concept of centers and how big can they be. Mr. Epple noted this is an issue through our citizen panels of the new 2020 update we will be able to explore. He added the City is not adverse to this concept, but we are nervous of making that kind of change. Community centers were anticipated to be 100-120 acres in size. Dave Jarrett asked what the difference in B-P and Community Commercial zones in regards to 254 9 Randy Carpenter noted there is a lot of precedence here in this application. He stated he dose not dismiss the B-P designation because it does have it's place, but it does have it's place along entryway watercourses. Mr. Epple noted they would be protected similarly. The stream corridor setback would be the same for both. Caren Roberty noted that community commercial is usually B-2 and if there was any possibility this could be a B-3 zone. Director Epple concurred and noted all of the City's downtown corridor is B-3 and with the new UMU district as an overlay, this will add to the variety of uses. 1:48:37 [22:14:28] Applicant Presentation Erik Nelson, representing Think Tank Design Group noted the existing B-P designation promotes sprawl. He added this would be an inefficient use of land resources as well as infrastructure resources. B-P is 50% less efficient than a designation of community commercial. Mr. Nelson noted the change would promote a mix of uses enhancing neighborhood feel. The change promotes more development on less land in proximity to residential "walkable" areas. He noted that by using land more efficiently, neighborhoods become tighter knit. Mr. Nelson commented the action to promote compact development is achieved with this change, it preserves wetland areas, and is adjacent to existing structures. This would preserve the valuable open space and agricultural land and reduces the need for city expansion. Mr. Nelson noted the B-P designation is contrary to the concept of urban density because it only allows for 60% lot coverage which would restrict urban patterns and this change allows for a mix of uses. He noted the adverse affect substantially occurs if the property remains a designation of B-P. This would make it 1.5 times more consumptive. He noted that in terms of inventory, given the similarities of the B-P and B-2 designations, he sees the economic desire of what people want to put on the ground and this commercial node should be off of an arterial like Huffine instead of putting the accessways out into a local street. 1:59:46 [22:27:16] Questions for Applicant Ed Sypsinki noted that when discussing the highest use of the land, in looking at types of employment, he felt it is appropriate to have this as a community commercial center. He noted these are both strong cases to be made from B-2 to B-P. Erik Henyon noted there is nothing that would limit someone from making a B-P zone the primary use as an office. The problem is limiting its use as 'only' an office. This zoning designation is restrictive and will not allow for optimal design flexibility. 2:02:12 [22:38:39] Discussion President Pomnichowski noted there are four criteria that need to be met to recommend approval. She noted one of the criteria is the finding this will not adversely affect the community as a whole. When the decision was made to try to stop corridor based business development and buffer those areas, the way the City buffered that was with offices in business parks. She noted these businesses close at 5PM and that is a livable environment to be in. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she just does not find the criteria is being met. She added that one of the best arguments is made in the staff report stating she does not want people living in the parking lot of Costco and closed by noting that would not be liveable. 255 10 corridors. He further noted he was not sure that the ultimate outcome of a well designed project of a community commercial project would be that different from a B-P zoned area. The outcomes could be quite similar. Mr. Carpenter noted in closing that maybe this is an appropriate place for community commercial. Kaaren Jacobson stated this proposal is a little confusing. She stated she did not think we should make any change and agree with Planning Staff and look at this in the context of the 2020 plan. She noted community commercial nodes should be located on corners of major arterials. When thinking about B-P zones, she stated does not know how that would lead to cohesive neighbors, but certainly not a B-2 zone. She closed by noting she will be supporting staff's recommendation of denial. Erik Henyon stated in the larger area around this proposal, it is important to a city that is growing to have these commercial nodes. However, this is at a great intersection. Mr. Henyon noted his one reservation on this project strongly did not want to see a strip car dealership there and if it is going to be truly commercial, he would like to see the diversity of businesses in there. He liked the applicant's presentation tonight because he is now 70% in support of the applicant's project, however he does think it's wise to wait for the 2020 update. He is in favor of the application because it makes sense to put a commercial node in that area. Dave Jarrett noted the B-P designation is adequate and fits with the surrounding area. He will be supporting staff's recommendations. 2:12:43 [22:41:08] Motion and Vote Ed Sypinski moved to recommend approval of Growth Policy Amendment application #P-07019 to change the land use designation from Business Park to Community Commercial. The motion was seconded by Bill Quinn. Those in favor being Erik Henyon. Those opposed being JP Pomnichowski, Bill Quinn, Randy Carpenter, Kaaren Jacobson, Caren Roberty, Dave Jarrett, and Ed Sypinski. The motion failed 7-1. President Pomnichowski noted this application goes before the City Commission on June 18th, 2007. ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS Randy Carpenter noted the board had previously discussed the possibility of sitting down with the Gallatin County Planning Board on a date which they and the City’s Board could meet. They stated the July 10th meeting would be the next meeting and suggested the City Planning Board meet with them. He further stated there would be a presentation during that meeting and this would be the best date. JP Pomnichowski suggested July 31st to the County Planning Board. This would allow the agenda to expand discussion on SB201, but also have time to discuss the Growth Policy Update and the Transportation Plan. She asked all board members to check their schedules for July 10th and July 31 and e-mail her their availability. Brian Caldwell stated his preference would be July 31st, Erik Henyon, Dave Jarrett, and Randy Carpenter all agreed to July 31st. JP Pomnichowski noted she would inform the County Planning Board and would get back to all the board members on confirming that date. Dave Jarrett stated it not fair to the applicant to have them wait for an hour for their project to come 256 11 before the board and suggested they meet earlier, possibly at 6:00PM. He asked the Chair if there was a way to change that. Chair Pomnichowski noted the public hearings are noticed well in advance and will cause less confusion to keep the same night and time as usual. She added the Zoning Commission meets less frequently than the Planning Board and added tonight’s full agenda is a rare occurrence. Director Epple concurred. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the board, President Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting of the Planning Board at 11:04PM. _____________________________________ ___________________________________ JP Pomnichowski, President & Chair 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). 257 Bozeman Recreation & Parks Advisory Board P.O. Box 1230 · Bozeman, MT · 59771 Subject: Norton Major Subdivision, pre-ap Date: June 1, 2007 Planner: Brian Kruger Overview: • The committee is looking at phase I (157 units) of what will eventually be an approximately 1,000 unit development. • It is a stated goal of the project to aggregate considerable parkland in the Northeast corner of the subdivision to merge with Bronken Park and Valley West Subdivision. • A Community Center with pavilion is planned for the Northwest corner of Phase I, which will locate it in the middle of the subdivision. • Plans are for 2 E-W and 2 N-S trails that will presumably connect with trail corridors in future phases. Comments: • There is concern on the part of RPAB that assigning parkland for this very large project where the density is unknown and the phasing has yet to be developed leaves the City open for considerable difficulty down the road. • We favor the aggregation of parkland. Recommendations: • We recommend that the E-W greenway trail along A St be moved to the North side of A St where it would connect the .47 acre park with the 4 acre wetland/park. A 10’ or 12’ shared use path would replace the sidewalk. • We think that the 25’ Alley would be better as a pedestrian greenway. • There is no trail connection to the Community Center; it is essential that this be addressed in later phases. A multi-use trail- in-lieu of sidewalk could be introduced along Laurel Parkway, improving this connection. 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266