HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-07_Meadow Creek Major Subdivision Phases 3 and 4_21
Report compiled on October 10, 2007
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: The Meadow Creek Phase 3 and 4 Major Subdivision Preapplication, #P-07038
MEETING DATE: Monday, October 15, 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: Madison Engineering, LLC on behalf of Canvasback, LLC has submitted a
Subdivision Preapplication for the subdivision of 61.27 acres into 144 detached single-household lots, 3
multi-household lots, on property located south of Stucky Road to what would become a future
extension of Graf Street. The property has received preliminary approval for annexation with a zoning
designation of R-3(Residential Medium Density District) and R-4 (Residential High Density District).
The Planning Board reviewed this proposal at a public meeting on October 2, 2007.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 1) Alignment of south 27th Avenue. The applicant proposes a curvilinear
street design for south 27th Avenue in order to protect an existing household and associated
outbuildings. Staff and the Planning Board are supportive of the alignment and as it will affect the
annexation map would like to provide the applicant with Commission direction on the issue. 2)
Alleyways. Staff has provided a comment that interior alleyways shall be provided for blocks 5, 6, and 7.
The applicant has rebuffed this comment. The Planning Board had a mixed opinion on the issue. From
a staff perspective alleyways provide a superior urban design (overall less auto oriented, reduction of
auto/pedestrian conflicts on the sidewalk, provides a service area for garbage collection outside the street
right of way, allows for a more enclosed streetscape by allowing a true 15’ front yard setback and
subordinates the garage to the alleyway) and provides opportunity to separate public and private utilities.
Cost is the primary reason given by the applicant for not wanting to include them in the design.
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 10-5-07 Minutes of the Planning Board’s 10-2-07 public meeting
Aerial photo Applicant’s submittal
165
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 Meadow Creek Phase 3 and 4 Subdivision Preapplication, #P-07038
DATE: October 10, 2007
Madison Engineering, LLC on behalf of Canvasback, LLC has submitted a Subdivision Preapplication for
the subdivision of 61.27 acres into 144 detached single-household lots, 3 multi-household lots, on property
located south of Stucky Road to what would become a future extension of Graf Street. The property has
received preliminary approval for annexation with a zoning designation of R-3(Residential Medium Density
District) and R-4 (Residential High Density District).
Subdivision infrastructure for Meadow Creek Subdivision Phase 1 and 2 are currently underway. An overall
master plan for all Meadow Creek properties has not been provided.
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 October 2, 2007. They
provided the applicant with the following comments:
1. The Board generally concurred with staff comments.
2. The Board had a mixed opinion on staff comment 9. that interior alleyways be provided for blocks
5, 6, and 7.
3. The Board would like to see a masterplan for the Meadow Creek properties to show how this
proposal will connect to previous and future phases in terms of road ways, trails, and parks.
4. The Board supports the proposed alignment of South 27th Avenue to protect an existing household
and associated outbuildings.
5. The Board suggested more trail connectivity.
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.
166
Page 2
2. The area proposed for parkland dedication does not provide adequate parkland for the anticipated
density.
3. No neighborhood center proposed as required in Section 18.42.020. Clarify. If existing an
neighborhood center is to be utilized demonstrate that all lots within Meadow Creek Phase 3 and 4
are within one half mile of an existing neighborhood center.
4. The median at Graf Street and South 29th Avenue shall be called out as a common open space lot to
be owned and maintained by the Property Owner’s Association.
5. The area proposed for park area is not within City limits. This are would have to be annexed and
zoned prior to submittal of a preliminary plat.
6. The area east of the Bennett house may need to be a lot. It will be inside City limits unless the
annexation can be modified to exclude this area.
7. Planning staff recommends providing an east/west street in lieu of the pedestrian access corridor
between blocks 8, 7, 6. 5. and 4.
8. The density of the area north of Bennett Boulevard and south of Apex Lane should be increased to
be more consistent with the R-4 zoning designation. Net density needs to be a minimum of 8
dwelling units per acre.
9. Planning staff recommends that interior alleys be provided for blocks 5, 6, and 7.
10. Planning Staff recommends that the large radius in the alleyway in block 2 be reconfigured to
provide a lot along South 27th Avenue in lieu of the alleyway directly abutting the street row.
11. A larger mix of uses (duplex, townhouse, etc.) needs to be provided within the subdivision other
than just multifamily and single household residential.
12. If condominiums are anticipated within the subdivision Planning staff recommends that the
applicant specify that condominiums are a specifically anticipated form of ownership within the
subdivision.
13. RSL lots shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.42.180 of the BMC.
14. The applicant shall comply with Title 17, Chapter 2 of the BMC.
15. The double frontage lots along South 27th Avenue shall have double-front architectural design and
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 and
development guidelines.
16. A one foot wide no access strip shall be provided for all lots along South 27th Avenue and Graf
Street.
17. The subdivider in consultation with the City of Bozeman and private utility providers
(Northwestern Energy, phone, cable, etc.) shall consider providing an alley right-of way that
would accommodate private utilities adjacent to the alley and public(municipal) utilities in the
10’ front yard utility easement. The City’s preference for non-municipal utility easements is along
the alleyways.
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.
167
Page 3
20. The annexation and zone map amendment must be completed prior to submittal of a preliminary
plat.
21. Typical sections for the streets and alleys should be provided with the preliminary plat application.
22. The traffic impact analysis should be provided with the preliminary plat submittal.
23. The preliminary plat application should include a preliminary stormwater plan.
24. The north half of Graf Street along with the required utility extensions will need to be constructed
to a collector standard along the entire frontage of the subdivision.
25. The south half of Stucky Road along with the required utility extensions will need to be constructed
to a collector standard along the entire frontage of the subdivision. This will need to include tapers
meeting AASHTO to transition back to existing on both ends.
26. The west half of 27th Avenue along with the required utility extensions will need to be constructed to
a collector standard along the entire frontage of the subdivision.
27. Road geometry should meet the criteria in the COB design standards unless a deviation can be
justified. There are a few locations that may not have the required minimum length tangent between
reverse curves.
28. The alleys intersecting with 28th north of Bennett should either be lined up or offset by a minimum
of 40’.
29. No direct access will be allowed onto Stucky, 27th, or Graf from the lots fronting on them.
30. Sewer and Water stubs need to be provided across Graf for future extension to serve the properties
to the south and west where appropriate.
31. The internal water mains for the project shall be fed from at least two separate off site trunk mains.
32. The water main in Stucky needs to be 12” in accordance with the water facility plan.
33. If an easement can be obtained for 29th north of Bennett, the entire street section exclusive of the
sidewalk on the adjoining property will need to be constructed. If the easement cannot be obtained,
curb, gutter, standard boulevard, and sidewalk on the east side, along with a minimum pavement
width of 24’ will need to be installed.
168
Page 4
34. Stormwater cannot be discharged to irrigation facilities unless a variance is granted.
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 18.38.060.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.
2. 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.
3. Per Section 18.42.040.B, block lengths are not to exceed 400 feet.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The preliminary plat will need to demonstrate how the requirements of Section 18.42.180 (Provision
of Affordable Housing) will be satisfied.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
169
Page 5
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
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.
15. 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. The RPAB would consider support of the applicant’s request for parkland credit within Phase 1 and
2 to count towards Phase 3 and 4. The RPAB will not offer formal comment until a map with
proposed areas to be credited and a calculation of specific areas is provided.
2. The RPAB favors aggregation of parkland and is generally supportive of the addition of parkland to
Lerner Park with additional trail connections.
ATTACHMENTS
Agency Comment--Email and map from GVLT
Applicant’s submittal
MAILED TO
Madison Engineering, LLC. 924 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 1, Bozeman, MT 59718
Canvasback, LLC, Inc. 924 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 1, Bozeman, MT 59718
170
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 1
*** MINUTES ***
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007
7:30 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chair JP Pomnichowski called the regular meeting of the City Planning Board to order at 7:30 p.m. and
directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present:
JP Pomnichowski, Chair
Erik Henyon
Caren Roberty
Randy Carpenter
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell
Eric Roset
Kaaren Jacobson
Bill Quinn
Members Absent:
None
Staff Present:
Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Andy Epple, Planning Director
Shoni Dykstra, Planning Secretary
Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Chris Mehl
Ron Slade
Chris Budeski
Neal Ainsworth
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 the public wishing to give any comment, Chair JP Pomnichowski
closed this portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
171
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 2
Seeing there were no corrections, changes or additions to the minutes, JP announced that the minutes of
the regular meeting of September 5, 2007, are approved as submitted.
ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Informal Application #I-07022 (Cowdrey Towers) - An Informal Application for
advice and comment, on behalf of the owner, Tracy Cowdrey, and the representatives,
Bechtle-Slade, PC, on the proposed construction of nine seven-story mixed-use
buildings and related site improvements. The property is legally described as Lots 3-6
of the Saccoccia Minor Subdivision. (Krueger)
Staff Report:
Associate Planner Brian Krueger characterized this application as a complex one that does not fit into
the code as it exists today. As a result, staff has discussed the possibilities of growth policy revisions,
involvement in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan update process, and various zoning designations.
He noted that those issues, along with four questions on which staff is seeking guidance, have been
submitted in the memo included in the Board members’ packets.
Associate Planner Krueger noted the subject property lies just east of Lowe’s. The 16-acre parcel
consists of four lots within a minor subdivision that is overlaid by the Lowe’s PUD as well as the
Saccoccia PUD. The property has a land use designation of regional commercial and is zoned “B-2”.
Because it is located in close proximity to North 19th Avenue and I-90, the area has been envisioned as
accommodating larger regional scale retail, educational facilities and medical facilities. He indicated
there is a small wetlands area in the corner of the subject property.
The Associate Planner noted this proposal is conceptual and general. The proposal is for about 1
million square feet of space, constructed in nine seven-story buildings. The original application
included a mix of uses as follows: 88 percent residential, 2 percent office, 6 percent retail and 2 percent
restaurant. The “B-2” zone, however, does not contemplate residential development; and staff has not
previously seen this type of development proposed within that zone. He noted the plan includes a
retention pond and intensely tall buildings, potentially up to 96 feet in height. He stated that this parcel
contains a significant amount of common open space for the planned unit development, and this
proposal substantially reduces that amount of open space.
The Associate Planner stated that the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board
have reviewed this conceptual plan and, as a result of comments from those boards, the applicant has
revised the plan. Those changes include a reallocation of space and the construction of a parking
garage rather than the common parking area under most of the buildings.
Associate Planner Krueger stated the Design Review Board was generally in favor of the conceptual
plan, although its discussion was limited to the architecture. He noted that the Development Review
Committee’s comments are included in the staff report, and generally revolve around setbacks and
whether this is appropriate in the “B-2” zone. He indicated that the Planning Board comments will be
combined with the comments from those bodies and included in the information forwarded to the City
Commission for consideration at its October 15 meeting.
172
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 3
The Associate Planner asked the Board to enter into a general discussion and posed the following four
questions: (1) would you support this type, mix and intensity of uses on this site in the entryway
corridor and in this area of the city; (2) would you support the potential maximum height of 96 feet for
this site; (3) does the proposal appear to be an overall benefit to the city as a whole; and (4) does the
proposed development appear to be in accordance with the principles of the growth policy, particularly
Chapter 6? Planner Krueger noted that the tallest downtown buildings are 78 to 80 feet in height; and
under the unified development ordinance, the proposed 96-foot tall buildings are possible. He then
indicated that through the new urban mixed use zoning designation, this proposed type of development
could be done.
Questions for Staff:
Responding to Chair JP Pomnichowski, the Planner stated that when the Lowe’s and Saccoccia PUDs
were considered, the entire property was included even though the Saccoccia PUD was to be phased.
He noted that some of the open common space requirements for the Lowe’s site were moved to the
adjacent lot, and much of the common open space designated on the parcel currently under
consideration was for the entire PUD. He stated the options available to the applicant at this time
include cash-in-lieu, moving the open space within the PUD, or providing the open space off-site on an
adjacent parcel. He cautioned that the subject PUD now has multiple ownerships; and there are
applications currently in the pipeline for development of other parcels.
Responding to additional questions from Chair Pomnichowski, Planner Krueger stated the setback
requirements for the Walton stream/ditch must be met and, if the applicant proposes to impact the
wetlands, a revised permit may be required. He then indicated he does not anticipate another planned
unit development would be overlaid on the two existing PUDs; rather, he suggested it would be more
appropriate to conform to the design requirements of the urban mixed use district under the existing
PUDs. He acknowledged that this could require a zone map amendment and potentially a growth
policy amendment.
Responding to Brian Caldwell, Planner Krueger stated the subject property lies within the I-90
entryway corridor, and confirmed that the applicant may request deviations but cautioned that they are
limited to 20 percent above or below the listed standard.
Ed Sypinski asked if the applicant will be able to meet parkland requirements for the residential
component of the development.
Associate Planner Krueger described that as a looming issue, along with meeting the requirements of
the workforce housing ordinance. He noted that options include cash-in-lieu, providing those amenities
off-site, or providing them on an adjacent parcel. He stated the applicant may request credit for other
on-site improvements, and stressed that those requests are subject to review by the Recreation and
Parks Advisory Board and approval by the City Commission.
Responding to Ed Sypinski, Planner Krueger stated that this is where the discussion begins on whether
the community is ready for this type of development in a regional commercial zoning district, and
acknowledged that it may be discussed further during the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan update
process. He noted one of the issues to consider is whether other larger commercial users have
173
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 4
developed in this area in anticipation of more commercial uses and not encountering conflicts with
residential development.
Ed Sypinski noted it is important to consider potential conflicts between commercial and residential
uses, particularly those pertaining to noise, traffic and lights.
Brian Caldwell noted it would be interesting to see the calculation of density proposed.
Kaaren Jacobson asked if Lowe’s has beeping trucks all night long, citing the northeast quadrant of the
community as an example of those potential conflicts.
Associate Planner Krueger noted that the applicant has responded to some of those issues by putting a
parking structure along the street frontage adjacent to Lowe’s. He then recognized that this is an issue
to be further considered in designing of the site.
Applicant Presentation:
Ron Slade, Bechtle-Slade Architects, thanked the Planning staff for being cooperative and creative
during this informal review process. He stated that significant design revisions have been made in light
of comments previously received from the Development Review Committee and the Design Review
Board and acknowledged that, because of the scale and magnitude of this project, additional redesigns
will be needed. He noted the revised plan includes a 45-percent residential component. He stated that,
because of the high groundwater table, the underground parking has been eliminated and a parking
structure added; and the result is to lower the height of the buildings. He noted that this allows a more
pedestrian feel. He then indicated that the parking structure will help provide a buffer from Lowe’s, but
he had not previously considered the potential of beeping trucks at night from the commercial
development. He stated the applicant will seek the highest level of LEED certification possible for the
buildings and drew attention to the green roofs proposed, noting that it is the applicant’s intent to
provide a green outdoor space for every unit possible.
Mr. Slade stated a significant outdoor performance venue is proposed within this mixed use live/work
lifestyle center. He envisions young professionals, empty nesters and even families living in this
development. He noted the first two stories of the buildings are to be pushed forward to the street edge
and constructed in a very historic and traditional manner. They are to be brick, with the upper levels to
be stepped back and more contemporary in design and materials. He indicated that the buildings are to
be constructed with the pedestrian in mind. He concluded by voicing a willingness to respond to
questions.
Questions for Applicant:
Responding to Kaaren Jacobson, Ron Slade stated the retail will be primarily located on the ground
floor. He noted that 20 percent of the space must be retail, which is about 107,000 square feet.
Randy Carpenter asked the applicant to respond to the four questions that Associate Planner Krueger
has prepared.
Ron Slade stated he feels high-density vertical mixed-use development is good for a number of reasons.
He noted that, while the subject area is zoned for regional commercial development, he feels there is
too much land zoned in that manner, and that this site will lend itself well to the proposed mixed use
174
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 5
development. He cited Reserve Street in Missoula as a frustrating failure as an arterial street and
voiced his interest in preserving Bozeman as a unique place cherished for its lifestyle. He
acknowledged the economic benefit that the community reaps from regional commercial development
but stated he feels a significant architecturally sound high-end lifestyle center will also enhance the area
and the overall community. He voiced his frustration with the vehicular orientation of development
along North 19th Avenue and stated he feels a node of this type of development within the regional
commercial zone will be a welcome relief. He noted the building height is currently at 86 feet, although
he acknowledged that the height might increase a little. He stated that with today’s software, it is
possible to build a replica of the existing buildings and topography and add the proposed structures to
see how they will impact the area and adjacent properties. He believes the project will benefit the
overall city for a number of reasons, noting that it precludes some sprawl by providing 1 million square
feet of development on very few acres. He noted the current zoning would allow the same level of
impact in a one-level big box retail center. He concluded by stating that the urban mixed use zoning
designation is designed to foster this type of project, and was developed independent of this project.
Further responding to questions from Randy Carpenter, Mr. Slade stated the mix of uses under the
current proposal are 45 to 50 percent residential, or approximately 230 dwelling units; 35 to 40 percent
parking; and the balance in a combination of retail, commercial and office. He anticipates the retail and
offices will be located on the lower levels with residential development above. He then turned his
attention to the square footage breakdowns, noting 119,580 square feet will be commercial, 21,524
square feet in restaurants, 56,203 square feet in offices, and 428,128 square feet in residential. He
stated that, because of the mix of uses, the applicant will seek a reduction in parking requirements,
noting the proposal includes 965 spaces. He turned his attention to the residential component, noting
that it includes 32 one-bedroom units, 158 two-bedroom units and 40 three-bedroom units. A
penthouse level is included in the plan. He indicated that workforce housing has not yet been
addressed; however, he suggested that that requirement may be met through an off-site development.
He turned to the issue of open space, noting that this development will not encroach into the wetlands
although it might encroach into the flexible open space. He asked that consideration be given to the
urban plazas and open spaces as well as the entertainment venue and the green spaces provided on the
various roof levels.
Responding to Kaaren Jacobson, Mr. Slade stated that the green space on the roof will be for use by the
residents, not just for the views. He noted that a lot of water will be collected from those green decks,
which do a lot to keep the buildings warm in winter and cool in summer. He then expressed his
pleasure in being involved in a project where LEED certifications are being sought, noting that solar
farms will be included on the roofs.
Public Testimony:
No public comment was received.
Discussion:
Chair Pomnichowski asked that the four questions identified by staff be the framework for this
discussion.
Brian Caldwell voiced his support for a site plan with deviations under the current zoning designation.
He expressed his concern about changing the zoning designation to urban mixed use, noting that
unintended consequences could result. He noted that some of the architecture along North 19th Avenue
175
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 6
looks like, and could easily be accommodate, second stories for office space. He supports the type of
opportunities afforded under this conceptual plan within the community. He appreciates the redesign,
which includes the parking garage, since it is a good way to shield residents from Lowe’s and vice
versa and to provide an acoustic barrier. He also appreciates the intent to provide a pedestrian feel and
to address the massing of buildings by stepping back the upper levels. He concluded by encouraging
the applicant to proceed with a site plan and deviations for this project.
Erik Henyon voiced his support for this project, stating he likes the mix and intensity. He indicated that
he could support either the site plan process or changing to the urban mixed use zoning designation. He
feels that the principles of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan are achieved and that the project
provides a sense of place. He finds the height acceptable in this area, since it is located adjacent to the
interstate and does not restrict the viewsheds from residential development. He likes the idea of higher-
density residential development in this area.
Caren Roberty stated she likes the decreased percentage of residential development, noting that
anything over 49 percent is too much. She feels this application includes too much development for
this site; and she is very concerned with the potential of parkland and affordable housing being
provided off-site. She has trouble visualizing the proposed building height and definitely does not
support the potential 96-foot height. She is also concerned about the visual impacts that this
development might have on the three-story senior living development to the south. Ms. Roberty
questioned whether the City is ready to support this density of development, particularly with the
demands it would place on infrastructure and fire services. She concluded by stating she likes the
concept, with its mix of residential and commercial uses, and the buildings with the top floors set back.
Randy Carpenter stated he finds a lot of positives in this application. He noted that land consumption
can be reduced by going up, and this application can result in a reduction in vehicle miles of travel. He
suggested that workforce housing be provided within this project, particularly since many of the nearby
uses create a demand for that type of housing. He also appreciates the reduction in surface parking
under the revised plan. He then turned his attention to the downsides, the first of which is impacts on
the downtown. Others include the contrast of scale with neighboring uses, potential conflicts with
neighboring uses, and the type of mix and intensity of development. He acknowledged that height can
be effectively dealt with through design. He noted that, while the applicant is saying all of the right
things about design and pedestrian scale, the City’s zone code is not form based. He stated that,
conceptually, he finds there are a lot of upsides to the project, and noted that the intensity and height
can be addressed by design.
JP Pomnichowski encouraged the applicant to find the easiest application process. She has no problem
with a residential component on this “B-2” zoned parcel; however, she is concerned about the traffic
numbers for this site. She is glad that the underground parking has been eliminated and that the
floodplain will be accommodated. She noted that when the urban mixed use zoning designation was
proposed, it was for a specific project and a specific site; and she feels that this site will also
accommodate that type of use. She noted this site has boundaries and similar uses adjacent to it, the
scale seems manageable, and the use is compatible. She feels the use is logical on this site, and the I-90
corridor overlay provides good design standards. In general, she finds the concept is great, and she
expects the workforce housing to be provided on site rather than elsewhere. She likes the human scale
at the street level and is pleased to hear the parking structure is to be located adjacent to the street,
providing a buffer between this and the adjacent commercial use. She concluded by stating she feels
the conflicts between the existing commercial uses and this development can be mitigated and
176
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 7
encouraged the applicant to proceed.
Kaaren Jacobson stated she feels this is an appropriate location for the urban mixed use zoning
designation, noting it promotes a sense of place and would provide for a little city within a city that is
appropriate for Bozeman. She likes the plaza and pedestrian access and all of the commercial and retail
space. She is also excited about the applicant’s interest in pursuing LEED certification. She noted that,
regarding the building height, she has no problem with the potential 96-foot height. She concluded by
stating that, while it would be good to provide the workforce housing on site, she could accept it being
located off site.
Bill Quinn stated he supports the proposal as described and finds it is good for the area and will help to
change the character along North 19th Avenue in a positive manner.
Caren Roberty noted the workforce housing ordinance is descriptive, but also gives the applicant the
ability to design a plan for a specific project, and encouraged the applicant to follow that option and
provide the housing on site.
Chair JP Pomnichowski concluded this agenda item by thanking the applicant for the opportunity to
review this plan and noted that it will be considered at the October 15 Commission meeting.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-07038 (Meadow Creek Subdivision Phases 3 & 4) -
A Major Subdivision Pre-Application on behalf of the owners, Canvasback, LLC, and
the representatives, Madison Engineering, LLC, to allow the subdivision of 61.27 acres
into 144 lots for single-household development and 3 lots for multi-household
development. The property is legally described as E ½, NE ¼, NW ¼, Section 23, T2S,
R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Krueger)
Staff Report:
Associate Planner Brian Krueger noted that this pre-application is for subdivision of 61.27 acres into a
total of 147 lots, 144 of which are to be detached single-household lots and 3 of which are to be multi-
household lots. The subject parcel is Phases 3 and 4 of Meadow Creek Subdivision, and is located west
of Genesis Business Park, south of Stucky Road and north of the extension of Graf Street; and the
southeast corner of this property touches the northwest corner of Phases 1 and 2. He noted that the
property has been preliminarily approved for annexation and a combination of “R-3” and “R-4” zoning
designations. He noted that, while a lot of stream corridors were located in the first two phases, those
issues do not exist on this property.
Planner Krueger stated the applicant is proposing a modified alignment for South 27th Avenue to avoid
the existing household that is not a part of this subdivision; and staff is generally supportive of that
alignment as long as it meets engineering needs. He acknowledged that this change in alignment can
act as a traffic calming device, although it does cause a few problems with some of the subdivision
design. He indicated that Phases 1 and 2 have a significant park area at the north end, and a small
expansion of that area has been included as part of the parkland proposal for this application.
177
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 8
The Associate Planner stated a laundry list of staff concerns has been included in the memo to the
Board, a few of which he highlighted. Those include the need for an additional east/west connection,
the need for larger multi-family lots to accommodate the minimum density for the “R-4” zoning
designation, an additional mix of uses in the “R-3” zone, additional diversity in housing types, and the
lack of restricted size lots and workforce housing. He noted that some alleyways are proposed; and
staff recommends that alleys be provided throughout the center area of the subdivision to better
accommodate separation of utilities. He also noted that where alleys are provided, staff recommends
access be provided from them.
The Planner stated that, even with the park area proposed within these phases, the applicant is short of
parkland for the development and will be asking the Commission for credit for the waterways and
corridors in Phases 1 and 2. Also, the applicant is not proposing a neighborhood center within these
phases but is asking that the Miller Park in the middle of Phases 1 and 2 be accepted for these phases as
well. He noted that a fairly significant commercial node is anticipated across the street.
Associate Planner Krueger noted that the bend in South 27th Avenue results in a conflict with the lot
layout, and staff has recommended the alley right-of-way adjacent to the street be eliminated. He
indicated that a median has been proposed at the south end, as an extension of the median for the ditch
further to the south, and staff has recommended that median be eliminated.
The Associate Planner stated the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board has reviewed this pre-
application but is withholding comment until more information is available. He noted the Board is
generally supportive of considering the proposal since there are significant and different parks available
in Phases 1 and 2, providing different opportunities for recreation. He stated an e-mail from the
Gallatin Valley Land Trust raises concerns about a trail connection to the sliver of park proposed at the
south end of these phases, ensuring connectivity throughout the subdivision.
Questions for Staff:
Erik Henyon requested that, when considering subsequent phases of a subdivision in the future, the
Planning Board members be given copies of previous phases; Associate Planner Krueger responded that
staff will request that information from the applicant in the future.
Responding to questions from Erik Henyon, Associate Planner Krueger stated staff is working on how
to implement the new workforce housing ordinance and coordinate it with the requirement for restricted
size lots. He noted the workforce housing ordinance is very flexible and allows the applicant to
propose a plan for meeting this ordinance.
Responding to questions from Ed Sypinski, the Associate Planner stated that Stucky Road and Graf
Street are the primary east/west roads in this area, and suggested that another east/west road just north
of the Bennett house would provide better connectivity.
Responding to Kaaren Jacobson, the Associate Planner confirmed that the small park area with these
phases will connect to the existing park in Phases 1 and 2 that is currently being developed.
Responding to Caren Roberty, Associate Planner Krueger stated the density requirement for the “R-3”
zone is met by the applicant’s proposal; it just doesn’t include the mix of housing types that is
anticipated under this zoning designation.
178
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 9
Applicant Presentation:
Mr. Neal Ainsworth, applicant, noted a tremendous amount of open space, trails and ponds have been
included in Phases 1 and 2 and noted that during consideration of those phases, he asked that he be
given credit for those amenities as future phases are developed. He stated that Phases 1 and 2 contain
202 acres while these phases contain just over 61 acres. He indicated that the park in Phases 1 and 2
has two active soccer fields and those phases will have the community center. He assured the Board
that the walking trails in Phases 1 and 2 will tie to trails in Phases 3 and 4. He also noted that
workforce housing will be provided on site, although he recognizes the challenges of constructing lower
priced housing on the south side of town.
Mr. Ainsworth stated that his consultants have addressed many of the comments received to date. He
noted, however, that alleys pose some difficulties in the layout of the center portion of these phases. He
concluded by stating it is their intent to work with Capstone in developing the multi-family lots on the
northern portion of the site, similar to their development in Cattail Creek Subdivision, and indicated the
target price point for those units will be $200,000 to $220,000.
Chris Budeski, Madison Engineering, stated they are considering making larger blocks on the north end
of the site. He noted that they are also looking at converting some of the “R-3” zoned property on the
south end into duplex to four-plex lots, leaving the core area as single-family residential. He expressed
concern with the proposed requirement for alleys, noting that on one hand affordable housing is desired
but on the other hand additional land is being required for alleys. He questioned whether alleys are
really important, citing areas of the community without alleys that work well. He understands the
desire to separate public and private utilities, but cautioned that putting in alleys will result in shallow
lots.
Mr. Budeski noted that the neighborhood center in Phase 1 contains about 8 acres. He then
acknowledged that the median on the south end of these phases is not needed because the ditch
terminates before it reaches the property line; it was included to reflect the road design in Phases 1 and
2. He assured the Board that trail connections will be provided for connectivity to the water corridors
and trails in Phases 1 and 2. He then asked that the wetlands be counted toward the parkland
requirements for these phases and indicated that additional amenities are being planned for that area.
Mr. Budeski indicated the applicant is working with the Bennetts, who own the adjacent property. He
assured the Board that the bend in South 27th Avenue to avoid their home and outbuildings will be
constructed to meet engineering standards. He noted that he is also working with the Middle Creek
Ditch Company to ensure that water is not cut off to any water user.
Questions for Applicant:
Responding to Brian Caldwell, Chris Budeski stated that since a commercial node is planned at the
intersection of Kagy Boulevard and South 19th Avenue, only residential development is planned within
this subdivision.
Responding to Caren Roberty, Mr. Budeski stated that a mix of 30 percent single-family and 70 percent
multi-family housing is anticipated in the affordable housing component of this development, as
anticipated under the ordinance. He indicated the multi-family units will be located in the “R-4” zoned
179
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 10
area, and the single-family units will possibly be constructed in a duplex townhouse format on a zero lot
line to create a larger appearance that better fits into the neighborhood.
Responding to Eric Roset, Chris Budeski estimated that a total of seven lots will be lost with an
additional east/west connection.
Responding to Kaaren Jacobson, Chris Budeski confirmed some of the lots along South 27th Avenue,
where it bends around the Bennett property, will be double front lots. He indicated that the lots will
actually front on South 28th Avenue, but the houses will be architecturally designed so they essentially
have two fronts. He then stated the alley has been eliminated and four large lots provided.
Responding to Randy Carpenter, Mr. Budeski stated these two phases fall within the radius from Miller
Park, so a neighborhood center is not required within these phases.
Responding to questions from JP Pomnichowski, Mr. Budeski stated the alley bulb on the south
remains because direct access from South 27th Avenue is not allowed. He then indicated the Middle
Creek Ditch Company maintains the ditch that runs from the south; and that ditch splits just south of
this property. He indicated that the ditch to the Bennett property will be located within the median of
South 27th Avenue; and that ditch will be eliminated when the Bennett property is developed. He noted
that steps will be taken to ensure that downstream users on both ditches are not impacted by this
development.
Further responding to JP Pomnichowski, Mr. Budeski stated that the water rights in Middle Creek and
the on-site wells will be changed at the appropriate time; however, at this time, those rights remain in
agricultural use.
Further responding to JP Pomnichowski, Mr. Budeski stated that another firm is doing the floodplain
delineation, and the preliminary plat will not include any encroachment of lots into those areas.
Public Testimony:
No public comment was received.
Discussion:
Erik Henyon noted he is willing to accept the loss of alleyways; and all of the other issues he had have
been addressed in this presentation.
Brian Caldwell suggested that, rather than a 60-foot right-of-way for the streets, consideration be given
to the possibility of a 45-foot right-of-way for local streets and a 20-foot right-of-way for the alleys,
which would reduce the additional amount of land required to provide alleys. He then proposed that the
Bennett property be viewed as a potential site for a small neighborhood commercial development or a
public building, such as a church. He concluded by encouraging the applicant give further
consideration to providing alleys in this subdivision.
Erik Henyon stated he feels it is alright for different sections of town to have different character. He
then noted he does not recall if Phases 1 and 2 of this subdivision were designed with alleys, but
180
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 11
suggested that Meadow Creek Subdivision be developed as a complete subdivision.
Eric Roset noted that, as a homebuilder, he recognizes the immense cost of providing alleys and the
attendant increased costs of those homes. He acknowledged that alleys do have a place, but he does not
find that they are needed in this subdivision.
Caren Roberty voiced concern that if the east/west alleyways are eliminated, the blocks will be more
than 400 feet in length.
Randy Carpenter stated he strongly supports alleyways for a number of reasons. He noted that alleys
allow houses to be located closer to the street, and those areas with alleyways tend to be more valuable.
He concluded by stating that he would like to see more alleys than there are at this time.
JP Pomnichowski stated that, generally, she likes this plan, but indicated it would be helpful to see the
phases under consideration in context with the other phases. She noted it is the Board’s duty to ensure
that each phase complies with the code, and this plan does not include enough parkland or a
neighborhood center. She encouraged the applicant to show how all requirements are met for each
phase. She then indicated she does not like alley bulbs and is glad to see the northern one has been
eliminated. She finds that in some instances alleys are appropriate and, in context of this project, she
feels the layout is acceptable. She finds that South 27th Avenue will be a nice parkway with its bend
and median. She acknowledged that, while the Bennett property might be a nice neighborhood center,
the applicant cannot plan property that he does not own. She is relieved that no crossings of the
wetlands are proposed. She encouraged the applicant to ensure that all of the necessary steps are taken
to address the existing wells, the ditch and bridges. She voiced her appreciation for the open space,
parkland and trails providing connectivity. She concluded by encouraging the applicant to massage the
plat to accommodate the comments that have been received.
Kaaren Jacobson stated she agrees with staff recommendations and appreciates the changes that the
applicant has made. She is a strong proponent of alleys, and agrees that good trail connectivity must be
provided.
Chair JP Pomnichowski concluded this agenda item by thanking the applicant for the opportunity to
review this pre-application and noting that it will be considered by the City Commission at its October
15 meeting.
2. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Update
Chair JP Pomnichowski announced that the update process is about to begin with focus groups, citizen
panels and public meetings. She noted that the Planning Board members have received a book bringing
forward all of the questions to be addressed during this update process, and Clarion has been retained to
assist. She noted that the citizen panels will begin on October 25, and on December 1 the first large
public meeting is to be held in the meeting room at the Library. She stated that after the first of the
year, more land use panels and a public meeting will be scheduled. She indicated that any questions
regarding this process should be forwarded to Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders or Associate
Planner Jody Sanford.
181
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes – October 2, 2007 12
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
Selection of Vice Chair. Chair Pomnichowski noted that Dave Jarrett’s resignation has left this
position vacant and asked that it be filled.
Randy Carpenter nominated Erik Henyon to serve as Vice Chair. All Board members voted to approve
the appointment of Erik Henyon as Vice Chair.
Request for additional information. Randy Carpenter noted that he has previously requested
additional contextual information be provided to the Planning Board members. He suggested that this
could be provided electronically, and stated it would be much easier to consider an application if the
surrounding land uses and developments were readily available.
Chair Pomnichowski cautioned that, while that information might be helpful in providing a context for
considering an application, each application must be considered by itself and on its own merits.
Brian Caldwell noted it is important to take a larger view of the entire area when considering a specific
application, particularly at the pre-application stage. He suggested that adding links from the Planning
page of the website to the GIS information could be helpful.
Randy Carpenter noted that the ovals circling specific area were extremely helpful, but asked that the
comments and questions be color coded to match the circles to which they apply.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board at this time, Chair JP Pomnichowski
adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
JP Pomnichowski, Chair Andrew C. Epple, Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
182
183
Brian Krueger
From: Ted Lange [Ted@gvlt.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:36 PM
To: Brian Krueger; Ron Dingman
Subject: re: Meadow Creek
Attachments: MeadowCreek_3&4.jpg
Page 1 of 1
10/10/2007
Brian & Ron,
I’m assuming we’ll be looking at Meadow Creek 3&4 fairly soon at an RPAB Friday meeting,
but thought I’d send over this map and a couple of thoughts now.
When we looked at the original Meadow Creek subdivision I don’t remember any
discussion about an eventual park addition (cross-hatched green on map) W of the pond,
so we never talked about the trail spur to the pond continuing further S.
However, when I look at this new parkland configuration, it looks like the pond definitely
needs to be accessed from the W by a trail along the N boundary of the new park, and
possibly from the S also along the new park’s E boundary.
Where it gets interesting is that this trail(s) should connect to the already planned
(Meadow Creek 1&2) trail to the pond from the N. Users will certainly create a trail in
this location (W side of the pond) if a developed trail isn’t provided. But that section of
the Meadow Creek 1&2 park is already platted and has an approved Park Master Plan…
Ted
Ted Lange, Community Trails Program
Gallatin Valley Land Trust
406-587-8404
ted@gvlt.org
www.gvlt.org
184
185