Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07-15 Planning Board Minutes1 MINUTES CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL 121 NORTH ROUSE AVENUE TUESDAY, APRIL 07, 2015 7:00 P.M. ITEM 1. 07:00:11 PM CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Jordan Zignego Paul Neubauer Laura Dornberger Erik Garberg Julien Morice George Thompson Jeff Krauss Bret Potter (arrived during first Staff report) ITEM 2. 07:00:30 PM PUBLIC COMMENT (Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.) No comments. ITEM 3. 07:00:50 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS ITEM 4. 07:00:58 PM PROJECT REVIEW 1. Allison Phase 3 Preliminary Plat Application P15007 (Davis) Graf Street and MacNab Street A Preliminary Plat Application to allow the proposed subdivision of 52.185 acres into 8 single-household lots, 2 open space lots, and a 48.21 acre restricted tract with related site improvements. 07:01:09 PM Heather Davis, Community Development, presented Staff report. Development Review Committee recommends approval of the application subject to conditions and code requirement corrections. 07:08:44 PM George Thompson expressed interest in parkland area, felt it was distant from subdivision and would make it hard for kids to use the park—Heather Davis advised that the applicant has parkland credit and can use existing parkland previously dedicated, noted an existing trail alignment / user trail that would facilitate walking during the summer, may need to consider a future easement for that recreational trail. George Thompson expressed that connectivity to the local parkland and school for kids would be appropriate, felt connections of this type were often delayed to “a future phase”. 07:11:38 PM Paul Neubauer noted that they generally looked for 50-100% street frontage for parkland, whereas the park discussed has virtually no street frontage, wondered how they were able to qualify for parkland credit with this limitation— Heather Davis indicated it was approved in 2000, felt the code may have been different then. Paul Neubauer noted that aerial footage seems to indicate that the parkland is essentially unimproved, expressed that using the parkland credits in this way was marginal. 07:13:06 PM Chris Pudeski, Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Boulevard, represented the applicant, Bonton Inc. Confirmed that parkland discussed was part of a former code that has since changed, felt that development was large and that focus on a small feature of it would detract from the big picture. Noted the applicant is not requesting any variances, applicant is in agreement with all conditions of approval. 07:15:10 PM Julien Morice felt that it would be difficult to envision the larger parkland system proposed for the future when only this small piece was available to review—Chris Pudeski noted that development was large and that all future parkland will be developed according to the new code. 07:16:19 PM George Thompson requested that proposed connectivity from Graf Street to park be addressed—Chris Pudeski 2 noted trail, referenced visual aid, noted future trail on the west side of stream corridor that connects all the way to the north. 07:17:12 PM Laura Dornberger sought clarification of whether yellow dotted line in Staff Report depicts proposed trail— confirmed by Heather Davis. 07:17:56 PM Julien Morice sought clarification of whether yellow dotted line on page 17 depicted a trail between the two existing cul-de-sacs and the school moving west along the creek—Chris Pudeski did not know. Erik Garberg indicated that his personal experience showed that there is a trail along the south side of the school property and a trail along the entire water corridor, did not know official designation. 07:18:43 PM Julien Morice asked whether it was possible to open space on the north end of the subdivision and a trail put on that open space that connects to the east-west trail that then moves west to the one on the creek—Chris Pudeski pointed out that the school has a fence on the south side and that they would probably like to keep the fence intact. 07:19:15 PM Laura Dornberger noted that the trail can be accessed by walking from sidewalks onto McNab to Figgins Creek where the trail can be picked up, from there one can head north to either the park or the school. 07:19:54 PM Erik Garberg wanted to know whether standards were in place in 2000 describing that the parkland must be improved—Chris Pudeski noted that the applicant had researched this, that nothing had been done and that things were very different in 2000. 07:20:33 PM Paul Neubauer expressed that it would be nice to have it accessible, concerned that development could advance while park languishes—Chris Pudeski noted that the trail goes all the way to the museum, Jeff Krauss confirmed. 07:21:21 PM Chris Pudeski noted that pedestrian, bike, and skiing access were still forms of access. 07:21:36 PM Laura Dornberger sought clarification whether the dedicated parkland would be expended with this development—Chris Pudeski referenced packet, advised there was still more parkland. 07:22:14 PM George Thompson expressed difficulty understanding that credits from 2000 were being applied in 2015 while the improvements required in 2015 were being delayed, expressed discomfort—Chris Pudeski noted these were three acres of banked parkland that were set aside in 2000 and developed per the standards then. 07:23:19 PM Laura Dornberger sought clarification whether there was anything that would require the applicant to go in and improve the parkland if they accept the credits—Chris Pudeski noted that area had been set aside as a wetlands study area, not a recreational playfield. 07:24:29 PM Mike Jarrett, 845 W Arnold at front of the park, described large wetland area, kids coming from school with study implements. Felt it was not necessarily a “swing sets” park but more of a nature preserve, that this was the intent “when we did that before” and that this had already been improved by the Trails Board. 07:26:09 PM Jeff Krauss moved that, “having reviewed the applications materials, considered public comment, and the staff analysis, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for P15007 and move to recommend the approval the preliminary plat for the Allison Phase 3 Major Subdivision requested in application P15007 authorizing to subdivide approximately 52.185 acres into eight single-household lots, two open space lots, and a 48.21 acre restricted lot with associated site improvements.” Seconded by George Thompson. 07:26:36 PM Jeff Krauss noted that at least two applications were considered that would have put the road alongside the parks and those were on Arnold, felt that extending Graf was the logical way to go as the major road, noted that this was incremental but a move in the right direction and better for homeowners, noted its proximity to elementary and middle schools, MSU. 07:27:39 PM Julien Morice wanted to know how long the plat and open-space credits extended, noted many have expired— Heather Davis explained that parkland credits survive the expiration of a preliminary plat, noted that each of the phases described in the Staff report were in fact separate applications. 07:28:41 PM Paul Neubauer noted that the neighborhood standard was only active when more than ten acres were being considered, wanted to know if development in blocks smaller than this would avoid neighborhood center facility—Heather Davis felt that they would work with the applicant to urge them to consider the entire property at this point, that they had met with the applicant and agreed to get the smaller portion but asked that they would like to see more planning for a larger area. 07:29:52 PM Erik Garberg noted that on the basis of his personal experience that there is pedestrian connectivity and felt that the developer was not attempting to circumvent the rules, did not feel that an opportunity was being missed. 07:30:07 PM Jeff Krauss noted that the residential emphasis is mixed use, the stadium, 11th with all it’s going to have commercially, that there is going to be plenty of commercial within walking distance as well as MSU. Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Motion Board Member - George Thompson: 2nd Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Approve Council Member - Erik Garberg: Approve Board Member - Paul Neubauer: Approve Board Member - Julien Morice: Approve Board Member - George Thompson: Approve Board Member - Gerald Pape Jr.: Absent 3 Board Chair - Trever McSpadden: Absent Board Member - Laura Dornberger: Approve Board Member - Brett Potter: Approve Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Approve 07:31:24 PM Erik Garberg sought clarification of when this would be on the Commission Agenda—Heather Davis indicated April 27th. 2. 07:31:40 PM Valley Meadows MaSub Prel. Plat Application P14062 (Rogers) South Durston Road, east and west of the proposed extension of Meriwether Avenue A Preliminary Plat Application for the proposed subdivision of 8.69 acres into 62 single-household townhome lots, open space, park area, and the remaining areas as street right-of-way. 07:32:01 PM Tom Rogers, Community Development, presented Staff report. Noted this will connect Meriwther Avenue to Durston and extend Villard Street. Described plan for park area, referenced visual. Noted public comment has been considerable and focused on traffic/parking, retention of existing neighborhood character. Recommended approval subject to contingencies listed in Staff report. Offered to provide additional images for the consideration of the Board. 07:43:13 PM Paul Neubauer sought clarification of where comments could be located—Tom Rogers felt it had been passed around, discovered it had not been but assured Board Members that it would be available later that evening. 07:43:52 PM Brett Potter sought clarification whether Engineering had considered full city services and snow removal had been considered by Engineering and approved—Tom Rogers confirmed. 07:44:14 PM Jeff Krauss asked if an engineer was available tonight—Tom Rogers indicated an Engineering representative would be available on April 27th for the meeting of the City Commission. 07:44:29 PM Julien Morice sought elaboration on precedent set where City Attorney accepted improvements on a park in lieu of acreage, expressed slippery slope concerns—Tom Rogers noted parkland dedication was required for any residential subdivision at .03 level, that if this is not provided the applicant may request an alternative of cash-in-lieu be considered by the City, expressed that there are minimum standards of park improvement but that something done above that standard with a cash value to the city and its residents it can reasonably be balanced against the quantity of parkland provided, subject to the discretion of the Commission. Julien Morice reiterated his concerns that the subjective nature of this valuation could lead over time to a degradation of standards, sought precedent—Tom Rogers noted that this was the first instance of a cash-in-lieu exception, noted that city can take advantage of the developer’s comparative advantage to get more work done for less. 07:48:42 PM Paul Neubauer clarified that the above-and-beyond improvements were credits towards cash-in-lieu and not directly affecting the acreage. 07:49:03 PM Brett Potter sought clarification on R3 density, whether criteria being considered didn’t fit better as R4—Tom Rogers confirmed that the R3 criteria were met, that minimum density was 5 and maximum was 32. 07:50:15 PM Jeff Krauss asked whether the Recreation and Parks Board had expressed an opinion—Tom Rogers indicated that they did and as a result the amount of parkland and improvements were increased at an earlier stage. 07:50:51 PM George Thompson sought clarification whether area immediately south of parcel would be considered R2— Tom Rogers indicated it was a combination of R1 and R2. George Thompson asked what the existing density was in those locations—Tom Rogers indicated that community attendees would contribute to describing that area, but that the area was essentially single-household residential development, lots of between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet. 07:51:43 PM Laura Dornberger requested additional information about parking standards, concerned street parking would not be available after development—Tom Rogers described calculation of parking requirements by number of bedrooms, that requirement can be met by on-site or adjacent parking, that calculation does not actually tell us how many cars people own. 07:53:37 PM Chris Fortin, representing owner, assisted by C & H Engineering. Indicated they had attempted to provide affordable housing for people in the middle of the market. Described density of area round proposed development, that park was designed to allow extension as area west is developed. 07:56:20 PM Jeff Krauss confirmed that the developer was acting as directed by Engineering, that developer would provide street construction. 07:56:48 PM Brett Potter sought clarification of criteria determining lot widths—Chris Fortin described past experience building lots like this one. Brett Potter clarified that he was trying to link lot width criteria to parking—Chris Fortin explained that parking requirements relative to number of bedrooms planned determined lot widths. Brett Potter clarified that he was seeking a functional diagram showing that parking space was adequate—Chris Fortin reiterated that parking space was provided in proportion to the number of bedrooms per code, offered to provide plans. 07:58:46 PM Laura Dornberger sought confirmation that “stacking” (one car behind another) was permitted—Erik Garber and Chris Fortin confirmed. 4 07:59:04 PM Erik Garberg indicated that plans could not be entered into the public record and that it was hard to show them to everybody, requested that developer do the best he could by description. 07:59:17 PM Julien Morice described different lots, asked whether some lots were uniquely planned—Chris Fortin indicated that the plan essentially accommodated a Planned Unit Development even though they did not go through that process, that every building is already established, described layout of specific lot, described that east side would mainly be four- and three-plex lots while the west side would be primarily duplex lots. 08:00:53 PM George Thompson assumed twenty-foot driveways—Chris Fortin indicated they would be smaller to accommodate landscaping, that driveways may be shared between interior units but they could still be 16 feet wide. George Thompson expressed concerns for lack of on-street parking—Chris Fortin noted that on-street parking would be limited to in- between units or driveways. 08:01:48 PM Erik Garber noted that the Board was considering subdivision criteria and that site design was up to the developer and the Building Department—Chris Fortin noted that he wouldn’t be before the Board this evening if they hadn’t already approved. 08:02:19 PM George Thompson felt that Michael Grove experienced a lot of traffic, didn’t notice any provisions for calming traffic—Chris Fortin indicated that this had been considered and traffic was not expected to be unduly dense [speaker briefly interrupted by noises from the gallery—Board Chair noted public would have opportunity to comment], noted that if the Planning Board and public comment were negative they could make further changes to make it look more like Michael Grove. 08:03:19 PM Jeff Krauss asked whether parking met code—Tom Rogers indicated they were not considering zoning details—Erik Garber noted it was conceivable that the plans presented would ultimately meet parking requirements. 08:03:56 PM Brett Potter asked whether developer had considered breaking the 400-foot maximum length criteria up with open space—Chris Fortin noted that this had been much considered but in the end even dedicating a small strip of land would provide a minimum benefit without connectivity. 08:05:38 PM Don Murray, 173 Meriwether Avenue, sought clarification of Board’s role—Erik Garber described that Board was considering whether plans met with subdivision criteria, noted parking would be reviewed at time of building permit, that site plan process would take place for three- or four-plexes—Tom Rogers clarified that four-plexes are permitted by zoning and do not require site plan review; that parking was determined at permit issue; that density that can not be accommodated by internal parking, stack parking, or on-street parking will not be permitted; that on-street parking requires 24 feet of uninterrupted space and this reduces the number of bedrooms that will be permitted in development. Erik Garber clarified that parking would directly be reduced by criteria and that bedrooms would be indirectly reduced—Tom Rogers agreed, noted that number of driveway cuts and with Villard the City will permit only limited parking and acknowledged that some people will continue to park in violation of City code. Don Murray sought clarification whether questions about zoning and parking should be brought somewhere else, noted that reality on the street differed substantially from City code, expressed concern that people were parking on the street once driveways fill at parties—Erik Garber noted that parking reflective of neighborhood character was relevant to the Board. Paul Neubauer noted that this Board was only an advisory body, noted that decision would be made on April 27th by Committee—Don Murray felt this might be late in the game to raise concerns. Don Murray agreed with the slippery slope comments, felt that cash-in-lieu credits were contrary to how Bozeman has developed and would not like to see the precedent set that these exceptions were acceptable. Don Murray reiterated that street parking in a high-density college town can not be avoided and impacts the community, noted that the community trusted in Board to preserve sanity, expressed concerns for children’s safety relative to traffic. 08:13:54 PM Doug Duschene, 133 Meriwether, added that 35 children were in his small neighborhood and compared distinction between Meriwether and Michael Grove to that between Nascar and a country lane. Noted Michael Grove was non-stop traffic all day long on both sides, that kids are constantly crossing this street to reach playground and felt that additional traffic will run down Meriwether to Babcock. Reiterated concern that lack of traffic-calming provisions will create an unsafe situation for kids, hoped traffic volume would be addressed before decisions are made. 08:16:20 PM Jan Emerson, 32 Meriwether, agreed with previous public comments. Felt goal of 75% owner occupation would preserve neighborhood character. Requested 15 MPH speed limit signs along parks, that any signs added to Meriwether would also be appreciated, anything to slow traffic down. Offered to share personal research, noted that in one year alone on Hunter’s Way there were 55 accidents and on Michael Grove there were 41. Felt that people were driving too fast and hitting cars parked on streets. Expressed concerns about home value, hoped that adding more college students to area would not drive home value down. 08:18:45 PM Trevor Holzer, 197 Meriwether, noted that his property is right next to retention pond, expressed that safety was the foremost concern. Noted that he has three children, there are thirty-five kids on that section of Meriwether; noted there is no park zone and no way to slow traffic, that nothing has proposed in terms of speed limits or stop signs. Felt that double-stacking in a driveway can not reasonably be accomplished. Asked that safety be the top concern, noted that children from Michael’s Grove were visiting his neighborhood to play because it wasn’t safe to play there, recommended Board Members and others concerned drive through Michael’s Grove at 5:30 in the afternoon to see that two cars can not be driven side-by-side down that street. Worried that Meriwether would become like Michael’s Grove. 08:20:37 PM Christopher Hill, 117 Meriwether, described renting in a townhome on Giuliard before buying single-family 5 home on Meriwether where they loved the quiet street with kids and families. Expressed that on Giuliard the townhomes and duplexes were not owner-occupied, felt that proposed development would be like Giuliard with frequent parties and police visits, too-fast drivers, inadequate and risky parking. Noted that his car had been hit at midnight by a presumed kid, that side of his car had been wrecked with no note or anything. Worried that with proposed development a kid might be hit instead of a car. 08:22:39 PM Jeff Dunn, 70 Meriwether, noted that he had spoken at previous meetings on this subject. Described dangerous street design features of Michael’s Grove and Hunter’s Way, reiterated that Meriwether community is family- oriented and street is not dangerous. Noted that in higher-density areas vegetation and landscaping are not maintained, that developments intended for home ownership degraded into college ghetto areas. Felt that this was the wrong part of town to encourage that type of development. 08:24:38 PM Marty Wood, 145 Meriwether, expressed adoration for neighborhood boys and girls and concern for their safety. Noted she had spent a lot of time writing a hand-delivered letter and was disappointed that it did not seem to have been read, would like for others’ and her letters to be read. Asked that if an S-curve was necessary that it be made wide enough to accommodate parking by college kids especially when complicated by snow and ice buildup. Felt that Michael’s Grove was ridiculously dangerous. Reiterated concern for child safety, asked that proposed S-curve be moderated by speed bumps or additional width. 08:26:45 PM Beckie Shuey, 85 Meriwether, had recently undergone shoulder surgery because of the S-curve on Hunter’s Way, noted winter conditions and over-parking aggravated situation where speeding college student struck her car. Expressed fear for Meriwether neighborhood and children, noted that she had purchased home there because she wanted to know the kids in the neighborhood and watch them grow up, didn’t want to see this development take that away. 08:27:41 PM Jacquine Dunn, 70 Meriwether, expressed love for her townhouse and indicated it was bought because one side was townhouses and the other single-family homes which contribute to the value of the neighborhood. Felt homes opposite hers on Giulliard did not exhibit pride in ownership, that they had been occupied by renters and college students who did not maintain landscape. Thought that traffic in proposed development could be improved, noted that area was zoned for minimum of five units to an acre but proposal was for twice that, thought a less dense proposal would alleviate traffic problems. 08:29:20 PM River Murray, 173 Meriwether, indicated she liked to see people riding bikes and having a good time outside, felt it wouldn’t make sense to look out and see cars and traffic. Noted friends like her place because they don’t have to worry about cars and traffic, felt proposed development would take that away. 08:30:06 PM Erica Grinder, 188 Meriwether, noted she was very near to the dead end. Feared S-curve and noted she would keep her kids in the backyard if that was built, requested a three-way stop at Cameahwait and Meriwether and as many speed bumps as possible. Wanted her neighborhood to remain a neighborhood, a family neighborhood. 08:30:56 PM Brian Witt, 481 N Ferguson Ave, realtor who brought project to client. Noted that when it was marketed and first annexed into the city the R3 and R4 zoning had 108 residential units, had an engineer take a look at the R3 zoning and original idea was for 144 units but didn’t feel this was a good fit for the neighborhood. Had asked the city to change S-curve before submitting preliminary plat, felt developer would be willing to mend road but that City Planners have indicated that the S-curve is necessary. Advised they were trying to develop townhouses, did not intend for purchasers to rent to college students. Noted units were preliminarily intended to come in under $250,000. Had just run an MLS report this afternoon, found only three townhouse units under $250,000 within City limits, one of which was for $249,900. Indicated they were hoping to provide an opportunity for families and to provide a safe neighborhood, offered to speak to any residents who were concerned, wanted to be a good neighbor and to create something that would be a good fit for all. 08:33:49 PM Jeff Krauss expressed concern via a point of order that the Board didn’t have the written public testimony, felt they perhaps should not make a decision without it—Erik Garber noted that the Board’s position was advisory and they were facing a time limit. Jeff Krauss indicated that they had until the end of May—Tom Rogers agreed, saying that with developments over 50 units 80 days were provided. 08:35:05 PM Brett Potter agreed with Jeff Krauss, would have liked to have read those letters, noted three major points raised by public present: S-curve, intensification of R3 and density, idea of a tendency in the neighborhood. 08:35:52 PM Erik Garber felt they have enough time and that he doesn’t want to force any Board member to vote without seeing the public testimony, that they could postpone voting until the next agenda, noted that public comment would not be taken at that time. 08:36:42 PM George Thompson felt that public comment was very important and found it problematic that he did not have it for reference, agreed with postponement—Erik Garber clarified that they would be “continuing the hearing at a date certain”. 08:37:14 PM Jeff Krauss asked if there would be any discussion of the public testimony—Erik Garber would prefer not to go through that. 08:37:40 PM Jeff Krauss sought clarification that public hearing had been closed—Erik Garber confirmed. 08:37:58 PM Brett Potter wondered whether Board could request safety clarification from Engineering Staff—Jeff Krauss indicated it would be acceptable, that public hearing would be opened again, had hoped to move to continue discussion in two weeks. Seconded by George Thompson. 08:38:47 PM Tom Rogers advised the Board that the applicant had just brought to his attention that he had not been offered 6 a chance to rebut the public comment, asked Board to consider that in moving forward—Erik Garber noted that they do not typically give people the opportunity to testify twice. Jeff Krauss noted that they do that at the City Commission meeting— Erik Garber felt that they are able to testify a second time but not at the same meeting. 08:39:29 PM Jeff Krauss expressed that the question was whether they would like to be able to question an engineer, noted he had asked earlier why an engineer was not present, that much of the testimony tonight had to do with the road—Erik Garber indicated that he only wanted to be clear on procedure, that if we want to continue the public hearing (meaning that everyone is invited back and has an opportunity to speak with the applicant able to rebut) we are in muddy waters. 08:40:14 PM Jeff Krauss withdrew any motion he has made, felt satisfied in having his questions answered. 08:40:23 PM Brett Potter would like to go longer since everyone is here. 08:40:40 PM Erik Garber expressed that the Board needed a motion to continue the public hearing to the next scheduled agenda, that at that time the applicant would have an opportunity to rebut, that he would encourage City Staff to have an engineer here to address some of the questions, and the Board would have time to review the public comment. 08:40:57 PM Jeff Krauss made that motion. Seconded by Julien Morice. Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Motion Board Member - Julien Morice: 2nd Mayor - Jeff Krauss: Approve Council Member - Erik Garberg: Approve Board Member - Paul Neubauer: Approve Board Member - Julien Morice: Approve Board Member - George Thompson: Approve Board Member - Laura Dornberger: Approve Board Member - Brett Potter: Approve Board Member - Jordan Zignego: Approve 08:41:47 PM Brett Potter asked if Members of the Board were allowed to contact Staff independent of the public hearing— Erik Garber indicated that he could do what was necessary to gather information to make an informed decision but could not visit applicant or neighborhood to be lobbied. 08:42:35 PM Jeff Krauss suggested that if Brett Potter should speak to Staff he may say, “…and I want you to discuss this in two weeks.” ITEM 5. 08:43:27 PM NEW BUSINESS ITEM 6. 08:44:23 PM ADJOURNMENT 08:44:25 PM Erik Garber and Jeff Krauss advised Board Members to be careful and not talk to people. This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).