HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-15 Planning Board MinutesAGENDA
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
121 NORTH ROUSE AVENUE
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2015
7:00PM
07:04:07 PM ITEM 1.
CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Board Members Present: Erik Garberg
George Thompson
Mayor Krauss
Jerry Pape
Paul Neubauer
Brett Potter
07:04:10 PM ITEM 2.
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.)
There was no public comment.
07:04:13 PM ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
07:04:19 PM
1. 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.
Heather Davis represents Planner Tom Rogers, Engineer Bob Murray was here to answer questions.
Applicant was unable to attend.
07:06:48 PM Public comment opened
07:06:49 PM Resident of 1000 S Black Ave, expressed his concern over the size of park.
1
07:07:30 PM Doug Duchane, a Meriweather Street resident spoke again regarding single family homes, his concern
about amount of traffic, 35 children on his street alone. “Red Flags” concerning number of cars and increased traffic
to their currently quiet neighborhood street. He also addressed lot sizes: too many houses on smaller lots crammed into
the project. Planned park is 1/3 of what “should be”. His major concern is safety of children on Meriweather.
07:11:21 PM Treavor Holzer, speaking again, re: the number of households planned: Duplex lots vs 4plex
Also concerns about traffic increase, street unable to handle, also park size. Inadequate lighting, Meriweather
required lights at every home, only 2 shown on the plan.
07:13:49 PM Chris Hill, Meriweather resident, speaking again. Previously expressed concerns with excess traffic
and damaged done to his vehicle in a R-2 area, and this as a R-3,R-4 more traffic, next time might not be a vehicle, but
a child. Regarding studies done, flow of the traffic, block length, connectivity to the community.
Said to be Affordable? No pricing given, overall look and design not shown.
Cash in lieu instead of real park seems like a “cheap” way to go.
07:16:19 PM Mellissa Hill, Meriweather resident, repeat speaker.
Graf Street development comparison “family neighborhood” traffic calming measures discussed for there, but not
discussed for this project.
Suggest the accountability to meet all requirements with consistency, affordability.
07:18:59 PM Jacqueline Dunn, Meriweather resident, questions the affordable housing. Concerned using 3 times
househould income. Proposed $210,000 -240,000 doesn’t meet affordable housing matrix. The proposed density
doesn’t encourage keeping the flavor of the neighborhood as it was when she purchased .
07:21:48 PM Jill Sabel, resident, concerned that a traffic S curve will not effectively slow traffic, concerns about
children losing the neighborhood. She questions why so many houses are being planned in this amount of space.
07:24:22 PM Becky Shouey, Meriweather resident, concerned about maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood,
quality of life, she compares the new development to Michael’s Grove.
Too many students, not good for neighborhoods, density, lot sizes in the plan don’t create quality of life.
07:25:43 PM Marty Wood, Meriweather resident. She understands, developers need to profit, is it good for the
people to be “packed in”. Long time residents become affected, can it be a good thing. If kind things are done and
we do things for the betterment of others, God has a special way of rewarding us.
07:27:22 PM No further public comment
07:27:26 PM End of Public Comment
07:27:38 PM Applicant Rebuttal
Taylor, with C&H Engineering representing the applicant, shows slides to clarify the project.
The west side is Duplex/ some Tri-plex , 4- plex on East side, not stacked single family homes or townhomes.
He address the traffic concerns how they were addressed by the applicant, roads meet Bozeman design standards.
Parking, how spaces meet standards – Density Zoning for R3 and R4 complies with city zoning , less than what could
be built. RE: lot size, larger lots don’t support the maintenance based on taxes RE: the proposed park plan is not just a
green space but includes many amenities.
2
07:34:59 PM
Board member Mr. Pape, addresses the applicant regarding speed bumps/humps, the applicant agrees to put them in
if they were allowed. This was reiterated by Mr. Pape to be stated and recorded.
Member Potter inquired if they ever considered ending the street/having a cul-de-sac.
Response is the city wouldn’t allow.
07:36:35 PM Bob Murray , City Engineer, Speaks to traffic and trip generation and the city guidelines for
considering traffic calming devises. Board members ask about traffic count threshold, a request to install calming
devices aren’t practical unless the city threshold of 800 counts is met .
He states: Meriweather Street was always intended to go through for future development to help distribute traffic
from other streets that are currently carrying all traffic. A dead end is not practical, and not in keeping with the
connectivity street design. Street lights, at the cross streets only, comply with city requirements.
07:41:31 PM Mr Neubauer, asks if the neighborhood requests counts to verify “trips per day” even if paid for by
residents, Could traffic calming measures be made, even if they don’t meet the thresholds.
07:42:01 PM Mr. Murry, clarifies, not allowed
07:42:30 PM Mr. Murray explains the amount of anticipated cars do not meet threshold for traffic calming
07:44:08 PM Mr. Thompson asks if the street was to dead end, what would be the maximum length for a dead end
street.
07:44:39 PM Mr. Murry, responds, speaks to approved turnaround and the necessary length to keep traffic moving.
07:46:00 PM RE: Cul-de-sac, Ms. Davis confirms the planning department would not support one in this project
07:46:40 PM Mr. Pape: concerned again about traffic, compares to Michael’s Grove
07:48:43 PM Board member Mr. Neubauer, goes over the traffic question on the threshold before calming measures
could be introduced. If the neighborhood requested it, helping push traffic to other streets, and perhaps the other
streets are better able to handle the extra traffic. He believes the boards charge is to help direct the City Commission in
maintaining quality of life for Bozeman.
Chairman Garberg , thinks we can have both.
07:50:10 PM Member Brett Potter, cannot support the project because of the 400ft block length and 50% reduction of
the park.
07:51:12 PM Mayor Krauss: A suggested remedy for long block , a trail? But where would you put it? Referring to
the street issue he says: What does the law say? No cul-de-sac, it has to be a thru street, to maintain the grid system and
was always planned as a thru street. The street speed limits were discussed to help traffic calming and “cut thru” traffic
increase, If, there becomes a lot of cut thru traffic, than it could be counted to see if it meets the 800 car threshold.
Lighting was addressed as being at the subdivider’s discretion, Cash in lieu is the Board’s or Commission’s decision to
accept. He does not think the project is that dense, there could be many more units per acre, small lots consistent for
ownership, the project does meet affordable standards set by city. He finds the development hard to support because of
the parkland requirement, and-lot length is a concern. Other items are more like what has been encouraged. That
many people, you need more parkland. Trade-offs between city and developers are needed to achieve goals within the
codes. The design and density proposed is far better than another allowable design. He would like a traffic circle to
slow down traffic.
07:59:11 PM Board Member George Thompson, looks at plan and sees the history of this development would have
continued, but due to economic down turn , it didn’t happen. As to density, where do people park their vehicles? He
wants to see something done, traffic circle encouraged, and the park requirement.
He sees a lot of housing in a small narrow space not conducive for R4 zoning, small track of land, pushed to satisfy R4.
08:02:06 PM Chairman Garberg calls for a Motion
08:02:46 PM Motion made by Member Paul Neubauer
Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment and all of the information presented for
application I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application P14062—and move to approve the
Valley Meadows Major Subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions
Seconded by Mr. Thompson
3
08:03:37 PM Paul Neubauer speaks to affordable housing and that parks should be paired with the density.
Asks the developer to go beyond what is proposed , which may reduced # of units.
He will be voting against based on these two items.
08:04:15 PM Mayor Krauss asks to make an amendment to the motion; not accept cash in lieu for parks or
improvements in lieu for parkland.
08:04:31 PM seconded by Paul Neubauer
08:04:43 PM Mayor Krauss: Will not support without more park. The parkland is inadequate for the number of units.
08:05:00 PM Member Pape declares his history with the property, discloses his previous dealings, he was part of the
annexation of the property, agrees with mayor about the park amenities, but believes the developer is creating an
enhanced park rather than just green space. Concerning traffic, he reminds members the developer agreed to pay for
humps, even if the city doesn’t allow, but the developer will pay for them if needed. He is encouraged that a
developer is listening to the public concern and willing to do something about it. It would be a shame for the project
not to be approved on this when the developer is willing, regardless of code.
Block length concerns, he recognizes the applicant is trying to fix the issues.
08:08:56 PM Chairman Garberg asks Ms. Davis to clarify the cash in lieu that was requested .
08:09:18 PM Ms. Davis shows the spreadsheet.
08:10:00 PM Call to vote on the amendment to the motion, made by Mayor Krauss, seconded
08:10:49 PM Vote: carries 4-2 not to accept Cash in lieu
08:11:06 PM Motion now amended, parkland relaxations be neglected.
Chairman: Asks if there is any more discussion on traffic
08:12:06 PM Member Potter: based on discussion, character culture and integrity in the established neighborhood
contrasting to the proposed new development that brings traffic and density he makes the following motion:
Motion made: the City Commissioners consider an analysis and look at a traffic calming measure on Meriweather .
Seconded by
Chairman asks for clarification of motion
Mr. Potter is looking to find a reasonable strategy to acknowledge the traffic problems. Trying to blend the new
projects and the old neighborhood.
Chairman suggests the city should look at traffic, before approving the project.
08:14:01 PM Mr. Pape tries to simplify: because the applicant has already agreed to make traffic calming measures,
but the city doesn’t require them, if the traffic increases justifies measures, then they be paid for out of money the
developer has set aside .
08:14:41 PM Mayor is this a friendly amendment?
08:14:56 PM Member Neubauer asks, Why do a study, if the developer will do regardless of city paying or not.
08:15:20 PM Mayor cautions other kinds of remedies neighbors could want, can’t expect everything they want could
be provided just because the developer says he’ll pay.
08:15:43 PM Mr. Potter withdraws the motion after seconded by mayor.
08:16:14 PM Mr. Pape re-creates a motion: I move to extend , reword and add a condition to the previous motion.
08:17:11 PM Mayor Krauss asks for a clarification of motion.
08:17:24 PM Mr. Pape makes the motion: When a certain % of the project is done, to be determined by staff,
money reserved by the developer be used to commission a traffic study, if warranted, and pending the results, the
traffic calming measures also be paid for by these funds set aside by the developer.
Seconded by Mr. Potter
08:18:10 PM Ms. Davis, relates direction from city attorney, advises not putting conditions on a project for actions to
take place after a plan has been approved.
4
08:18:45 PM Board continues a lengthy discussion about the conditions put on a project prior to approval, not
conditions that would come into play after approval. Member Pape trying to accommodate the concerns for the
potential traffic problems, since the impact of them is unknown until the project is in progress or complete. Mayor
Krauss sees it as how to put the cost of any future needed traffic control measures on the developer.
08:24:12 PM Voting on the motion with the condition
Motion Passes 5-1 Chairman Garberg, the opposing vote
Despite the city attorney not liking a condition Mr. Pape repeats the motion for clarity:
In conjunction with engineering and all staff, including the city attorney, we come up with a solution subsequent,
when a percentage of the development is complete, a traffic study is done, which will be paid for with funds in reserve
from the developer, and if there is a problem, it will be paid for by the developer.
08:26:46 PM Chairman calls for a vote on the Original Motion, and the amended motions (rejection of the cash in
lieu or improvements in lieu and the condition to do a traffic study after a percentage of the development has been
completed)
08:27:10 PM Motion passes 5-1 Mr. Neubauer casts the opposing vote
The application will be forward to City Commission for approval with the 2 amendments (not accepting cash in lieu
for improvements, and for the study of traffic post development paid for by the developer and remedied as deemed
necessary by the study).
08:27:56 PM Break
08:37:09 PM Back in session
08:37:44 PM Presentation by Chris Saunders
2. The Lakes at Valley West MaSub Ph. 1&2 Prel. Plat Application P15005 (Saunders)
South of Durston Road, East and West of Laurel Parkway extension
A Preliminary Plat Application to allow the subdivision of 64.9 acres into 39 single-household lots and
23 townhouse lots, and two tracts for future subdivision.
08:45:56 PM Chris Saunders presents and states : in conclusion, staff has found the application complies with code,
but it hinges on the larger PUD if approved on May 18, at the Commission Meeting. If it is not approved, then staff
will recommend the Commission continue the item and allow staff to reanalyze depending on what items were
approved and what further conditions might need to be met.
08:46:58 PM Question by Mr. Potter regarding snow and rain draining from the woonerf
08:47:22 PM To be answered by the project engineers
08:47:30 PM End of Staff Presentation
08:47:46 PM Applicant rebuttal , Gregg Stratton, along design teem with engineers and architectures makes a
brief presentation addresses comments from Planning Board, Development Review Committee and the City
Commission, and all other boards.
To Date: the applicant has responded by mail to all inquiries.
Shared open spaces have been addressed in the project. Neighborhood center is detailed .
Size and access of Parks, Open spaces and all issues addressed on slide presentation.
08:49:00 PM Susan Riggs of Intrinsik Architecture confirms all comments from the boards have been responded to
She addresses neighborhood center, roads, parking, parks, open spaces and commercial developments. Revisions that
were made based on the comments received.
5
09:00:05 PM Questions to the applicant.
Mr. Pape: what about lot 10, Phase 2, the square footage 2173 sq feet?
Mr. Stratton responds is the center of a triplex townhome lot.
09:00:49 PM No further questions
09:00:59 PM Public Comment
09:01:12 PM No Public Comment
09:01:16 PM Motion by Mr. Potter and vote
Having reviewed and considered all of the application materials, public comment and all of the information presented
I hereby adopt the finding of the staff report P15005 and move to recommend to approve the subdivision with all
conditions and subject to all applicable codes.
Seconded by Mr. Thompson
Mr. Potter endorses the project and will fully support, he sees it well thought out and addresses a lot items
discussed by the board.
09:02:32 PM Mayor Krauss concerned about a short woonerf, but will support, and calls it visionary.
09:03:02 PM Mr. Pape, sees it as innovative, not sure about the density but with other successes the developer has
had he will support. His concerns are a community that cannot walk to commercial area, also the concurrent
development with Cottonwood and Durston Intersection, sees real trouble, with other projects in the area of traffic
concerns.
09:05:40 PM Mr. Thompson: trade-offs, commercial eliminated, but are needed with the density. He also agrees
with Mr. Pape regarding the traffic concerns.
09:07:07 PM Mr. Pape also adds commercial/business nodes weren’t developed in Valley West either, and is one of
it’s biggest short comings to date. The gas station/mart at corner of “does not cut it”.
09:07:54 PM Mr. Neubauer, believes in free market, realizes the developer’s success. His concern with the project is
with the concurrent construction of Durston and Cottonwood. He is challenged with the safety issue, not solely the
problem of this project, but of all the others in the area this is just a contributor.
09:10:36 PM Mr. Pape, doesn’t want a burden put on this developer, but down the road the intersection will be a
problem, since they are contributors to the problem with an innovative project, along with the other developers in the
area, they should come up with suggestion to resolve the problem.
09:11:41 PM Mr. Neubauer: another comment regarding traffic. With respect to applicants, he struggles with these
projects, people are buying houses and then later get hit with an SID to fix the intersections.
Chairman suggests if members can’t approve the project because of traffic, then don’t, but these problems cannot
be solved at the application process. The problem is bigger than can be solved here.
09:13:07 PM Bob Murray addresses the Durston and Cottonwood intersection. There is a condition as was with
Traditions, under concurrent construction that until the intersection is mitigated they cannot obtain building permits.
Even if approved, mitigation would have to take place before a certificate of occupancy. Conditions right now would
prohibit the development from going forward until it is mitigated.
09:14:45 PM Mayor Krauss, regarding SID’s, over 700 have been used since the 30’s. History of how the city does
things is through the SID’s. Un-improved property does not carry enough value to make the improvements,
therefore SID’s after development are the financial solution.
09:17:59 PM Mr. Neubauer is accepting of the history and learning the process, but people buying houses shouldn’t
be faced with a large bill after moving in.
09:18:40 PM Chairman Garberg adds that the SID should be on the plat and the title agency should see it.
09:18:42 PM Mr. Pape: that may be true, but there isn’t always a clear amount.
He recognizes the Mayor’s response, it may work, but it isn’t without problems.
09:19:39 PM Mr. Neubauer, this project will contribute ½ million dollars in impact fees: that money should go to fix
the intersection.
6
09:19:57 PM Call for the Vote
Motion Carries 5-1 Mr. Neubauer casting the opposing vote.
09:22:27 PM
3. The Villas GPA Application P14051 (Saunders)
East of Manley Road and north of the East Gallatin Recreation Area
A Growth Policy Amendment Application to change the future land use designation from Parks,
Recreation & Open Space to Residential on 6.49 acres.
Chris Saunders addresses the Board:
Currently the property is in the county, zoned M-1, Light Industrial .
As described in Section 4 of the Staff Report, there are several concerns.
4 criteria required that the city has adopted for reviewing.
1. The amendment must cure a deficiency, staff did not find the argument of the applicant persuasive,
however, there is a question about old Planning Board documents in the Growth Policy in 2009 .
There are no records to indicate it was a deliberate act to designate this area as Parks and Open
Space. The key piece here is if the Board finds there was an error or the correction of an error would
cure a deficiency of the Growth Policy, then the board could find in favor for the number one
criteria. If there was a public benefit, the staff identified four different interests, some for or against
2. Protecting legal and physical access to the park, protecting any future development from the former
land fill site.
3. Protecting and maintaining the potential to expand parks and
4. Protect the character.
Overall, Staff concluded that all of these items could be met with or without the change.
After looking at the 4 criteria, Staff concluded the application does satisfy the requirement, if you accept
the premise the original designation was an error. Staff found it persuasive that the
Commission has previously agreed to changed the property to the southwest already from parks to
residential. It seems odd to have the small odd shape of a parcel. Since it is possible to address the
areas of public concern, with or without the change, than it is reasonable to consider the change.
Two public comments have been received and copies have been given to board members.
Because this is a legislative action, no conditions have been placed. Concerns that were expressed at
the DRC would be addressed with any future proposal. At this point the only contingency would be
the necessary legal steps to process the application if the Commission finds favorably.
This was discussed with the Parks and Recreation Board, they did not oppose the application as long
as there was protection to the public access to the park.
09:31:52 PM Mr. Saunders shares a map from 1974 showing the legal boundaries of the 3 tracts also
showing the history behind the property.
7
09:32:27 PM Applicant Mike Balch, C&H Engineering, his client feels residential use fits the area
better than county M-1. Realizes the application it is just changing the growth policy, very
preliminary. In his opinion it meets all the criteria, creating an area of parks, some industrial and a
future neighborhood.
09:34:06 PM Mr. Neubauer asks C&H if they explored the area for site contamination? Mr. Balch
confirms, yes the client hired a specialist, he doesn’t have a copy, but city engineering has reviewed it
extensively.
09:34:53 PM Public comment
Mr. Blackburn , residents on Turtle Way, concerned about the traffic, 100’s of cars going in and out of
the area every day. A residential designation would create problems for public access to the park. His
biggest concern is the liability of future issues putting houses next to a former landfill. The entrance to
the park is the easement road, a change would ruin the experience of entering the park.
09:37:58 PM
Ed Adamson, resident of Turtle Way, builder and developer of Sunfish Park. He built to R-1 standards.
He was careful not to affect the park, he even gave the park a sewer connection. His concern is the park
itself. How would emergency vehicles gain access. If this was changed, access to the park would be
changed forever. Another component is the wildlife. Residential development would compromise them
as well. If any change would be made, a developer should be held to R-1 density as he was.
09:42:22 PM Kelsey Sailor, resident of Turtle Way. She lives next to the park, observing wildlife and
the community experience of the park. She believes there are better spaces to develop than this space
that so many people in the city enjoy. She values the exposure to the environment that many people live
in Bozeman for, the park is a good example of that.
09:44:49 PM End of Public Comment
09:45:04 PM Applicant does not rebut
09:45:20 PM Call for Motion
Mr. Thompson makes the motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials
submitted, public comment, and all information presented, I Hereby adopt the findings of the Staff
Report for Resolution 4594, A Resolution of intent to amend the growth policy per application P-14051
and move to approve the growth policy amendment with contingencies and subject to all applicable code
provisions.
Seconded by Mr. Pape
09:46:32 PM Mr. Thompson comments: He sees two important issues. Parks is the first, he’s observed
this as a park that gets a lot of use, and there isn’t enough parking. Second, the fact the land is next to a
former dump. New tests and reports will at some point cause significant risk to the city. Because of this
he cannot support.
09:49:50 PM Mr. Pape comments he has looked at this very carefully. The real issue is was there an
error? We cannot let an error stand, approving this would be an inappropriate way to go about zoning ,
planning and annexation.
09:51:29 PM Mayor Krauss disagrees. He believes he voted against Turtle Way, and will vote against
this as it is not suitable for residential property. The property is at the edge of town, close to industrial,
once it was a gravel pit, he previously tried to get FWP to give the city the property to take care of. This
is not denying the developer to develop the property, but it could be developed by the county. He didn’t
support residential in the area before, and will not support it now.
8
09:55:35 PM Mr. Pape speaks on behalf of the County as its representative. It should be identified if
there was indeed an error. He wouldn’t support the application, but because it is near city services, if any
development does take place, it will happen as part of the city, not the county.
09:57:21 PM Mr. Neubauer comments, he likes what is already there, but will not support the
annexation. We cannot take on any additional liability of residential development next to landfill sites at
this point in time. He cannot support.
09:58:07 PM Mr. Thompson: living near a park is desirable, but it’s proximity to the landfill is
questionable.
Chairman Garberg Calls for the Question
09:58:46 PM Motion fails 1-5. Mr. Pape casting the lone affirmative vote
09:59:23 PM This will move to the Commission on the May 11, with a negative recommendation from
the Planning Board.
09:59:53 PM
ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS
Application fees and submittal materials (Saunders)
Status update of changing application fee schedules and changes and how application submittal
materials are received and distributed.
10:00:05 PM Chris Saunders, FYI of new fees and application forms to take effect on April 27, 2015.
The planning department is moving towards electronic submittals.
10:02:38 PM Mr. Pape, supports the electronic submittals, reducing the bulk of binders, however he
desires maps continue to be available in print.
10:03:15 PM Mr. Saunders confirms that is the desire to reduce the paper bulk of expense and storage.
However a physical copy will still have to be maintained to meet documentation retention requirements
of the state.
Other New Business
10:04:14 PM Mr. Potter will represent the board at the Transportation Board meeting
Asks for any requests.
10:04:41 PM Mr. Pape, inbound/outbound traffic study pattern, refers to 16,000 people who commute
to Bozeman everyday, he would like to see a way to manage this volume before it continues to increase.
10:05:30 PM Chairman Garberg suggests more biking.
10:06:05 PM Chris Saunders refers to Durston, as an FYI, the bike lane and the signal at Cottonwood
are nearing completion.
10:08:10 PM Members discuss round abouts vs. signals.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
10:08:28 PM Mr. Potter moves to adjourn.
Meeting Adjourned
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).
9
1