Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board - 04-05-2016 MinutesSPECIAL Joint Planning/Zoning Meeting Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:00 PM City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave. A. 06:02:34 PM Call meeting to order – Zoning Commission and Planning Board Dan Stevenson – Present Brianne Dugan – Present Laura Waterton – Present Paul Spitler – Present Julien Morice – Present – Zoning Commission Jordan Zignego – Present Paul Neubauer – Present Erik Garberg – Present – Zoning Commission George Thompson – Present – Planning Board Henry Happel – Present – Planning Board Chris Mehl – Present – Commission Liaison B. 06:03:10 PM Changes to the Agenda – no changes to the agenda. C. Public Comment 06:03:29 PM Blake Maxwell – 516 W. Lamme Street – with regards to the zone map change for Midtown – states that his home and many others have been there before the rise and fall of North 7th. He states that rezoning it will take away from the workforce housing in that area. 06:05:50 PM – Vikki – 601 N. Willson – She wanted to reiterate what the previous commenter stated. She knows she bought in a conservation overlay district, but was not aware of zoning at the time. When buying her home she bought it for the walk ability to downtown. The area has a mix of single family homes and duplexes and quads. She does not want to see the density increase, she wants to see the density decreased. She thinks the board needs to consider the effects of changing the density on the neighborhood. D. Action Items 1. 06:10:59 PM Text amendments to the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review procedures. A text amendment to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to revise provisions relating to the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review procedures. 06:11:38 PM Tom Rogers begins presentation on Action Item #1 – Text amendments to the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review procedures. Mr. Rogers states that this does not change the way development takes place in wetland areas – it simply changes the way that Wetlands are reviewed. Mr. Rogers explains the changes being proposed in Plan Review. 06:18:31 PM Mr. Rogers completes his presentation on Action Item #1. 06:18:48 PM – Questions for staff opened. 06:19:02 PM Paul Spitler questions if there is currently a Wetlands Review Board. Mr. Rogers states that there was, but it has been dissolved. Mr. Spitler questions if there has been any adverse effects to removing the board. Mr. Rogers explains that since it has been dissolved there have not been any projects that would have gone to the board. However, if there were, they would have gone to a consultant for review. Also, any projects that required Wetlands Review are required to include a Wetland Re 06:21:31 PM Erik Garberg questions if the text being presented tonight is the same as last time or if it includes suggestions from the last meeting. Mr. Rogers states that it is the same text, and their official recommendations from tonight will be incorporated. 06:23:03 PM Commissioner Mehl questions whether a Conceptual Review has to happen before an Informal Review. Mr. Rogers offers clarification. 06:24:09 PM Open for public comment on Action Item #1. 06:24:42 PM Motion by George Thompson – Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1945 to WRB text amendment 06:25:10 PM Second by Julien Morice 06:25:18 PM Mr. Thompson states he appreciates Paul Spitler’s comments that he is aware that it may be hard to find individuals to staff the Wetlands Review Board, so he supports leaving it to professionals to review. 06:26:20 PM Julien Morice stated that he thinks the process was redundant and that perhaps the individuals were not necessarily qualified. This new process will keep individuals more qualified and less open to opinions from the public for an issue that is more technical and not necessarily something that should be subjective. 06:26:55 PM Mr. Garberg states that he agrees with Mr. Morice. 06:27:13 PM Board votes unanimously to approve the motion. 06:27:29 PM Motion by Julien Morice – Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1944 the Plan Review text amendment. 06:27:49 PM Second by George Thompson 06:28:00 PM Mr. Garberg states that he received public comment that feedback from staff to applicants should be directly tied to code, and thinks that it should be included in the motion 06:28:21 PM Mr. Morice agrees that it is a good point. 06:29:07 PM Mr. Garberg moves to amend the motion to include that staff should include language within the site plan revision process that ties comments back to specific code elements. Second by Julien Morice 06:29:38 PM Board unanimously approves the amendment. Clarification by the board on the original motion and the amendment. Discussion between Erik Garberg and Chris Mehl regarding the amendment to the motion. 06:34:00 PM Board re-votes unanimously to approve the motion. 2. 06:34:43 PM Midtown Text Amendment, Entryway Corridor text amendment, and Midtown Zone Map Amendment. A text amendment to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to create new zoning districts to implement the Midtown/North 7th Avenue Corridors plans, amend the City zoning map, and modify the Entryway Corridors. Application 15-320. Tom Rogers begins presentation on Action Item #2 – Midtown Text Amendment, and Midtown Zone Map Amendment. Mr. Rogers discusses the proposed zoning for the North 7th/Midtown area and intersection with the Historic Overlay District. 06:42:25 PM Mr. Rogers discusses the block frontage proposal and the proposed block frontages on a map. The three block frontages are storefront, landscape and mixed. He provides examples of each. 06:47:26 PM Mr. Rogers discusses parking – location of parking and amount of parking required. He states the code decreases the required parking in residential and the parking incentives for commercial properties in the area. 06:48:52 PM Mr. Rogers discusses changes in building height – and that increases in height require step backs. 06:49:37 PM Mr. Rogers discusses changes to density with the new zoning codes being proposed. 06:50:18 PM Mr. Rogers discusses that block frontages for each block can be changed by suggestion from the community. Mr. Pape enters the meeting. 06:51:41 PM Mr. Rogers completes his presentation and opens to questions for staff. 06:52:35 PM Mr. Pape states that the DOP and NCOD will stay in effect until this plan goes into effect. He questions if this change is approved, will it retire the DOP and NCOD. Mr. Rogers explains in detail. 06:54:21 PM Mr. Spitler questions the pocket of B-3 and why it is there. Mr. Rogers explains in detail that it is a portion of the downtown area, so they are keeping the zoning consistent. 06:55:39 PM Mr. Thompson questions the landscaped frontages for residential areas. He feels the landscape frontage is to maintain the character of the residential areas. He is concerned about the roof height of 45-55’ for the landscaped areas. He questions how this works. Mr. Rogers states that it is a greater intensification. He responds in detail what the goals of infill is for the City of Bozeman. 06:58:20 PM Mr. Neubauer questions the parking regulations being proposed and whether the parking regulations will be prohibitive. Mr. Rogers responds in detail about the goals with the new parking regulations being proposed. There is a community goal to decrease the dependence on the automobile. Mr. Neubauer states that he thinks the changes are good and that community members should see that there is a lot of positive investment going into this area. 07:02:28 PM Mr. Zignego recommends that Mr. Rogers presents examples of what the goal of 8 dwelling units per acre looks like. Mr. Rogers offered more information and states that essentially it looks more like townhomes. Mr. Zignego states that he feels that perhaps density should be higher than the 8 units per acres and that the building height limits should be higher. 07:07:06 PM Mr. Spitler questions if the goal of Midtown is make it look more like downtown. Mr. Rogers explains in more detail what the goals are. 07:08:50 PM Mr. Rogers begins presentation on the Action Item #2 - Entryway Corridor. 07:11:36 PM Mr. Rogers completes presentation – No Questions for staff. 07:12:04 PM Public Comment – John How – KLJ – He states that he is working with two property owners in the area. He feels Tom Rogers has done a good job with Makers and the Economic Development team. He wanted to raise a few things that may need to be fixed. He feels that Chapter 44 suggests encouraging more walkability – and that the reductions in parking are not enough yet. He feels there should be more reduced parking. He feels that there needs to be some clarification on residential on ground floor. He thinks that there should be an option for cash-in-lieu of parkland in that area. He likes the step back for commercial store front properties. However, if your building is set back already, there should not be that step back. 07:16:57 PM Motion by Dan Stevenson having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1942 to create the R-5 (Residential High Density Mixed District) and B-2M (Community Business Mixed District) text amendment. 07:18:22 PM Second by George Thompson 07:18:31 PM Mr. Stevenson states that he feels the plan is very well thought out and that there are a number of opportunities for the community and ability to promote non-vehicular traffic. He feels it will be beneficial to the surrounding community on property value. He agrees that 55’ is a great height, and agrees that perhaps we should go a little higher. 07:19:44 PM Mr. Morice states that he agrees that any relaxation to parking would be the biggest impact on getting commercial in that area. He agrees with the comment about having the option for cash-in-lieu of parkland. He would like to see a plan for bikes and trails and pedestrian connectivity. 07:22:14 PM Mr. Garberg states that he is torn on the proposal. He’s concerned it does not go far enough and that we have been tacit on parking. He questions the TIF’s position on the proposal. David Fine states that the TIF board has not commented on this, but has had an opportunity to comment along the way in a public form. Mr. Garberg states that some issues hinge on phase 2. He will probably vote in favor, but hopes to go further. 07:24:01 PM Mr. Thompson states that with respect to R5 and roof height – with a small low rise neighborhood abutting. He states that this is a long process. The growth will happen over time and happen within context. He expresses that the issues with parking for Bozeman is that individuals have boats and trailers – that perhaps we need to look to store those items in other places. Mr. Thompson questions the park requirements – and thinks we need to look into the affordability of adding the parkland and that there’s only so much money that can go into the local park. 07:27:13 PM Mr. Pape states that we should interact with the undeveloped properties. Simply creating policy will not change those undeveloped withholdings. He also feels we need to be proactive about creating parking in advance. 07:30:34 PM Mr. Garberg adds that one does not necessarily have to come before the other. 07:31:12 PM Zoning Commission votes to approve – 4-1 In favor: Erik Garberg, George Thompson, Jordon Zignego and Dan Stevenson Against: Julien Morice 07:31:44 PM George Thompson moves: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1943 to Midtown zone map amendment. Mr. Pape leaves the meeting. 07:32:05 PM Second by Dan Stevenson 07:32:41 PM Zoning Commission approves the motion – 4-1 In favor: Erik Garberg, George Thompson, Jordon Zignego and Dan Stevenson Against: Julien Morice 07:32:58 PM Discussion among board regarding whether or not Julien Morice can abstain from voting. Decision by Julien Morice was to vote nay to the two motions. He expresses concerns with the proposal for parkland, setbacks, building height, parking, etc. He would like additional discussion on the proposal. (change in vote has been reflected in the minutes – originally he abstained from voting) 07:38:31 PM Dan Stevenson moves: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1946 modifying the N 7th Entryway Corridor classification. 07:38:54 PM Second by Julien Morice 07:39:17 PM Board unanimously approves 07:39:41 PM E. Close meeting of the Zoning Commission. Planning Board takes a recess. 07:47:09 PM Meeting of the Planning Board brought back to order and roll call. Jerry Pape reenters the meeting. 07:48:09 PM Mr. Thompson calls for any public comment – no public comment. 1. 07:48:35 PM Elect Officers for the Planning Board 07:48:50 PM Mr. Neubaurer states that he would like to be the Board Chair. 07:49:19 PM Mr. Pape states that he appreciates Mr. Thompson being the board chair and that Mr. Neubauer taking on the role. 07:49:46 PM Mr. Pape moves to elect new officers. 07:49:59 PM Mr. Zignego moves to elect Mr. Neubauer as the board chair. 07:50:07 PM Mr. Happel Seconds. 07:50:15 PM Board Unanimously approves Paul Neubauer as the Board Chair. 07:50:30 PM Mr. Neubauer questions if anyone would like to be the Vice Chair – Mr. Neubauer moves to elect George Thompson as Vice Chair 07:50:56 PM Mr. Happel seconds. 07:51:25 PM Board unanimously approves George Thompson as the board Vice Chair. 07:52:12 PM Mr. Pape states that he thinks the board should gauge what people from the community are here for, and to adjust the agenda as they see fit – not just for this meeting, but for future meetings with a lot of public attendance. Board discussion over how to itemize the agenda – agreement to keep the agenda as it is for this meeting. 2. 07:54:20 PM Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Application 15526 Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application to allow the subdivision of two lots of approximately 36.1 acres into twelve lots for multi-household development, one parkland corridor lot and associated streets and infrastructure southwest of the intersection of Davis Lane and Cattail Street, Application 15526 07:54:28 PM Brian Kreuger begins presentation of the Four Points Phase II project. Presents the layout of the project, discusses wetlands and park space and public comment received. In addition he discusses the feedback from the Development Review Committee. The staff recommends approval of the project. 08:07:04 PM Open for questions for staff. 08:07:30 PM Mr. Spitler questions how the application got to this stage. Mr. Kreuger explains in detail the history of this particular area and the proposal for this project and the steps following the approval of this application. Further discussion between Mr. Kreuger and Mr. Spitler about what they are voting on within the context of this application. 08:12:19 PM Mr. Spitler questions on where the Wetlands information came from. Mr. Kreuger responds in detail. 08:13:33 PM Mr. Spitler questions the deed restrictions placed on the Wetlands. Mr. Kreuger responds. Mr. Spitler rephrases the question with regards to the Wetlands – he questions the protection of the wetlands if there is an opportunity for home owners to change them. Conversation between Mr. Spitler and Mr. Kreuger continue conversation about restrictions on the wetlands. 08:16:45 PM Mr. Thompson questions the lighting requirements. Mr. Kreuger clarifies the lighting requirements – that currently there is no requirement for LED’s by the city, so it was recommended by the commission to include that as a condition on all applications. 08:17:54 PM Mr. Thompson questions if there are any other public accesses to the wetlands. Mr. Kreuger indicates where another shared use path in the area is and possible future access. 08:21:34 PM Mr. Happel questions the R4 zoning and developable land, he questions how many units they are looking to build. Mr. Kreuger stated he will defer the question to the applicant, but that typically density is driven by parking. 08:22:36 PM Ms. Dugan requests more information on the Kimberwickee/Davis intersection. Mr. Kreuger explains that Kimberwickee must be developed before further development can take place. 08:23:38 PM Mr. Budeski begins applicant presentation on the Four Points project. He states that they agree with the conditions of approval in general. 08:24:55 PM Mr. Budeski opens up to questions from the board. Board chair recommends that he address the density question previously presented. 08:25:08 PM Mr. Budeski states that it’s hard to determine at this time. He states it is 52 acres (phase 1 and phase 2) and when the project is complete, that there will be a combination of apartments, condos, etc. There will be a total of about 400 units between the two phases. 08:26:36 PM Mr. Thompson states that there is a lift station being proposed, he questions about the noise associated with that for adjoining properties. Mr. Budeski states that it is underground and should not 08:27:44 PM Mr. Spitler re-questions the wetlands and whether Mr. Budeski is comfortable putting more stringent guide lines on what can be done to them. 08:28:42 PM Discussion between Mr. Budeski and Mr. Spitler about what may or may not happen with regards to wetlands 08:29:18 PM Mr. Pape states that this is an innovative way to use this property with three wetlands. 08:30:07 PM Mr. Budeski questions the impact on the wetlands. He states that was mitigated with the first Phase. 08:30:38 PM Mr. Mehl questions which conditions Mr. Budeski will contest. Mr. Budeski clarifies his concerns with regards to trail construction. 08:31:18 PM Mr. Neubauer states that he likes this project and thinks it’s a good place for density and accommodates the wetlands. He states that infrastructure improvements will rely on SID’s. He thinks the way that infrastructure improvements are financed is backwards. He is not comfortable with a new homeowner being hit with an SID within the first few years. He feels that new homeowners should be immune to SID’s within the first 5 years. New development should not be hit with SID’s. He states that he will vote against this project simply because he does not agree with the roads being underdeveloped and then being developed and putting that cost on the home owner. 08:34:16 PM Mr. Budeski states to some extent he agrees. The streets are not being developed with complete roads – even though they are paying full price for the land 08:36:03 PM Mr. Budeski states there was a questions about street lights – he states that there is only one additional street light and it will match existing street lights. 08:36:45 PM Public Comment – Rob Pritzborn expresses interest with connecting the trail from this site to the trails in the Cattail subdivision as well. Mr. Thompson moves: having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15526 and move to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. 08:38:35 PM Second by Mr. Pape 08:38:41 PM Mr. Thompson states he likes the development of this awkward parcel. He agrees with Mr. Neubauer’s concerns with the SID’s and things the board should address that in the future. 08:39:53 PM Mr. Pape states that as a realtor, they often try to determine if there will be an SID, but they are hard to determine the cost of them. It’s important to disclose to the homeowner. He feels that the city should provide 08:41:36 PM Mr. Spitler agrees that the design is great and has interest in preserving the wetlands and thinks this is being done. He does think there should be tightening up of the deed restrictions. Board 08:43:08 PM Mr. Neubauer states that he does like this project and does not want to derail it for his reasons – he just has a history of voting against these large projects with possible SID’s and wants to keep bringing that to attention. 08:43:51 PM Board approves the motion – 8-1 Against – Mr. Neubaurer In favor – George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jerry Pape, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul Spitler, Laura Waterton, Chris Mehl 08:44:33 PM Board Recesses between projects. 08:51:22 PM Meeting brought back to order. 3. 08:51:35 PM Pine Meadow Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application. 16041 A Preliminary Plat Application to subdivide 4.104 acres into 18 single household residential lots, one (1) common open space lot, and one (1) park with the extension of West Villard Street and improvements to Valley Drive. Mr. Rogers begins presentation on the Pine Meadows Major Subdivision. He states he will keep his comments to the purview of the planning board. Mr. Rogers states that the property has been annexed and the new owner is looking to develop it. 08:53:28 PM Mr. Rogers discusses access of the property. Mr. Rogers states that the development is meeting minimum density. Reducing density will not meet density standards. Mr. Rogers displays the proposed layout of the lots. Mr. Rogers indicates that there is currently a home on one of the lots that can maintain its large lot. 08:57:08 PM Mr. Rogers displays the park plan. They are just shy of their park land and have proposed improvements to the park to bring it above city standards. 08:58:42 PM Mr. Rogers discusses the criteria that the project is ranked against. Mr. Rogers discusses density in surrounding areas to provide context for the proposed density of the project. 09:03:50 PM Mr. Rogers completes presentation and opens it up to questions for staff. 09:03:57 PM Mr. Spitler questions why it is zoned R1 vs. R3 or R4. Mr. Rogers states that the neighborhood requested a lower zoning classification and the city commission approved that. 09:05:08 PM Mr. Thompson questions how water and sewage will be addressed with the adjacent county property. Mr. Rogers states that there will be a new water and sewer line developed that will connect to city services. Mr. Thompson questions if the county properties would be able to connect to the city services. Mr. Rogers explains that they would have to go through the annexation process, but yes, it would be an option. 09:06:33 PM Mr. Thompson questions the basketball court and it being a public nuisance – and whether there will be time limits. Mr. Rogers responds that there will not be lights, so it would be limited to day light hours by default. 09:07:10 PM Commissioner Mehl questions whether Mr. Rogers agrees with the park proposal. Mr. Rogers states that he does agree with it. Mr. Mehl questions whether they should instead request cash-in-lieu and if this is the best thing for the residents. Mr. Rogers responds that the improvements are a significantly higher than the cost cash-in-lieu value so, it does appear to be the best value for the residents. 09:09:16 PM Presentation by the applicant – Rob Pertsborn – applicant begins the presentation. 09:10:01 PM Questions for the applicant – Mr. Neubauer indicates that the properties in downtown are this size, even though people are concerned this will look squished together. He questions an alley access to access the back of the properties. Applicant responds that that is open ended. 09:11:50 PM Mr Neubauer questions if there is a benefit to putting in water tie ins in advance for county properties that border the properties. Applicant responds they do plan to put the tie in there for future possible access. 09:12:43 PM Mr. Thompson questions how the applicant see the homes being constructed on the lot. Applicant responds that he is not sure how they will develop. 09:13:55 PM Cindy Kindschi – 505 Valley Drive – Ms. Kindschi states that the proposal is not consistent and harmonious with the existing character of their neighborhood. She thought the covenants would protect their homes in the future. She is requesting that the developer not be required to develop to the city minimum and instead go from 18 lots to 12. 09:17:29 PM Carolyn Powel – 315 Valley Drive – She states they built their home in 1984. She said she bought their homes here because of the covenants – single family homes on ½ acre lots. She feels it is the boards responsibility to maintain the covenants 09:21:54 PM Gil Stober – 305 Valley Drive – He is opposed to the development that is taking place – they were aware that development was taking place eventually, but not to this scale. If the development takes place, then the homeowner will face a lawsuit for breaking the covenants. He is OK with development taking place, he just feels it should be reduced to be harmonious that is being proposed. This would also allow for the setbacks required by the covenants to be honored. He expresses his distaste with the way that he was approached by the property owner about his needing to be annexed into the city. 09:27:03 PM Garrett Smith – 777 East Main – on behalf of William Christian Howard – States that the City is not accountable for his being satisfied, as he is not a City resident, but they would be held accountable if they continue to pursue this development against the covenants. 09:29:07 PM Greg Kindschi - 505 Valley Drive – States that his home is directly across the street from the development. He is not against the development, but is against the 18 homes being across the street from their 8 homes. The lot sizes does not allow for attractive homes being built. He disapproves of the unfinished road on the county side which will lead to flooding. The paved road needs to be completed at the time of development. He suggests 12 acres on this property, not the proposed 18. 09:31:45 PM Eric Staker – 549 Valley Drive – He agrees it’s an overdevelopment for this piece of property and he disagrees with the unfinished road. He said he has only been in the home for 7 months, but bought the home for the areas look and feel. He said that there would not be a smooth transition from one property to another to have one side clustered and the other side more spread out. 09:33:38 PM Rachel Sive – 535 Valley Drive – She requests we grant the developer a variance for larger lots and that the covenants be respected. She said that she hopes the City recognizes the absurdity of only installing gutters on one side of the road. She states in terms of annexation that it is simply not affordable. She also states she was told that the water and sewer tie ins would not be installed in advance, so there needs to be some clarification there. 09:36:04 PM 301 Valley Drive – States that this is not a meeting about annexation, but that there are concerns about annexation costs. Their septic is failing and he is aware that they will need to eventually tie in to city services. He states that the cost for tying in would be too high for it to be affordable. The City needs to find a way to make it more affordable. 09:37:41 PM Patrice Burr – 301 Valley Drive – She spoke with regards to annexation – the cost is too high for them to annex and hopes that the City finds a solution for that. 09:39:00 PM Jecyn Bremer - 777 East Main Street – States that the 18 lots are part of the neighborhood, it would not be a new neighborhood. She states that there would be an issue with the covenants. She states that the covenants run with the land and developer has proposed more lots than would be allowed. The neighbors requested to reduce the number of lots. She stated that the city can enforce covenants if they chose to. The neighbors want assurance that the development won’t impact their homes. 09:43:11 PM Applicant response – Applicant responds to the comments from the public. He states he does not plan to pursue a variance and listed reasons why. 09:44:56 PM Matt Meghee from TDH engineering discusses drainage. States that he is aware drainage could be an issue and they are working on a plan that will work for the site. 09:45:31 PM Mr. Pape questions the applicant reducing the number of lots. Applicant responds that the minimu 09:46:55 PM Mr. Spitler had a question for staff. Will finish with questions for applicant first. Mr. Happel questions if he can question the attorney for the homeowners. Commissioner Mehl states that is not permitted. 09:48:14 PM Mr. Neubauer questions why they chose to do parkland as they did. Applicant responds in detail. 09:49:32 PM Mr. Spitler asks Mr. Rogers to expand on the covenants and the road design. Mr. Rogers explains that the city does not enforce covenants on private lands. The City is required to meet the design standards outlined in their design guidelines, anything beyond that is the property owner’s responsibility. He states that the covenants were designed a long time ago under a different context. He states also that the city has certain cross sections for road, and that the engineer is working with the City to ensure that the design has no impact on the current home owners. 09:51:44 PM Mr. Happel questions if Mr. Rogers is familiar with the covenants. Mr. Rogers states that he has read the covenants. Mr. Happel states that his understanding of the covenants is that there is nothing limiting them to ½ an acre. Mr. Rogers agrees that there is nothing outright requiring those lot sizes. Mr. Happel states that the covenants simply state that it needs to be harmonious. Discussion continues between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Happel regarding what is required by the covenants. Mr. Rogers states that the discussion is starting to move away from the purview of the Planning Board. Mr. Happel questions if there was ever a discussion about adding an alley. Mr. Rogers responds that there was awhile ago, but that would have been a discussion/agreement with the lot behind where the new sites are (to the east) and that application has already been submitted and the site is being developed. 09:56:04 PM Laura Waterton questions if there are times where only half a street is developed. Mr Rogers responds that he is not aware of any examples. 09:57:25 PM Commissioner Mehl states that it is rare, but it has happened. 09:57:38 PM Ms. Waterton questions if the board will see the proposed plan for the road or if that will be left to the city to review. Mr. Rogers states that it is an engineer’s job to propose a plan, and that storm water will be managed in some fashion. 09:58:51 PM George Thompson moves – Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 16041 and move to approve the Pine Meadows Park Plan, improvements in-lieu with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. 09:59:50 PM Second by Jerry Pape 09:59:58 PM Mr. Thompson states that having been involved in the development of other properties in the area, he does not see a problem with the proposal. 10:00:46 PM Mr. Neubauer states there is still a demand for parkland, even though those homes on Michael Grove have less parkland. That should not be a reason to reduce parkland. 10:01:30 PM Mr. Pape states that he supports improvements in lieu of parkland instead of cash in lieu. 10:02:07 PM Board approves the motion – 8-1 Against – Mr. Neubaurer In favor – George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jerry Pape, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul Spitler, Laura Waterton, Chris Mehl 10:02:34 PM Mr Happel moves – Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 16041 and move to approve the Pine Meadows Major Subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. Mr. Thompson seconds. 10:03:07 PM Mr. Happel states that he appreciates the property owners coming in and expressing their views. His personal view is that they will find the development a lot less aversive than they think. He states a lot of properties down near the university have different development across the street and he doesn’t feel it adversely affects the homes on the other side of the street. He feels it is consistent with the city growth plan and with the development surrounding. He is optimistic that what develops there will be favorable. 10:05:19 PM Mr. Thompson states he understands the concerns presented. He states that the home owners’ current street is inadequate and will benefit from the street improvements that have been proposed. He states that the cost of annexation and tying in to city services is something that homeowners have always had to absorb – as discussed previously with regards to the SID’s. 10:07:21 PM Mr. Neubaurer extends the meeting to 10:30 10:07:40 PM Mr Neubauer questions what the side boundary setbacks would be if they had to build to city standards. Mr. Rogers responds it is 5’. Mr. Neubauer speaks to the public that these could be nice homes on nice lots. He also states that if they get the road built to city standards, then it could work out favorably for them. 10:10:12 PM Commissioner Mehl states that the city changed the zoning to R-1 by their request. In theory, it is being built to their requested density – while still building to city requirements. With regards to street design, it is required for the applicant to propose a plan and it needs to be approved by a city engineer. He states that if the homeowners are interested in installing gutters, that the homeowners can do that. He states that historically, roads are being developed at the expense of homeowners. He states that he will not require them to install gutters, because they are not city residents, but if they want it they can install them. Otherwise, the City will address flooding when developing. 10:14:36 PM Mr. Pape states that this neighborhood has felt the press from the City from some time now. He said that the neighbors are requesting relief from an institution does not represent them. As a board member, they are expected to act on behalf of the city – his role as county representative is to acknowledge the interface between county and City. He states he has encouraged the homeowners to form a Neighborhood Association and they could have made annexation more affordable so that they would have an equal voice with the people across the street. Mr. Pape states that could have formed a HOA and annexed together with an immediate SID to cover annexation costs. He states that the property owner has the right to develop his property. Mr. Pape said that he has driven own Valley Drive and seen the muddy mess it can be. He states that he feels a reserve should be kept on behalf of the builder that if the development affects the water quality, etc. that the City could remedy the situation. He also states that there could be an increase in property value if the site was developed on larger lots. He suggests that the City Commission should heavily consider larger lots – 12 lots vs the 18 lots proposed. Mr. Neubauer requests that Jerry Pape state his unfriendly amendment. 10:21:03 PM Mr. Pape moves that the city commission seriously consider reducing the density in this area by reducing the number of lots from 18 to 12. Ms. Waterton seconds Jerry Pape speaks to his amendment – he feels that the board needs to adhere to the code, but that the City Commission can stray from the code and he feels this may be a time when the commission should consider straying from the code. Ms. Dugan clarifies what the amendment would imply. 10:24:43 PM Mr. Spitler states that he is sensitive to the requests of the public, but that he doesn’t feel that the density proposed would not be harmonious to the neighborhood. He supports the reasons the City is encouraging higher density. He also doesn’t think the applicant wants to reduce the number of lots. 10:25:43 PM Ms. Waterton states that the infill developments are different from expansion, but that the code does not differentiate them. She is sympathetic to the requests of the public as the City has grown out to them. She states that the applicant did not request a variance, so she doesn’t support sending that to the commission. 10:27:21 PM Mr. Thompson states that he agrees with Ms. Waterton, as it’s not something the applicant has explored. He encourages the homeowners to get together and form an HOA as suggested by Mr. Pape. 10:28:51 PM Board votes against the motion – 8-1 Against – Mr. Neubaurer, George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul Spitler, Laura Waterton, Chris Mehl In favor –Jerry Pape 10:29:13 PM Mr. Pape retracts his second amendment. Board discusses further the water quality and flooding issues. Board goes back to the original motion to approve the application. 10:32:16 PM Mr. Spitler states he is concerned about the runoff, but is comforted that the street design would not allow any additional runoff. 10:32:56 PM Board approves the original motion – 8-1 In favor – Mr. Neubaurer, George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul Spitler, Laura Waterton, Chris Mehl Against –Jerry Pape E. 10:33:22 PM FYI/Discussion – Commissioner Mehl states that the City, county and Belgrade have agreed to create a joint board and that this board needs to appoint someone. F. 10:34:08 PM Adjournment For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our Interim ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301).