HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-10 City Commission Policy meeting materialsCommission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: May 20th Policy Meeting Development Approval Expirations
MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 20, 2010 (12-1:30 p.m.)
POLICY ISSUE: DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL EXPIRATIONS
Overview: Due to the economic slowdown, there are a number of previously approved
developments, not yet started or completed, that have or are expiring under the teens of the
Bozeman Municipal Code or past City practices. The difficulty is that several of these projects
have completed some level of development or improvements (both public and private) to the site.
For the City to "expire" these previous approvals would mean that the developer would have to
completely "re-apply" and incur the time and expense of re-obtaining City approval to continue
with the project.
Staff would like to obtain the City Commission's input and guidance on the formation of policy
in these regards. This discussion is also tied to the City Commission's 2010 Adopted Work Plan
Initiatives: #2) Reform the development review process without decreasing quality and #3).3
Economic Development Increase salability of lots, final plat extensions, infrastructure
guarantees.
Staff will provide an overview of this issue in a Power Point presentation at the Policy
Meeting. However, we also wanted to provide the Commission with the following overview
information in preparation for the meeting.
Development Approval Expirations: There are several different types of development
approvals granted by the City largely based on the size and scope of the project. These range
from simple building permit/sketch plan administrative approvals to major subdivisions or
planned unit developments. As the expiration timeframes for subdivisions are governed by State
statute, for the purpose of this policy discussion, staff would like to focus on site plan approvals
as this is the most frequently granted approval.
Site Plan Expirations: As noted in the attached "Site Plan Timeframes", there is a rather lengthy
duration to the approvals built into our current Code. The type of project that is currently at issue
is site plans that included multiple buildings that were being phased or constructed as sales
permitted. A site plan can be approved for any type of use.
Note: In order to address this issue for future applications, the Department of Planning and
Community Development instituted Adm. Policy No. 2009-01 last year (copy attached). This
policy warrants that multi-phase projects, or projects that cannot logically be completed within 1
year (with a possible one year extension) of approval of the Final Site Plan, must be reviewed
and approved as "Master Site Plans" under the allowances of the BMC. A Master Site Plan
approval provides a 5 year entitlement.
In addition, for existing approvals that are still eligible for extension under our current
regulations, the Department of Planning and Community Development has instituted Adm.
Policy No. 2009-02 (copy also attached). This policy requires that, due to the significant staff
time and resources devoted to reviewing these extension requests, the project is reviewed as a
Final Site Plan modification and (very importantly) is reviewed by the Development Review
Committee (DRC) and other applicable external agencies to determine whether circumstances
have (or have not) significantly changed since the initial approval (e.g. changes in infrastructure,
capacity issues, Code changes, etc.). These policies will be proposed for formal incorporation
into the municipal code with the next amendments to Chapter 18.34, BMC.
It is important for the City to act consistently in these decisions. The Commission saw several
partially completed commercial projects during the tour conducted on May 10
Issues for the Developer: If these projects are expired, the developer incurs costs to reapply,
time, and potential changes that may be imposed through a new development application.
Reapplication does give the developer the opportunity to respond to changed market conditions
and customer preferences.
Issues for the City: Without expiring projects, the City loses its' ability to address changing
circumstances such as infrastructure issues, capacity constraints, new building or site design
considerations, imposition of new codes (e.g. workforce housing), tracking of projects and
development, collection of review fees, etc.. Partially completed projects may become or have
safety, stormwater, or other hazards if materials and grading are not taken to a finished stage.
Adoption of new standards indicates the Commission has found that the old standard was
inadequate in some manner.
Examples: Following are a few examples of developments that have slowed or stalled since their
initial site plan approvals (but yet some development has occurred on the site or some level of
public and private infrastructure has been put in place by the developer).
Example #1 Village Downtown Lofts: (Intersection of Village Downtown Blvd. and
Village Crossing Way)
As the Commission likely recalls, in March the Commission granted a 5 year extension to the
Final PUD Site Plan for this project (Note: 5 years is a code provided standard for PUD
approvals). In this particular development, 2 of the 4 originally designed and approved buildings
have been constructed. However, in this case, the public infrastructure (e.g. streets, sidewalk,
street lights, water, sewer, etc.) to serve this particular development had already been completed
and the developer expended significant resources to complete this work. In addition, and very
importantly, the developer was not proposing any changes to the approved plans and the only
significant ordinance change that has been made since the approval of this site plan that
would/could materially affect this project is the adoption of the Workforce Housing Ordinance.
In this instance, only the buildings and the typical site work to serve the individual buildings
needed to be completed.
Example #2 Commercial Project Gallatin Center: (South of Target/Costco)
Lot 11 (Bed, Bath and Beyond, Coldwater Creek, Best Buy) and Lot 12 (Staples, Petsmart) are
two multi-tenant regional commercial retail lots programmed with a two-phased build out
completion schedule. Both Site Plan Review applications completed their initial phase and were
required to complete the perimeter streets, sidewalks, boulevards, main extensions, and
streetscape with the initial phase of each lot. However, the one-year extension for Final Site Plan
(FSP) approval for both sites expired before the developer was ready to proceed with the second
phases: therefore, the applicant was required to submit a new Site Plan Review with Certificate
of Appropriateness application.
Lot 11 proposed, (with the second phase tenants: Best Buy and Ultra), to complete the project
and this involved no alterations to the approved plan for parking lot scheme, building footprint or
landscape; and, all infrastructure related improvements and perimeter streets were installed with
the initial phase. Therefore, this would be a good candidate for granting an extension of Final
Site Plan approval finding no significant alterations to the site.
Lot 12 proposed, (with the second phase: Kohl's, a second larger tenant, and 3-4 smaller
tenants), a modified off-street parking scheme, building orientation, building footprint, building
design, and landscape plan. As a result, this would be a good example of requiring the applicant
to submit a new Site Plan Review application to allow the DRC, DRB and other applicable
review agencies to review the proposed alterations or re-design of the site.
Example #3 Residential Project Schwartz Condos: (Intersection of Catalyst and N.27
Here is a residential condominium project that was granted final site plan approval in 2007 under
our administrative Site Plan approval process. The project was to include 41 dwelling units, in
eight buildings to be constructed in four phases. A building permit was issued for the first phase
and one building was constructed that includes nine dwelling units. A foundation only permit
was issued for the first building in phase 2. The first phase 2 building was never completed. The
project has constructed the frontage curb gutter and sidewalk, but does not include any frontage
landscaping or street trees. 90% of the interior curb, gutter, drive access, parking, landscaping,
and residential open space remains incomplete.
SUMMARY:
As noted in the above examples, the level of infrastructure completion is a key consideration
with these types of projects. Again, it would be advantageous for staff to obtain the
Commission's thoughts on these issues. While the Commission cannot make any official
determinations at a policy meeting, the guidance and feedback you can provide us will help us to
formulate policy for future application and possible code amendments.
To further guide this discussion: Commission feedback is sought on the following questions:
1) Do the City's existing site plan approval timeframes and expirations seem reasonable (as
noted in the attached Site Plan Approval Timeline)?
2) Would an expanded opportunity for extensions to preliminary site plans be desirable?
3) Should these site plans, which often are not associated with a subdivision, be required to
complete the same level of public improvements that are typically associated with a
subdivision (e.g. perimeter streets, sidewalks, open space/parkland improvements, street
lights/trees, etc.) prior to being considered for extension (i.e. without resubmittal)?
Should this type of infrastructure be completed as part of any initial phase?
4) Should projects located within the Entryway Corridors be considered differently or more
stringently to avoid lingering aesthetic issues (e.g. uncompleted site work, piecemeal
improvements, etc.)?
5) Should the size of the project have a bearing? For example in the Gallatin Center
example, Lot 11 is 11+ acres and Lot 12 is 13+ acres. Should larger or smaller projects be
given more flexibility? Is the number of proposed phases relevant?
6) If developments are allowed increased approval timeframes, what types of public or
private modifications to the project may be permissible before they have to reapply?
Attachments: Site Plan Timeframes per Section 18.34.130
Adm. Policy No. 2009-01
Adm. Policy No. 2009-02
Report compiled on: May 17, 2010
0
X
0
8
E
cu
0
CI)
0
L._
0_
0-
LD
E
C CU
C E n3
Lu
0
C
ro
E 2
(1.1
1111 1111111 1114 1?1?1? 1?1' 11 1
11
1111111111111'1'1'1111
communily
DOL,
110000000110
‘...1 1 1 L.JI Clk.../L.L/YIP‘IN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
Administrative Policy No. 2009-01
Site Plan Phasing
phone 406-582-2260
fox 406-582.2263
planning@bozeman.nei
www.bozemamnet
Policy:
It shall be the policy of the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development to interpret
Section 18.34.130,D "Final Site Plan" of Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, of the Bozeman
Municipal Code, in the following manner:
The entitlement period for a final site plan is valid for one year following signature of the approved final
site plan with a possible one year extension, Preliminary site plan applications will only be accepted for
development that can occur under building permits issued within this final site plan approval period.
Any phased development that includes phases/buildings that would extend past the one year final site
plan approval period should proceed under the master site plan application process with a first phase site
plan for those portions that can be constructed under the one year final site plan approval. The master
site plan and first phase site plan may be reviewed concurrently. Each future project phase must submit
a standalone site plan application following initial master site plan approval. Each phase as a site plan
must not include more buildings that will be constructed within a one year timeframe. These subsequent
site plan applications may be expedited through the review process if they are consistent with the master
site plan. Independent fees will be assessed for each required application.
A preliminary site plan application may be received where it is unclear whether the buildings/units can
be constructed under building permits issued within one year of final site plan approval. In this case
staff may request proof of construction financing from the applicant's financial institution prior to
accepting the application for review. Applications, where it is clear that the buildings/units cannot be
constructed under building permits issued within one year of final site plan approval, will be deemed
unacceptable for review and directed to proceed through a master site plan with first phase site plan
process.
Other options for phased development available are 1) Preliminary Site Plan Applications with Planning
Director approval and 2) the Planned Unit Development process (up to a 5 year entitlement and
generally not available for small stand alone lots).
Rationale Intent:
This policy is in response to: 1) an increase in the number of development projects that request a multi-
year entitlement for a larger site, 2) the preference of developers to limit the size of financial guarantees
for improvements agreements, and 3) to facilitate final occupancy approval for portions of phased
developments. The Planning Department will issue final occupancy for individual phases based upon
the final site plan approval. No occupancy would ever be granted for a master site plan.
The master site plan process is available to grant project entitlements for overall development /site
approval for five years per Section 18.34.130.E BMC. The master site plan is similar to a large scale
site plan with three main differences: 1) City Commission approval is required; 2) Development
guidelines must be submitted that describes the requirements for the architectural and site (landscaping,
zoning subdivision review annexation historic preservahon neighborhood planning urban design GIS
furniture, lighting, comprehensive signage plan, etc.) appearance of the future buildings; and 3) a
detailed phasing plan shall be submitted that includes: i) clear phasing boundaries and limits of
construction for each phase, ii) clear description of when frontage improvements will occur iii) how
construction materials and traffic will be staged and separated from the finished portions of the project
for each phase, iv) how the balance of the property will be managed for weeds and access during the
build out of the project, and v) a temporary detention/retention stormwater plan, if needed.
This policy: 1) avoids confusion at the time of occupancy, 2) reduces expenses from revising work as
site design changes over time, 3) clarifies the review process, and 4) simplifies future development.
The Administrative Policy is hereby adopted and
Planning and Community Development this
Signed;
Andrew C. Epple, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
ade effective b
day of
Page 2
ndrew C. Epple, Director of
2009.
111111111111111111
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COM
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
Administrative Policy No 2009-02
Final Site Plan Extension Requests
UNITY DEVELOPMEN1
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.nei
www.bozeman.nef
Policy:
It shall be the policy of the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development to require
that requests for extensions of Final Site Plan approvals under the telins of Section 18.34.130 or Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Final Plans under the terms of Section 18.36.060 of the Bozeman Municipal
Code (BMC) be accompanied by the currently adopted application fee for the "Modification of a Final
Site Plan”.
Rationale Intent:
Under the terms of the BMC governing Final Site Plan approval durations, there are provisions for the
extension of said approvals by the Planning Director and/or City Commission. These extension requests
require the Planning Director to "determine whether the relevant terms of this title and circumstances
have (or have not) significantly changed since the initial approval", It is under this general guidance that
requests for extensions of Final PUD Plans are also evaluated by the Planning Director and/or City
Commission.
To complete this determination, significant City staff time is utilized in processing the extension request:
reviewing the previous approval; conferring with the Development Review Committee members (e.g.
Engineering Department, Sewer and Water Department, Fire Department, etc.), or other external
agencies involved in the original project review, to ascertain that the circumstances or conditions have
(or have not) significantly changed from the original approval date.
Following this processing, review and determination, final paperwork (correspondence) is completed to
document the decision for the applicant and City records.
As it is the policy of the City of Bozeman to offset the costs of processing and evaluating development
applications, this Administrative Policy addresses the required fee to complete this duty under the terms
of the BMC.
This Administrative Policy is hereby adopted and made effective by Andrew C. Epple, Director of
Planning and Community Development, this /1 Nay of7 2009.
Signed:
Andrew C. Epple, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development
planning zoning subdivision review annexalion historic preservation housing grant administration neighborhood
coordination