HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpring Creek Village Resort Informal No. I-10009.pdf Report Complied On July 13, 2010
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Spring Creek Village Resort Informal #I-10009
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2010
AGENDA MEETING ITEM: Action
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission considers the comments from staff, the Design Review
Board, the Planning Board and provides the applicant with comments to assist them in preparing a formal
application.
BACKGROUND: Planning Staff is hoping to obtain informal comments from the City Commission on
the Spring Creek Village Resort proposal. The proposal includes property north of Huffine Lane and is
bounded on the west by Resort Drive (west), Fallon Street (north) and Ferguson Avenue (east). The
subject site is zoned as “UMU” (Urban Mixed Use District) and located within the Class I West Main
Street Entryway Corridor. The proposal is to construct a multi phase Planned Unit Development
subdivision on the entire 31 acres of property with multiple buildings, mixed uses, parking, and
circulation and site improvements.
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on June 2 and June 9, 2010,
the Design Review Board (DRB) on June 23, 2010, the Planning Board on July 7, 2010. Staff
memorandums (DRC and DRB) and minutes from the DRB meeting and Planning Board meeting are
provided for your reference.
The applicant is seeking informal guidance from the City Commission regarding the overall concept of
the Planned Unit Development. This development will be the first implementation of the Urban Mixed
Use Zoning District since it was added to the City’s Development Code. The underlying Growth Policy
land use designation is Community Commercial Mixed Use.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Questions for consideration by Commission include:
Does the Commission find that this project implements the Community Commercial Mixed Use land use
designation and the overall principles contained in the Bozeman Community Plan?
Does it appear to be in general conformance with the intent of the Urban Mixed Use District?
Does the proposal appear to be an overall benefit to the City as a whole?
Commission Memorandum
261
Report Complied On July 13, 2010
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time.
Attachments: Staff memo to the Development Review Committee, dated 6-9-2010
Staff memo to the Design Review Board, dated 6-17-2010
Minutes of the Design Review Board’s 6-23-2010 public meeting
Minutes of the Planning Board’s 7-7-2010 public meeting
Aerial photo
Chapter 18.19 Bozeman Municipal Code-Urban Mixed Use Zoning District Regulations
Bozeman Community Plan-Community Commercial Mixed Use Description
Applicant’s informal application
Revised Applicant Exhibit S1.0 submitted 7-7-2010
Agency Comment 5-27-2010
Public Comment 7-6-2010
262
263
264
265
266
267
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:45 p.m. in the
Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Trever McSpadden Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Ed Sypinski Chris Saunders, Interim Planning Director
Chris Budeski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Quinn
Erik Henyon, President
Jeff Krauss
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Eugene Graf, IV Chris Mehl
Brian Caldwell, Vice President Michael Delaney
Ileana Indreland
Heather Higinbotham
Thomas Bitnar
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and
not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Henyon closed the public comment portion of
the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2010
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of June 1, 2010
as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being President Henyon, Mr.
McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Sypinski, and Mr. Quinn. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. Spring Creek Village Resort INFORMAL #I-10009 (Krueger)
Northeast of the intersection of Resort Drive and Huffine Lane
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the development of
~32 acres in three phases as a Planned Unit Development to provide for
mixed use construction in conformance with the Urban Mixed Use (UMU)
District.
280
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 2
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal was for Informal
Application and the project had reviewed the proposal at the Development Review Committee
level as well as the Design Review Board. He stated the proposal was for a future formal
application for a Planned Unit Development on the west side of the City. He stated the subject
site was currently undeveloped and was of a size of ~31 acres. He noted which streets bounded
the property and added there were residential uses and business park development adjacent to the
site. He stated the proposal was the first for the new zoning designation of UMU (Urban Mixed
Use) in the City. He stated there was a somewhat new land use designation as well which had
been adopted with the Bozeman Growth Policy. He stated Staff was asking the Board to
comment on the proposal’s compliance with the long range planning requirements as adopted.
He stated the review process would include subdivision and there was intent to create pad sites
for future buildings with shared common amenities. He stated there was some potential for
vertical and horizontal mixed uses and cited examples. He stated the project was proposed to be
completed in phases over years and added there would be a need to request variances from the
underlying zoning though those had not been specifically identified. He stated one of the
questions that Staff or other review bodies were working through was if an avenue other than a
PUD could be used to develop the site. He noted adjacent uses including full residential
development to the north and business park type development to the south; he added Staff felt
the location to be appropriate for this type of proposal. He stated the rectilinear grid was
proposed as private streets with 90 degree perpendicular parking generally everywhere; the
primary through aisles would create pedestrian interest and provide parking though no thorough
study had been completed. He stated pad sites were proposed along Huffine Lane as well as
high level interior pedestrian connections. He stated the second phase included a golfing facility
as well as more residential uses on the site. He stated there was a 50 foot setback requirement
for the Entryway Corridor along Huffine Lane. He stated in general a common area in the center
of the site with high density activity around it created a higher level of connectivity, slower
traffic, and an urban landscape. He stated Staff had included questions at the end of the Staff
Report and apologized that the questions were so vague. He stated he would be happy to answer
any technical questions from the Board.
Michael Delaney addressed the Board. He stated he and his wife, Ileana Indreland, were the
owners of the property and had the pleasure since 1987. He stated they had waited to present the
idea until the UMU zoning had been adopted. He stated they liked the comments made by
previous boards/commissions and other professionals. He stated the article in the paper about
creating a “mini downtown” was way off base; a small village was what was proposed to be
created. He directed the Board to the aerial photo of his parcel and added it was very small when
compared to adjacent properties. He stated the development was designed primarily for the
adjacent residents and would be completely different from downtown; the designs had not been
based on what they thought would work and had instead been based on designs throughout the
world that had been found to work. He stated he and his wife had owned property downtown for
20-30 years; their buildings were 100% occupied and they knew what they were doing managing
property and working with the tenants to insure their success. He stated their projects were
based on facts that could be proven to have worked historically. He stated the grid system was a
pattern that worked so that anyone would know where they were within the development. He
directed the Board to the proposed phase differentiations within the proposal; once the buildings
in one block were 100% occupied they would move to the development of the next block. He
281
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 3
stated the walkability of the neighborhood would increase with each block’s development. He
presented a revised rendering to the Board depicting modifications based on comments from the
DRC and DRB. He stated the tenants would be made known as they were procured. He stated
the idea was to create a series for anchoring smaller buildings on each corner of the plaza to
enclose the plaza/recreation area. He stated there would be a multiplicity of uses during both
summer and winter months. He stated the whole key was to make people feel safer. He stated
the amenities would be open for the public to use though there would be a charge for the golf
course. He stated a 50 foot wide greenbelt/parkway would be included along Huffine Lane and a
greenbelt would also be included around the perimeter of the property. He stated each block
would have numerous pedestrian crossings and all the elevations of the sidewalks would be
higher than the parking. He stated there would be underground parking and would encourage
technological advances where possible. He stated it was intended to be a village and
additionally each was an individual lot so that each tenant could have the opportunity and joy of
owning a lot with fewer restrictions; most other developments of that nature had a single
developer owning everything and leasing to tenants. He stated he hoped people would be
compelled to turn into the site while driving along Huffine Lane; it had been designed to bring
the community to the site. He stated he would love to hear the Board’s comments.
President Henyon opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public
comment portion of the item was closed.
President Henyon directed the Board to the questions provided by Staff in categories.
Mr. Budeski asked if the southwest corner of the revised rendering would be residential. Mr.
Delaney responded it was proposed as mostly a parking lot and a hotel; it was too close to
Huffine Lane to enjoy as a residential feeling as the residential component that was previously
proposed.
Mr. Sypinski asked how the golf course development would be addressed. Planner Krueger
responded the Planned Unit Development could call out more specific uses, but would need to
ask for a relaxation of the requirements. Mr. Sypinski stated the authorized uses had already
been determined with the formation of the UMU Zoning designation and he was uncertain
whether or not is should be allowed relaxations for the first application. Mr. Delaney responded
it had not been their intention to eliminate any recreational components such as a golf course and
they had intended those amenities on the site; the purpose of the PUD was to allow the
community the ability to know what was being proposed for the site.
Mr. Quinn asked Mr. Delaney if had given any thought with regard to the on-street parking being
reduced and instead a parking garage or facility that would enhance the area be included. Mr.
Delaney responded parking was one of the greatest positives and negatives for development; the
difference was that the best parking arrangement, per their consultant Dan Burden, had been the
design as proposed as it slowed traffic an average of 15 miles per hour; it had been proven to
work for the last fifteen years. He added the consultant’s had told them that for 85-90% of the
year the surface parking in front of each store would be more than adequate; downtown could
have doubled the parking if 90 degree parking had been considered an option by MDOT. He
stated they had created the opportunity for patrons to enjoy optimum parking relationships for
282
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 4
the community. Mr. Quinn clarified that the interior parking would be plenty for the site.
Mr. McSpadden stated there had been discussion of the possibility of multiple deviations and he
was surprised a PUD allowed those deviations; would it then really comply with the UMU
zoning. He stated in terms of general conformance, the request for so many deviations would
bring the property out of compliance; he understood a PUD was supposed to have some
flexibility.
Mr. Budeski stated he liked the concept; especially vertical mixed use. He stated what the Board
would see coming back would be different. He stated the revised plaza area would be much
more inviting to pedestrians and he liked the old park style; natural surveillance to allow people
to see through the site. He stated he was concerned with the location of the bicycle lanes behind
the parking as it may cause issues; he suggested angled parking worked very well. He stated he
was originally concerned with the design of the site along Huffine with regard to access and the
revised rendering was an improvement that alleviated some of his concerns. He stated the right
in – right out for the lodge proposed at the end of the road might be problematic. He stated there
were some areas where the orientation of the buildings was not in conformance with the
guidelines, but that tailoring was what a PUD was intended for. He stated he thought the
proposal would make a nice anchor for the west end of Bozeman.
Mr. Quinn stated the proposal seemed to be in general conformance with the UMU zoning
designation and it fit his idea of Urban Mixed Use. He stated the land use on Cottonwood Road
had been set aside for community development in that location and would tie into development
further to the north. He stated he believed the proposal certainly could be an advantage to the
community; he suggested a mass transit stop be instituted on the site to help provide walkability.
Mr. Krauss stated he had voted against the UMU zoning and the overall concept. He stated the
golfing activities made it a little more like an urban neighborhood resort. When he thought of
downtown he thought of neighbors hanging out of windows and people walking down the street;
a bit noisy but a good downtown. He suggested vertical integration contain mixed use; two or
three story buildings with considerable opportunity for residential components. He stated he
thought the revision proposed too much parking along Huffine Lane and he preferred the pad
sites as originally proposed. He stated he preferred multiple pads have interior parking that
would be a little more hidden; it seemed contrary to what Bozeman was attempting to do. He
directed the applicant to be dark skies compliant even on the golf course. He stated he liked the
idea of elevated sidewalks and staggered buildings. He suggested when the lodge was built there
could be an understanding that the parking would be more structured parking in the future. He
stated he did like going to Aleworks, but he also liked parking the Parking Garage downtown
and walking to a restaurant. He agreed with Mr. Quinn that funding for a bus to get to the site
should be included. He stated PUD’s were a deal between the governing body and the developer
to allow flexibility in requirements for something in exchange; superior design. He stated the
applicant’s optimism in bringing the application forward made him feel better about the City as a
whole.
President Henyon stated he was a huge fan and proponent of the UMU zoning district; he saw it
as an innovation for the City of Bozeman and it would be good for business. He stated the
283
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of July 7, 2010. 5
multiple stories and true residential components are very important to him. He stated he liked
the originally proposed park as it was larger with more open space. He stated recreational
opportunities on the west side of town would be a good draw as they were sparse in that location.
He stated he liked the revised rendering with staggered building faces, but he would not want to
see them staggered too much. He stated he agreed with the suggestion of including angled
parking. He stated he liked the lodge proposed closer to the Ridge and suggested the parking
along Huffine Lane could be mitigated by large evergreen trees and give a feel for looking into
the community. He stated the approval of deviations and relaxations would depend on what was
being proposed; each would be reviewed on an individual basis though some could be easily
accepted by the Board.
Mr. Krauss stated the challenge of downtown was the expense; not everyone could live
downtown. He suggested the alternative was the creation of something similar; previously
referred to by the Mayor of Bozeman as the Hamletization of Bozeman. He stated the closer the
applicant adhered to downtown Bozeman, the easier the development of the site would be.
Mr. McSpadden suggested each phase reflect the small, individual blocks and maintain the
unique development pattern. He stated the design guidelines would dictate how the site would
develop over time.
ITEM 5. DISCUSSION ITEM
1. Yellowstone Business Partnership Grant (Heather Higinbotham)
* Presentation of possible grant opportunities in support of regional
planning. Consideration of a motion to participate.
Heather Higinbotham noted she worked with a nonprofit organization with a regional framework
for sustainable development. She stated they had taken into consideration cultural values,
wildlife, transportation, etc. and had come up with an alternative to LEED certification. There
was a voluntary rating system that communities would participate in for certification as a
sustainable City. She stated there had recently been a new partnership developed that would be
dispersing grant monies; the guidelines had been set to determine eligible communities and the
grant would be for local governments. She suggested the Greater Yellowstone framework
document could be used as a template so the premise of the grant could be on a larger scale with
communities putting together model codes for commuter shed areas. She stated the grant
proposal was due on August 23, 2010. Mr. Budeski asked for more clarification of whether the
grant would be for building sustainability or economic sustainability. Ms. Higinbotham
explained the grant was for all types of sustainability and social, economic, environment were all
included.
Interim Director Saunders stated a more holistic viewpoint was being attempted; how is
Bozeman interfacing with other communities, the environment, transportation needs. He stated
Staff was seeking input on whether or not the grant should be pursued.
Mr. Sypinski stated he saw the grant opportunity as one of the policy actions adopted with the
implementation of the Growth Policy and the grant would be the next step in ongoing
implementation of the Growth Policy.
284
FALLON ST
HUFFINE LN RESORT DR W BABCOCK ST S FERGUSON AVE RAVALLI ST GRA
NIT
E AVE REDWOOD DR EASTWOOD DR TEAKWOOD DR E
LMWOOD DR PONDERA AVE PALISADE DR
VALLEY COM M ONS DR HANLEY
AVE
CLIFDEN DR PONDERA AVE 285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
1
Brian Krueger
From:Ted Lange [Ted@gvlt.org]
Sent:Thursday, May 27, 2010 11:09 AM
To:Brian Krueger; Bob Murray; Ron Dingman; Thom White
Cc:Gary Vodehnal
Subject:re: Spring Creek Village
Brian & Bob,
Taking a quick look at the NE corner of the Resort/Huffine intersection my two thoughts are:
1) The water course (stream? ditch?) looks like a great trail greenway. The section of existing trail
between Fallon and Palisade looks looks pretty uninspiring on the aerial – sandwiched between the
houses without a shred of riparian vegetation – though if it’s a ditch vs. a stream the riparian veg
doesn’t matter. But looks like there’s potential to create (preserve) something much nicer south of
Fallon.
2) This summer/fall a CTEP-funded shared use path will hopefully be completed on the N side of Huffine
from Fowler to Ferguson. GVLT will advocate for continuing that path to Resort with construction of
this development.
Thanks,
Ted
Ted Lange, Community Trails Program
Gallatin Valley Land Trust
406-587-8404 ~ ted@gvlt.org ~ www.gvlt.org
Trails Day ~ Saturday, June 5
meet at Bogert Park for morning trail projects ~ noon picnic ~ afternoon hike
Longest Day of Trails ~ Friday, June 18
Support GVLT >>> Get gift certificates!
Ride the trails!
Party on the lawn at Ale Works!
307
1
Brian Krueger
From:Tara L. Hastie
Sent:Tuesday, July 06, 2010 3:49 PM
To:Brian Krueger
Subject:FW: Spring Creek Village Comment
Public comment
Tara Hastie, Administrative Assistant
City of Bozeman Planning Department
20 E. Olive St., P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715
ph. (406)582‐2260 fx. (406)582‐2263
From: Bill Clem [mailto:billsvision@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Tara L. Hastie; Aimee Kissel
Subject: Spring Creek Village Comment
Honorable City of Bozeman Commissioners and Planning Department
RE: Spring Creek Village Resort
Please consider the following factors as you review the plan for this new development.
Downtown Bozeman is THE key feature of this community as admitted to by the developer in their idea of
‘duplicating’ it. However, their aim is not an homage to downtown, rather a way of creating an entirely new
‘city scape’ away from the core, without the ‘nuisance’ of community, history or variety that created it.
The developer says that only 15% of traffic visits downtown. If this is so, then the downtown area is already at a
precariously dangerous level of support and any additional traffic diversion may alter its ability to survive. It is
already having problems because of two years of reconstruction, gas explosions and economy, what good could
possibly come from a ‘copy cat’ development for the rich and famous at the outskirts of town?
The developers offer that they are following the Bozeman “Plan” because they are locating this in an area where
housing is already abundant. Note however that they immediately state the substantial traffic patterns going by
the development. It is clear that the ‘neighborhood’ core will not be sufficient to support this development and
pulling traffic and shoppers from Huffine Lane will be required to be viable. These customers will come at the
detriment of all other existing businesses and areas of Bozeman, especially the downtown core.
This development does not therefore fit the plan for a better Bozeman. Instead of small neighborhood shops
mixed with homes, it seeks to supplant the entire downtown core and create an alternative, more glamorous in
the eye of the developer, shopping and business district.
This developer has a poor track record of agreeing to one thing to get projects past the city and changing after
approval to do something else.
The 777 building and Ale Works were conceived with minimal parking so the two buildings could ‘share’ at
opposite times of day. No other business was allowed this option. The result is the parking is so limited that cars
frequently fill the streets, including the residential areas.
The Village Downtown provides an insightful look at how this developer operates. The development was
approved even though the design was not in harmony with the character of Bozeman. Next, they were not
required to build a traffic light at Main and N. Broadway as requested. Something that any other large
development would have been required to complete. This was, at the time, due to promises for wetlands to
remain unbuilt and promises it would be a ‘biking community’. It is not a biking community and later these
308
2
wetlands were drained and offered for sale to the city. This gun to our head led the city to accept the former
wetlands in lieu of mitigated needs at other future projects by this developer. No other developer has taken
advantage of the system in such a way that the environment and property around one development gives them
benefits in a completely different neighborhood of the city. In the end, the city has no stoplight, no wetlands and
a planning debt hanging over the City’s planning department.
In summary, the developers should not be allowed to build Spring Creek Village. It is a direct assault on the
community of Bozeman’s cultural and commercial core, by a developer who has continually worked to rebuild
Bozeman ‘in their own image’. Instead, the developers should be encouraged, through coercion, tax breaks,
whatever, to refurbish or construct their vision in the downtown core. Bozeman does not need yet another
commercial district pulling shoppers and valuable dollars away from the single most important cultural and
commercial part of this city. We do not need, nor do we want, another development that takes advantage of the
money, power and connections this developer uses to make promises which are ultimately unfulfilled.
I urge the commission to reject this development and send the developers back to the drawing board.
As a note. My wife and I are landowners in Northeast Bozeman at the 800 block of North Rouse. We were born
and raised here and have strived to create an environment of creative reuse within the city we love.
Thank you for your time,
Bill
Bill Clem
406 587 7655
802 N. Wallace
Bozeman, MT 59715
309