HomeMy WebLinkAboutCreekwood Planned Unit Development (adjacent to Br_10.pdf
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Tim McHarg, Director
SUBJECT: Z-05085A, Conditional use permit to amend affordable housing provisions applicable to Creekwood PUD to lower price threshold and remove deed restriction requirement.
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action – Quasi-Judicial
RECOMMENDATION: Approve application Z-05085A, A Conditional Use Permit to amend
the conditions of approval for the Creekwood Planned Unit Development to revise requirements for the provision of affordable housing in conjunction with the development of the Creekwood subdivision with the conditions and code requirements as recommended by Staff.
BACKGROUND: The original Creekwood PUD in 2005 requested a density bonus to allow
smaller lot sizes which allowed additional lots to be developed. The City Commission imposed the two conditions repeated below relating to the allowed density bonus to ensure that the terms of the PUD approval were met. The housing market has experienced significant change since the
Creekwood PUD was originally approved. The cost of housing has declined substantially.
On March 30, 2012 an application was received to amend the PUD. The purpose of the amendment is to alter conditions one and six and the requirement that the units be deed restricted. The applicant asserts that with the change in the economy the limitations on financing
and opportunity for appreciation arising from the deed restriction make the restricted lots unable
to be built. The original agreement allows for the cost of the affordable homes to be at a price which can be
paid using 30% or less of an income of up to 120% of the Average Median Income (AMI). The
proposed amendment requests to remove the deed restriction requirement and in exchange will
establish a lower cost threshold for the homes to not exceed a price which can be paid using 30% or less on an income of 100% AMI. The actual dollar amount represented by the AMI is updated each year as the local economy changes in each county. The proposed amendment also seeks to
remove the code reference from condition 1 in favor of the proposed alternative approach. The
same number of homes is proposed to be constructed and will act to provide a greater variety of
housing stock within the subdivision. The Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) met with the applicant and
considered the proposed amendment. Draft minutes of their discussion are attached. After
190
considerable discussion and evaluation of the issue the CAHAB recommended approval of
application Option 3.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None
ALTERNATIVES: Three alternatives are offered in the application. The Commission may choose to:
1. Deny the application.
2. Approve the application with conditions and code requirements as recommended by Staff
which uses alternative 3 from the application.
3. Approve the application using either alternative 1 or 2 from the applicant. 4. Other as identified by the Commission
FISCAL EFFECTS: None
Attachments: Staff Report, Application materials
Report compiled on: May 3, 2012
191
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 1
City Commission Staff Report for Creekwood PUD amendment CUP File #Z-05085A
Item: Z-05085A A Conditional Use Permit to amend the conditions of approval for the Creekwood Planned Unit Development to revise requirements for the provision of affordable housing in conjunction
with the development of the Creekwood subdivision.
Owner/ Applicant/Representative: Andy Ebbigausen, PO Box 930 Manhattan MT 59741 Date: City Commission Meeting, May 14,2012, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Commission Meeting Room,
Bozeman City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Recommendation: Conditional Approval
______________________________________________________________________________
Project Location The overall Creekwood PUD is shown in the map below. The affected Lots are 25, 26, 37, 38, 39, 40, 48, and 52 of the Creekwood PUD. The Creekwood PUD is located at the eastern edge of the city
adjacent to Bridger Canyon Drive and is in the E½, SE¼ Section 32, T 1S R 6E, City of Bozeman.
192
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 2
Proposal/Background
The original Creekwood PUD in 2005 requested a density bonus to allow smaller lot sizes which allowed additional lots to be developed. The City Commission imposed the two conditions repeated
below relating to the allowed density bonus to ensure that the terms of the PUD approval were met. The
code reference in the condition below predates the recent codification and reorganization of the
municipal code. The referenced section is now found at Section 38.20.090.E.2.a(7).
1. In exchange for the requested density bonus the property owner shall ensure compliance with
Section 18.36.090.E for development of the three affordable lots noted on the plan.
6. The final PUD plan shall address the means by which the affordable housing will be provided to
mitigate the proposed density bonus agreeable to the City of Bozeman and the CAHAB. At a
minimum the method of donation shall be proportionately dispersed with the number of building permits released and the units shall be deed restricted with the City listed as party to the restriction.
The proposed affordable housing units were a proposed off-set for smaller lot sizes throughout the
development. They were NOT used to meet the performance point requirements of presently referenced
Section 38.20.090.E.2.a(7). This was specifically identified in the original staff report to the City Commission. The performance point requirement was met through provision of open space along
Bridger Creek. Therefore, a change to conditions 1 and/or 6 will not cause the Creekwood PUD to be
out of compliance with the municipal code.
The original staff report to the Commission for the PUD noted concerns on the part of Staff to have adequate flexibility in administering the condition. An agreement was developed by the Staff and
applicant to satisfy these two Commission imposed conditions. The agreement identified which lots
were affected by the agreement and provided seven different options to pursue to satisfy the conditions.
On October 16, 2006 the agreement was filed at the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s office. One-
third of the required housing has been completed. The agreement has since been modified to release some lots proportional to the completion per the agreement and to exchange the specific lots which are
subject to the agreement.
The housing market has experienced significant change since the Creekwood PUD was originally
approved. The cost of housing has declined substantially. The cost figures assumed to qualify as affordable housing at the time of the PUD approval is now the equivalent for the market rate similar
homes. The application materials provide detail on this calculation. The Planning Director has discussed
this changed housing market with the City Commission and the ramification it has had on the viability
of deed restrictions in affordable housing programs. The City’s work force housing standards which rely
on deed restrictions, Chapter 8, Article 8, have been suspended until they can be revised.
On March 30, 2012 an application was received to amend the PUD. The purpose of the amendment is to
alter conditions one and six and the requirement that the units be deed restricted. The applicant asserts
that with the change in the economy the limitations on financing and opportunity for appreciation arising
from the deed restriction make the restricted lots unable to be built. The applicant proposes three possible options to revise the agreement which they believe will enable construction of affordable homes
to go forward. These options are on page 4 of the application materials.
The original agreement allows for the cost of the affordable homes to be at a price which can be paid
using 30% or less of an income of up to 120% of the Average Median Income (AMI). The proposed amendment requests to remove the deed restriction requirement and in exchange will establish a lower
193
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 3
cost threshold for the homes to not exceed a price which can be paid using 30% or less on an income of
100% AMI. The actual dollar amount represented by the AMI is updated each year as the local economy
changes in each county. The proposed amendment also seeks to remove the code reference from
condition 1 in favor of the proposed alternative approach. The same number of homes is proposed to be constructed and will act to provide a greater variety of housing stock within the subdivision.
The Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board met with the applicant and considered the
proposed amendment. Draft minutes of their discussion are attached. After considerable discussion and
evaluation of the issue the CAHAB recommended approval of application Option 3.
Recommended Conditions of Approval: Based on the subsequent analysis, the planning staff find that the application, with a condition and code
provisions, is in general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance. Special conditions were identified as necessary for this application by the Staff. Code requirements are identified under review criteria two below.
1. The final PUD application shall include an updated agreement to implement Option 3 of the
alternates proposed by the applicant to reduce the price for the homes subject to the
agreement to not exceed a price which can be paid using 30% or less on an income of 100% AMI and removing the requirement for a 20 year deed restriction. The remaining components
of the agreement shall remain as presently constituted except where necessary to implement
Option 3. The agreement shall be executed and recorded with the Gallatin County Clerk and
Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit for the restricted lots.
2. Revised Condition 1. In exchange for the requested density bonus the property owner shall ensure compliance with Section 18.36.090.E for affordable housing standards for
development of the three affordable lots noted on the plan.
3. Revised Condition 6. The final PUD plan shall address the means revise the agreement by
which the affordable housing will be provided to mitigate the proposed density bonus
agreeable to the City of Bozeman and the CAHAB. At a minimum the The method of donation distribution shall be proportionately dispersed with the number of building permits
released and the units shall be deed restricted with the City listed as party to the restriction.
Conclusion/Recommendation
The Staff and CAHAB have reviewed the Creekwood PUD amendment and recommends to the City
Commission approval of the application with the conditions and code requirements outlined in this Staff
Report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Code,
which are applicable to this project, prior to receiving Final Site Plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval,
does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman
Municipal Code or State law.
Zoning Designation & Land Uses
The affected property is zoned a blend of RS (Residential Suburban district) and R-1 (Residential Single Household Low-Density district). The intent and purpose of the R-S residential suburban district is to
allow open space, resource protection and primarily single-household development in circumstances
where environmental constraints limit the desirable density. All new subdivision and site plan
194
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 4
developments in this district shall be subject to the provisions of article 20 of this chapter, pertaining to
planned unit development, and shall be developed in compliance with the adopted city growth policy.
The intent of the R-1 residential single-household low density district is to provide for primarily single-
household residential development and related uses within the city at urban densities, and to provide for such community facilities and services as will serve the area's residents while respecting the residential character and quality of the area
The underlying growth policy designation of the affected area is Suburban Residential.
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Agriculture in unannexed Gallatin County, zoned Agricultural Suburban South: Single-household detached homes in unannexed Gallatin County, zoned Agricultural Suburban East: Unannexed Gallatin County area, zoned AEPD10 in Bridger Canyon Zoning District
West: Vacant land and Single-household detached homes, R-1 in the City and R-S in unannexed
Gallatin County
Adopted Growth Policy Designation
The Future Land Use Map (Figure 3-1) of the recently updated Bozeman Community Plan designates
the subject property to develop as Suburban Residential. This category indicates locations generally
outside of City limits, but within the planning area, where a land development pattern has already been set by rural subdivisions. Subdivisions in this area are generally characterized by lots two acres in size or less. It is probable that portions of this area may be proposed for annexation within the next twenty
years. The area is able to be served with municipal water and sewer services with appropriate extensions
of main lines. Any further development within this area should be clustered to preserve functional open
space. Individual septic and well services are discouraged. If development is proposed within reasonable access distances to waste water and water services, annexation to the City should be completed prior to development.
Review Criteria & Staff findings This application is subject to review under three levels of criteria: site plan, conditional use permit, and
planned unit development. These follow an increasing level of detail and discretion. Review of each
criteria may find the item not applicable to the present application or may find the application positively
or negatively impacts the criteria.
Section 38.19.100 Plan Review Criteria
In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the review authority and advisory bodies
shall consider the following criteria:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy
The uses remain consistent with the described uses in the Suburban Residential land use designation.
The goals and objectives of the plan appear to be met. Affordable housing is a subject in the growth
policy and is encouraged in various implementation policies. The proposal appears to conform to the policies identified for Chapter 6, Housing.
2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations
195
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 5
Staff is not aware of any current violations on the subject property. There are some remaining punchlist
items from the original subdivision. Unfortunately, the original developer no longer controls the
property and the warrantee has expired. The City Engineer is aware and making efforts to get these
items resolved. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of
the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
Some code requirements necessary to complete the process of the application have been identified and
will need to be met before final approval.
1. A complete final PUD application shall be submitted to the Planning Department within one
calendar year of the date the City Commission findings of fact are signed per Section
38.20.060.A.1.
2. Section 38.19.110.F states that the right to a conditional use permit shall be contingent upon the
fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit
procedure. All special conditions and code provisions shall constitute restrictions running with
the land, shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be
consented to in writing by the applicant prior to commencement of the use and shall be recorded as such with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office by the property owner prior to the
final site plan approval or commencement of the use. All of the conditions and code provisions
specifically stated under any conditional use listed in this title shall apply and be adhered to by
the owner of the land, successor or assigns.
3. The final PUD shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Bozeman
Municipal Code except where a deviation or other exception has been explicitly amended. The
applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed
as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful
requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
4. Applicant shall provide with the final PUD application a written summary addressing on the
conditions of approval have been met, both specific and code provisions outlined in the staff
report, as well as related code provisions provided by the City Engineer’s Office and Planning
Office.
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations
The Final PUD Plan will be reviewed to ensure compliance with this section. The plans for individual
homes will be evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code at the time application is made for a Building Permit. No zoning non-conforming situations have been identified at
this time.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property
No specific site plan for individual homes is proposed at this time. This application only modifies the terms under which certain use can occur within the defined area. Any subsequent proposal to establish
the use will be subject to the applicable review procedures of Chapter 38, Article 19.
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions
The anticipated parking and traffic demand from the development of the homes on the affected lot t is consistent with the intensity anticipated from the allowed uses in the R-1 and RS districts.
196
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 6
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress The amendment of the conditions of approval relating to affordable housing does not affect this
criterion. Any future on-site development will address this criterion.
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation The amendment of the conditions of approval relating to affordable housing does not affect this
criterion. Any future on-site development will address this criterion.
8. Open space The amendment of the conditions of approval relating to affordable housing has limited affect this
criteria. Any future on-site development will address this criterion. It may be expected that the largest
home possible to construct within the terms of the proposed revised agreement will be smaller than
previously and will leave more open space on individual lots. However, this will be very minor in the context of the overall PUD.
9. Building location and height
The amendment of the conditions of approval relating to affordable housing has limited affect this
criteria. Any future site development will address this criterion. No special relaxations relating to this subject were approved with the original PUD.
10. Setbacks
The setbacks for a PUD in the R-S district are established at the time the original PUD is reviewed. No
changes are proposed with this application.
11. Lighting The proposal does not affect this criterion. Any future site development will address this criterion.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities The proposal does not affect this criterion. Any future site development will address this criterion.
13. Site surface drainage
The proposal does not affect this criterion. Any future site development will address this criterion.
14. Loading and unloading areas This application is primarily related to non-residential development. The proposal does not affect this
criterion. Any future site development will address this criterion.
15. Grading The proposal does not affect this criterion. Any future site development will address this criterion.
16. Signage
The proposal does not affect this criterion. Any future site development will address this criterion.
17. Screening The proposal does not affect this criterion. Any future site development will address this criterion.
18. Overlay district provisions
The proposal does not affect this criterion. The area is within the Bridger Drive entryway corridor. The single home development located in this subdivision is not subject to entryway corridor standards.
197
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 7
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties No public comment has been received to date.
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the
property or cause the development to become nonconforming
or
The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a
party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. Not applicable to this application.
21. Compliance with Title 17 Chapter 2, BMC (Workforce Housing)
Not applicable to this application which is solely related to non-residential activity.
22. Phasing of Development The phasing is addressed in the affordable housing agreement. Lots will be relieved of the burden of the
agreement proportionate to the fulfillment of the agreement.
Section 38.19.110.E CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; “Consideration and Findings for Conditional Use Permits” In addition to the plan review criteria contained in Section 18.34.100 below, the Review Authority shall,
in approving a conditional use permit, determine favorably as follows:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity.
The yard sizes were established with the initial PUD. No changes to these items are proposed. The use
remains unchanged with this amendment and no negative impacts are expected.
2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof.
The proposed amendment does not alter the use, it remains as presently allowed by the R-1 and R-S
zoning districts. These uses have previously been found to be compatible during the development of these zoning districts.
3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to:
regulation of use; special yards, spaces and buffers; special fences, solid fences and walls; surfacing of parking areas; requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds; regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress; regulation of signs; requiring maintenance of the grounds; regulation of noise, vibrations and odors; regulation of
hours for certain activities; time period within which the proposed use shall be developed;
duration of use; requiring the dedication of access rights; other such conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner.
198
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 8
Staff has identified, through the review process, no recommended project conditions as being needed to
protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. A CUP document will be prepared incorporating
all conditions and code provisions for recording to document the findings of any approval by the City
Commission. An updated affordable housing agreement will be prepared and executed. Section 38.20.090.E PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; “Design Objectives and PUD Review
Criteria”
This application is subject to the criteria for “All Development” and “Residential” which are included below. The overall PUD was reviewed against these criteria during the initial development. Criteria
which are not applicable to the present application are so noted.
2. In addition to the criteria for all site plan and conditional use reviews, the following criteria
will be used in evaluating all planned unit development applications. a. All development. All land uses within a proposed planned unit development shall be
reviewed against, and comply with, the applicable objectives and criteria of the
mandatory "all development" group.
(1) Does the development comply with all city design standards, requirements and
specifications for the following services: water supply, trails/walks/bike ways, sanitary supply, irrigation companies, fire protection, electricity, flood hazard
areas, natural gas, telephone, storm drainage, cable television, and streets?
Yes, addressed with the original application.
(2) Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation?
Yes, the mature vegetation along the creek was preserved as part of the open space with the original application.
(3) Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and
landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally
organized and cohesive planned unit development?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application.
(4)\ Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., building
construction, orientation, and placement; transportation networks; selection and
placement of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources; etc.)
contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application.
(5) Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and
landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to maximize the privacy by the residents
of the project?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application.
(6) Park land. Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration, and has the
area of park land or open space been provided for each proposed dwelling as
required by section 38.27.020
Yes, this was addressed with the original application.
(7) Performance. All PUDs shall earn at least 20 performance points. Nonresidential developments within the North 19th Avenue/Oak Street corridor
shall earn 30 points. Points may be earned in any combination of the following.
199
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 9
The applicant shall select the combination of methods but the city may require
documentation of performance, modifications to the configuration of open space,
or other assurances that the options selected shall perform adequately.
(a) Provision of affordable housing. Exclusive of housing used to satisfy chapter 10, article 8:
(i) Four points for each percent of dwellings to be constructed in
the residential development which are provided by donation to the
city; or one point for each build ready lot donated to the city for
affordable housing provided by a residential or nonresidential development; or
(ii) One point for each percent of dwellings to be constructed in the
residential development which are provided by long term
contractual obligation to an affordable housing agency, for a period
of not less than 20 years, with a written plan assuring on-going affordability pricing and eligibility monitoring, and annual re-
certification. The city's affordability guidelines and subsequent
revisions shall establish affordability and eligibility;
(b) Additional open space.
(i) One point for each percent of the project area that is provided as non-public open space; or 1¼ points for each percent of the project
area that is provided as publicly accessible open space.
(ii) The portion of the project to be considered in determining the
size of area to be provided for open space shall be the gross project
area less areas dedicated and transferred to the public, and/or used to meet the park lands requirements of subsection E.2.a.(6) of this
section. The area provided for open space shall be exclusive of
yard setbacks on individually owned lots and interior parking lot
landscaping, and subject to the performance standards of article 27
of this chapter. The area may be provided through a combination of one or more of the following means:
(A) Open space within the project boundaries and
commonly held by the property owners association for the
use of owners, residents and their guests;
(B) Open space within the project boundaries and developed as usable recreation space with a corresponding
public use easement;
(C) Outside of the project boundaries as an addition to an
existing off-site park adequate in location and size to meet
the recreational needs of the residents; (D) Cash-in-lieu of open space subject to the standards of
section 38.27.030; or
(E) Open space outside of the project boundaries adequate
in size and location to meet the recreational needs of the
residential development only with the approval of the city commission. The site is subject to the standards of article
27 of this chapter and must demonstrate a geographic and
service relationship to the residential development.
Yes, this was addressed with the original application. The initial Creekwood PUD met
ALL of its performance points requirements by providing additional protection for open space coordinated with public parkland. The property set aside is located on both sides of
Bridger Creek.
200
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 10
(c) –(k) These options were not used in this development and therefore are
not presented in this report.
b. Residential. Planned unit developments in residential areas (R-S, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4,
RMH and R-O zoning districts) may include a variety of housing types designed to
enhance the natural environmental, conserve energy, recognize, and to the maximum
extent possible, preserve and promote the unique character of neighborhoods, with
provisions for a mix of limited commercial development. For purposes of this section, "limited commercial development" means uses listed in the B-1 neighborhood service
district (article 10 of this chapter), within the parameters set forth below. All uses within
the PUD must be sited and designed such that the activities present will not detrimentally
affect the adjacent residential neighborhood. The permitted number of residential
dwelling units shall be determined by the provision of and proximity to public services and subject to the following limitations:
(1) On a net acreage basis, is the average residential density in the project
(calculated for residential portion of the site only) consistent with the
development densities set forth in the land use guidelines of the city growth
policy?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application. See criteria b(6) below for further
discussion.
(2) Does the project provide for private outdoor areas (e.g., private yards, patios
and balconies, etc.) for use by the residents and employees of the project which
are sufficient in size and have adequate light, sun, ventilation, privacy and convenient access to the household or commercial units they are intended to
serve?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application.
(3) Does the project provide for outdoor areas for use by persons living and
working in the development for active or passive recreational activities?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application.
(4) If the project is proposing a residential density bonus as described below, does
it include a variety of housing types and styles designed to address community
wide issues of affordability and diversity of housing stock?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application. A density bonus was approved by the City Commission. There are a variety of lot sizes provided within the subdivision
which supports a more diverse housing stock within the development. Conditions to
provide three affordable homes were also imposed with the original PUD approval.
(5) Is the overall project designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve
energy and to provide efficient public services and facilities?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application.
(6) Residential density bonus. If the project is proposing a residential density
bonus (30 percent maximum) above the residential density of the zoning district
within which the project is located and which is set forth in article 8 of this
chapter, does the proposed project exceed the established regulatory design standards (such as for setbacks, off-street parking, open space, etc.) and ensure
compatibility with adjacent neighborhood development? The number of dwelling
units obtained by the density bonus shall be determined by dividing the lot area
201
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 11
required for the dwelling unit type by one plus the percentage of density bonus
sought. The minimum lot area per dwelling obtained by this calculation shall be
provided within the project. Those dwellings subject to chapter 10, article 8, shall
be excluded in the base density upon which the density bonus is calculated.
As noted in criteria (4) above, the original PUD contained two conditions for affordable housing as
an exchange for the granted density bonus. These conditions were:
1. In exchange for the requested density bonus the property owner shall ensure compliance with
Section 18.36.090.E for development of the three affordable lots noted on the plan.
6. The final PUD plan shall address the means by which the affordable housing will be provided to mitigate the proposed density bonus agreeable to the City of Bozeman and the CAHAB. At a
minimum the method of donation shall be proportionately dispersed with the number of building
permits released and the units shall be deed restricted with the City listed as party to the restriction.
The City Commission at that time found that these conditions were an adequate exchange for the
density bonus. The proposed amendment keeps the same number of homes, reduces the price which they can cost, but lifts the long term deed restriction.
(7) Limited commercial. If limited commercial development, as defined above, is
proposed within the project, is less than 20 percent of the gross area of the PUD
designated to be used for offices or neighborhood service activities not ordinarily allowed in the particular residential zoning district?
(a) If neighborhood service activities are proposed within the project, is a
market analysis provided demonstrating that less than 50 percent of the
market required to support proposed neighborhood service activities is
located outside the immediate area of the PUD and are the neighborhood services of a nature that does not require drive-in facilities or justification
for through traffic?
(b) If the project contains limited commercial development, as defined
above, is the project located at the intersection of arterial streets, or arterial
and collector streets? (c) If the project contains limited commercial development, as defined
above, has the project been sited and designed such that the activities
present will not detrimentally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood
and have the commercial activities been developed at a scale compatible
with residential development?
No limited commercial is or was proposed with the Creekwood PUD.
(8) Does the overall PUD recognize and, to the maximum extent possible,
preserve and promote the unique character of neighborhoods in the surrounding
area?
Yes, this was addressed with the original application.
THE BOZEMAN CITY COMISSION SHALL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS
DEVIATION. THE CONCURRING VOTE OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION IS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED BY AN AGGRIEVED PERSON AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 38.35.080 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE.
202
#Z-05085A Creekwood PUD amendment CUP Staff Report 12
Attachments: Application materials
Report Sent to: Andy Ebbighausen, PO Box 930, Manhattan MT 59741
file
203
204
205
TO: Members of the Bozeman City Commission
FROM: Andrew Ebbighausen
RE: Creekwood PUD
DATE: February 23, 2012
My name is Andy Ebbighausen of Ebbighausen Homes. I have purchased or have purchases
pending for the remaining unsold inventory in Creekwood PUD in the City of Bozeman. Several of the
lots that I have as pending purchases have building permit restrictions on them relating to the
Affordable Housing Agreement entered into by the original developer, who is no longer associated with
the development. I would like to request an amendment or restructuring of the Affordable Housing
Conditions of Approval for the Creekwood PUD for the following reasons:
First, the change in the economy has significantly altered the price point of homes in
Creekwood from its original conception. The clear intent of the Affordable Housing Condition was to
have a mixed income within Creekwood. The original thought was that most the homes would be upper
income homes; the Affordable Housing Condition would allow three “Affordable Homes” in the
subdivision. The agreement uses 120% of Area Median Income as the threshold. By today’s HRDC’s
numbers that would put the affordable housing cost at $358,385.85 (See attached Affordability
Assessment). That is based on only 5% down. If a person used a conventional loan program with a
standard 20% down the home would be in the mid $400,000 range. By this standard every home I have
built so far in the subdivision meets the Affordable Housing Condition (many more than the original
three the city intended). I currently have two homes available for sale in the $370k range. Yet many
lots still have building restrictions against them because the specific lots identified for Affordable
Housing Conditions have not been built on.
The second reason to modify the conditions is the 20 year deed restriction attached to the lots
as part of the requirement. This creates an essentially unmarketable property. If a qualified Buyer for a
home of $350,000 looks at homes in Bozeman, they will have a solid selection from neighborhoods like
Alder Creek, Legends, Westridge, Baxter Meadows West, Valley West, etc. The deed restriction that
limits their potential return on their home will surely not be an appealing investment.
Moreover, it creates an inherent problem in the lending world. The value of the home is tied to labor
and income markets rather than the real estate market. For instance, if a Buyer purchased the home
under the HRDC assumptions provided using 5% down, they could have a mortgage of $340,000. It
would only take a small drop in Area Median Income to lower the purchase price qualification to below
that amount, thereby forcing the homeowner and lender into a short sale scenario. Lenders will
certainly have a problem loaning with this restriction on a property.
There is some confusion with the language as the condition is written as well. It states the
property owner shall construct “The equivalent value of an affordable lot with constructed dwelling unit
within the Creekwood Subdivision shall not be less than the selling price of a house affordable to a
206
family of 4 earning 120% of the area median income.”(See attached Affordable Housing Conditions of
Approval and Agreement for Creekwood Planned Unit Development, #z‐0585. Page 2 under the second
condition of requirement). In other words, the way it is written is that the least expensive affordable
home that could be built would start at $358,385.85 and go up from there.
Suggested Options:
Option 1
We provide documentation that the Affordable Housing Condition’s on three or more lots in the
subdivision have been met (other than the 20 year deed restriction) and the Affordable Housing
Condition be deemed as met and the remaining lots with building permit restrictions be lifted.
Option 2
The Affordable Housing Conditions stay just the way they are except the 20 year deed restriction
lifted.
Option 3
The Affordable Housing Condition stay just the way they are only the AMI moves from 120% to
100% and the 20 year deed restriction is lifted.
Obviously option 1 is the easiest and cleanest. The original intent of a diverse income in the subdivision
is already being met. The homes along the creek are more expensive and the lots along the highway
(were the building permit restrictions are) will necessarily have to be marketed at a much lower price
than the rest of the subdivision in order for them to sell.
We know the city is trying to do its part in helping the local economy. Currently in Creekwood
subdivision there are lots that cannot be sold and built on until the Affordable Housing Condition is met.
We appreciate your help
Attachment 1
Hi Sharon – I have run a quick calc for an affordable home for a household of four earning 120% AMI
($80,050). Calc and assumptions are below. Thanks.
207
Affordability Assessment
Max Annual Income (HH4 at 120% AMI)
$
80,050.00
Max monthly income 6,670.83< /tr>
Max housing payment 30%2,001.25
less estimated escrows 20.00%400.25
Principal and Interest Payment 1,601.00
Present Value of Principal and Interest Payment
Loan Term (years) 30
Interest Rate 3.875%
Maximum Mortgage 340,466.56
Max LTV 95%340,466.56
Maximum purchase price 358,385.85
Required Down payment 5.00%17,919.29
Assumptions:
30 year, fixed rate mortgage with 5% down‐payment required
Interest rate is MBOH regular bond program rate on 12/06/11
Escrows are estimated at 20% of mortgage payment
in this regard.
Attachment 2
208
210
211
212
213
214
215
216