Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutH2 - laurel glen rm Commission Memorandum '•x rt�.f� co REPOR'[' TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commisslon FROM: Andrew C. Epple, AICP, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SLiR,IECI': Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase 111, Request for One-Year Extension Planning Application No. #P-02012 MEETING DATE: Monday, June 20, 2006, Coltlintled to.Mli,, 17, 2000 i3ACKGROLiND: Hinesley Family Limited Partnership, represented by SLisan 13. Swiniley, has requested a second one-year extension of prelinimary plat approval for Laurel Glcn Subdivision, Phase iIi, The first request for a one-year extension of preliminary plat approval was granted by the City Commission oil May 20, 2005. The one-year extension has now expired. The aPplicaiit is currently processing an application for the filing of the final subdivision plat for Phase II of Laurel Glen Subdivision that will allow issuance of building perillits to proceed with coristructlori in the northwest quadrant of the fOLir-phased major subdivision. in addition, there have been two requests for modifications to the conditions of preliminary plat approval as it relates to the timing of Improvements to Durston Road, as well as all amended subdivision plat arld gone map amendment ail Phase II. 'he Counnission first heard this txgtiest on JtIlle 26, 2006 After c•oncluc•ling Me I)ublic hearing (dt-gft minutcs allached), the Comnlisslnll c•oltttltttc'd the lwoc•ecdin,sY to Juh, 17, 2006 UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The original pretunulary plat application was reviewed and condiliorially approved on Monday, May 20, 2002 by the City Gmnlrnission to subdivide 156.96± acres and create Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase I-IV, subject to forty-six (46) conditions (Planning Application No.P-02012). The application for prelirnirlary plat review was evaluated PLIrSUailt to Section 10.10.050.C' of the City of- Bozenlan interim Subdivision Regulations, which is no lodger ill effect. The Interim SUbcImsioil Regulations has been replaced by the City of Bozeman LJrlified Development. Ordinance as a tool to further implement the goals and policies of the City of 13ozeman 2020 Conlin Lill rty Plan. Extensive development and improvements to the conditions of the iillillediate area along Durston Road, North Cottonwood Road, and Oak Street have extensively changed in this area. For this reason, both Please ill and IV of Laurel Glen Subdivision should be reviewed against the Unified Development Ordinance as new applications fOI-pr•e-applicatiori plan review, and preliminary sLbdivision review. .91 the Jimc 26, 2006 public hearing, Comeau sioners ytic,slioncd whether pas-k1and dc(lic altoil mqutrcmeitls would be re-calculated f01'' all 1)hases of Laul''el Glen, ol- .lust Phases Ill and 11,. Coininissioncr Becker indicated that he would not likc to see Phases I and II1)al'kland I•egiiil•ements reassessed to coiyunclion with a new review of Pha.sc's iII and IT' Staff has con.sidel'ed this tsstic further, and concludes that and,, new 1par•kland dedication requ einents as a re.vult ol'I-e-I•e i iew tlndel- Report compiled oil June 21, 2006. curi-ent UDO standards we u/d oniv be ahlVicabIc to Pha,ws III and II, and ivould riot be inc.de retroactive to Phases I and 11. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission de11y the applicant's request fOr a second, one- year extension of preliminary plat approval for Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase III FISCAL EFFECTS: The Planning Office has determined that compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance as it relates to the goals and policies of the adopted growth policy (density, parkland, connectivity, alleys, maintenance, mixed land uses, etc.) is in the best interest of the community. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. Respectfully submitted, G Andrew C. Epple, AICP, Plannf i JDirector Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager Attachment. Draft June 26, 2006 C'ornrni.mon Meeting Almule,; (.3 pages) Report compiled on June 21, 2006. 4. Request for one-year extension of Preliminary Plat al. proNal from Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase III This was the time and place set for the public hearing for a one-vear extension of the Preliminary Plat approval from Laurel Glen Subdivision, Phase Ill Public Hearing ► ►i Mayor Krauss opened the public hearing Planning Director Epple noted that the applicant, Chuck i inlsley, requested a one year extension Preliminary Plat approval from LaUrel Glen Subdivision, Phase 111. 1ic stated that the first request for- extension was granted oil May 20,2005,and that expired approximately one month ago. I le rioted that this request for extension is for Phase 11I of I.aur-cl Glen, and advised that the applicant is Noised to file for platting of Phase 11 of Laurel Glen Mr. Cpple stated that it was originally agreed that the phases COLIld proceed once Babcock Street was completed to standards. i ie stated that the staff have ISSL►eS With granting this extraordinary extension. Mr. Tipple rioted that in-between the original adoption Ill May, 2002 and the present, there have been a nUmber of different. subdivision code provisions that have been adopted to Implement the goals and policies ol'the 2020 Plan Therefore, staff Is riot supportive of granting the extension. if the Commission chooses to grant the approval, Mr. I pple stated, he anticipates that the applicant's representative is Willing to work with staff Oil sonic of the upgraded code provisions and tirlancial guarantees. Responding to Cr. Kirchhoff, Mr. i_?pple noted that the ettect of the Commission's denial ol'the extension Would result In a re-SUbmittal of the preliminary plat by the applicant Mr Cpple stated that staff supposes that a re-submittal Would involve some redesign. He also noted that the parkland aspect may be Increased significantly, but noted that the basic infrastrLlcture Would not change, collector streets, utility lines WOUld not change significantly, if at all. He noted that With the SUbrinittal of a new,prelunmary plat.,a new transportation analysis would be required. I le also stated that the previous Commission noted Phase Ill could proceed once Babcock was improved. Ms. Susan SWinlley, representing the applicant,noted that conditional approval was granted fir all phases of the Laurel Glen Subdivision on May 20,2002,and each was conditioned on the improvement of' Dur-ston Road. Mr. i iinsley personally worked hard oil the Improvement of'Durston Road. She stated that during the process, the Commission removed the regUirelllent that Durstoln be Improved prior to the next phase ill October,2004. She rioted that in December,2005,the applicant asked the Commission to modify the conditions for Phase 111. She said that the plans Were sublllltted in late May of 2006, and at that time, the attorney representing the applIcant Was iIl contact with the C ity Attorneys regard Ing the colnditI oil ti 011 June 9,2006,Assistant City Attorney Tim Cooper issued a letter,and the plains Were SUbsequently I-CtL11.11ei1 because the year had expired and staff was hesitant to review expired materials. She noted that noose Would disagree that all I6ur phases met the plans and rules it place at.t.11e time of original approval She noted that the reasons for the delay have been explained,and the submittal COLIld not be flrlalIZCd L1ntil after the winter thaw, Lind after the May d:1te. Ms. Swi ley LILloted pertinent sections of' 76-3-610, Montana Code Annotated and Montana case law. She stated that none of the reasons for the delay are due to a lack of effort on the applicant, and a change of r-egulLItlonS is not a reason to deny the request for extension. The applicant, Chuck Hinsley, noted that this has been a long process, and for each phase, lie has had to plead his case before the Commission. He stated that dui-Ing that COLu-SC, lie has not been dragging his feet. Ile doted that the delays, right of- ways, Sibs, etc., have taken a couple of- years. The Commission chose to improve Babcock, which took all additional year. I le stilted that lie i"Cturned to the Commission at the end of 2005 and requested approval for-Phase Ill. The Commission allowed hull to go ahead but lie has been unable to get that phase built. He stated that his private home is planned in Phase ill and lie has been waiting for five years for approval. Mr- I linsley stated that he is before the Comillissioll again to plead for permlSSlon to go forward with Phase III. He recognizes that sorrictimes stal-f-wants to take another bite of the apple, but he has islet all regUricnients and feels he is gone way beyond what is required. Responding to Cr. Becker, Mr, Hrnsley noted that no lots have yet been sold for Phase Ill He also noted that there ai-e sortie probleiiis addressing UDO staiidai-ds Staff'WOLiId like to have smaller lots,with alleys, which is a traditional design. Soi1ic of his lots,however,are 18,000-20,000 square feet,and all the infrastructure is ill place, the collateral streets, all the property along Durston Road, the sewer,water,and drainage systems are all estahlishcd. He noted that the whole design Is complctc aiid if lie has to go bark, then lie has to do everything from the beginning, he has to start over with Sewer, water, traffic, and he is back at square one. Additionally, he has spent hundreds of thousands ol'dollars to get to this point, and now staff just wants to get a couple more acres of parkland. DR7MM" No public comment was received. There being no Commissioner objections, Mayor Krauss closed the public hearing. Discussion RespoIlding to Mayor Krauss, Mr. I Iirlsley Noted that at this point, they have agreed to Put iil the entire park with Phase III, and that is a sigrlifictant a111or111t of parkland ill' stilted that Lill parkland for Phases 1, i1, ii1, and IV will go Into with III. lie rioted there is existiIlg park In Phase I, and no park in Phase 11. The major portion of the park was to be in Phase IV, but they have agreed place it in Phase 111. Mayor Krauss noted that.Mr. Hinsley went campaigiled and put money Up to help With till'right Of way, and also was oil the Commission's side for the impact lee dispute Mayor Krauss noted that Mr. f uisley took a brave stand side with the Conuriisslori for the discussion and law suit related to ullpact fees i is also stated that the City did impose sore of these delays with the lnoratOI-111111. Cr. Kirchhoff noted that the actions mentioned are noteworthy actions taken by the applicant, but. are to the side of this request. He stated that the result of what would come from Comm issioil denial of the exteiisiori would be of'significant public benefit. Cr Kirchhoff noted that Mr Hinsley did help with tllc Uurston project, but we stand to gain better configuration and better pedestrian movement without taking away the large lots because the zorllrlg goes from R-i to R-4. He stated that it looks like spot zoning and if you look at this subdivision,you see the pockets. He thinks the community and residents stand to benefit if the application is redesigned and resubmitted. He noted that the template exists, and It wolrld not.bean enormous cliallenge,but may be somewhat significant He closed by encouraging the Commission to delly the request for extension. Cr. Becker questioned what would occur if the application were denied He expressed concern with how the calculations would be made and questioned if there would be back calculations. He asked if the previous phases have to make up for the new code prop isions? Mr Epple noted that he thinks we will _lust Calculate the In-o r-ala Cor the phases not VCt Illlilt Phases I and 11 are filed oil record, and new conditions call not be imposed. Mr. Epple rioted that the tl Unk lines and main lines would riot need to be changed, but lines that have not yet been installed call be redesigned. The main spine of'the subdivision will not change. Cr Hecker noted there is not enough information presented to make an informed decision. Ile stated that Ile can not make such a decision tonight. Mr. Epple noted this carve ol►tside of the normal planning process, and staff did not have IIIIICh tiIiie to prepare. Responding to C(lnlmISSlon CIUeStlonS, City Attorney Luwe noted the statute says the governing body can grant the exception after the expiration has occurred. Cr Becker noted that lie Understands that work has been done, and despite threats of litigation, it appears that the pattern is that the authority can make that decision, and the threat of a lawsult will not motivate hill? to vote one way or another. He stated that he wants a better understanding ot"the first two phases before making a decision Cr Rupp noted that it is awkward to him as well, and Phase IV is the largest hart that has not been completed. He stated that it also important that the Planning Director has advised to deny the request for extension Cr. Becker called for a delay of'one week. City Manager KukLIISki noted this will be delayed for a few weeks. The I OII' would be the most likely agenda. Ms. Swiriiley rioted they understood that this will be put this on the next available meeting agenda. Decision Mayor Krauss continued the public hearing to July 17th k '°�