HomeMy WebLinkAboutVillage Homesite Planned Unit Development Plan Pre_12
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Lanette Windemaker, AICP, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: Village Homesites PUD Plan Preapplication, #Z-07034
MEETING DATE: Monday, April 23, 2007
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission provides advice and recommendation on
application #Z-07034 in preparation of the PUD preliminary plan application for Village
Homesites.
BACKGROUND: This is a PUD Plan preapplication to develop ~ 14.5 acres into 19 single
household lots. The property is located on both side of Village Downtown Boulevard, which is east
of Broadway Avenue at East Mendenhall extended. The subject property is zoned “R-4”
(Residential High Density District).
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As discussed in staff report.
• Connection of Village Downtown Boulevard to Front Street.
• Level of Service at North Broadway Avenue onto East Main Street.
• Wetlands Preservation.
• Park Frontage & Parking.
• Pedestrian Access.
• Project Design in accordance with code.
• Relaxations.
• Impact on the Village Downtown Lofts PUD Approved Final Plan.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased
property tax revenues from new development, along with increased costs to deliver municipal
services to the property.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Lanette Windemaker at lwindemaker@bozeman.net if you have any
questions prior to the public hearing.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
116
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT #Z-07034
VILLAGE HOMESITES PUD PREAPPLICATION PLAN
Item: Zoning Application #Z-07034 ⎯ An application for preapplication
review for advice and comment in preparation of the Conditional Use
Permit for the Village Homesites Planned Unit Development Preliminary
Plan.
Owner/Applicant: Village Investment Group (Mike Delaney), 101 East Main, Bozeman,
MT 59715.
Representative: Bitnar Architects, 502 S. Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Date/Time: Before the Design Review Board on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 5:30
p.m., in the Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street,
Bozeman, Montana, and
Before the City Commission on Monday, April 23, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., in
the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main
Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Lanette Windemaker, AICP; Contract Planner
Recommendation: Review and provide advice and comments.
PROJECT LOCATION
The property is located on both side of Village Downtown Boulevard, which is east of Broadway
Avenue at East Mendenhall extended. The subject property is zoned “R-4” (Residential High
Density District).
PROPOSAL
Application has been made for PreApplication Plan review of a Planned Unit Development to allow
the development of 20 lots; 19 for single households dwellings and 1 for the existing Village Lofts
building. This application is being review in conjunction with a subdivision preapplication.
The applicant has requested the following relaxations from the BMC:
• Section 18.16.030.A, Lot Coverage. To allow lot coverage greater than 50 percent instead of
the maximum of 50 percent lot coverage.
• Section 18.16.040.A, Lot Area and Width. To allow a minimum lot area of 4,152 square feet
instead of the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet.
117
• Section 18.16.040.B, Lot Area and Width. To allow a minimum lot width of 40 feet instead
of the minimum lot width of 50 feet.
• Section 18.16.050, Yards. To allow a minimum 4 foot side yard setback instead of minimum
5 foot side yard setback.
• Section 18.16.050, Yards. To allow a 10 foot rear yard setback instead of minimum
requirement of 20 feet with alley opening doors.
It appears that the applicant may also need to request relaxations from following sections of the
BMC:
• 18.44.010.A, Relation to Undeveloped Areas. To not extend Village Downtown Boulevard
to the property line.
• 18.44.010.B, Relation to Developed Areas. To not provided for a continuation of Front
Street.
• Section 18.44.060.D, Level of Service Standards. To allow the East Main Street and North
Broadway Avenue intersection to operate at level of service less than “D”.
• Sections 18.50.100.A and B, Waiver of Required Park Dedication. To accept the critical
wildlife habitat and natural resources (wetlands) as land within a PUD permanently set aside
for park and recreation uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will ultimately
reside in the development.
• Section 18.50.060, Frontage. To allow land accepted in lieu of park land to have no frontage
on a street.
The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and
innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city.
Specifically, with regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare,
it shall be the intent of this title to promote the city’s pursuit of community objectives as outlined in
Section 18.36.010 of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
The purpose of the Preapplication PUD Plan review is for discussion of the applicant’s proposal with
the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and
policies, as well as offers the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and
identify solutions prior to making formal application.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Though not applicable at this stage of review, development guidelines for a PUD shall contain the
information demonstrating compliance with the intent of a PUD, and applicable community design
objectives and criteria. Key areas of discussion may include but are not limited to, the following:
1. Pedestrian access: While the P&RABSRC has always been supportive of preserving these
wetlands as park land, the support has always been subject to the provision of perimeter
pedestrian access with education and viewing opportunities. The proposed design of the lots,
alley and drainage facility appears to impede the perimeter pedestrian access.
2. Lack of public street frontage for the proposed public wetlands park. Visibility, public parking
Z07034 Village Homesites PUD Preapplication Plan 2
118
and pedestrian access from the public street to the proposed public wetlands park are all issues
that need to be considered. When public street frontage along a park is reduced to less than 100
percent, there are usually conditions that additional land area be provided in exchange for
parking along frontage, and that an off street parking lot be constructed. With no frontage on a
public street, it may be appropriate to condition the future proposal that all on-street parking
shall be reserved for the public and that pedestrian access be provided from the street to the
wetlands trail.
3. Perimeter Buffering: The applicant should consider landscape features that will serve as
buffering of adjoining land uses and wetlands through the combination of native vegetation,
trees, berms and hedges.
4. Landscaping: The preapplication plan does not demonstrate the amount and use of landscaping.
The preliminary plan must identify landscape guidelines that deal with the treatment of open
space, wetlands, trails, and streetscape.
5. Architectural Guidelines: Architectural and landscape guidelines will need to depict the type
and use of materials, color palettes and specific character giving architectural features for the
proposed development.
6. Lighting: The architectural guidelines must include a reference to the style of street, pathway,
parking and building lights that will not only conform to the code requirements but will also
provide some reinforcement of the theme of the project.
cc: The Village Investment Group, 101 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715
C & H Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 1091 StoneRidge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718
Bitnar Architects, 502 S. Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Z07034 Village Homesites PUD Preapplication Plan 3
119
Design Review Board Minutes – March 14, 2007 1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary
to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Mel Howe Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Rea
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Michael Delaney
Tony Renslow
Nate Heller
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2007.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Banziger seconded, to approve the minutes of February 28,
2007 as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. The Village Homesites Concept PUD #Z-07034 (Windemaker)
Village Downtown Boulevard/Village Crossing Way
* A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to allow the development of a
20 lot single household subdivision with relaxations requested for lot
width requirements, rear yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, and lot
coverage.
Michael Delaney, Tony Renslow, and Nate Heller joined the DRB. Contract Planner Lanette
Windemaker presented the Staff Report noting this proposal was the last phase of the Village
Downtown development. She stated the applicant was proposing nineteen single-family lots
with requests for relaxations on lot coverage, lot width, no frontage on a common street, and
decreased setbacks. She stated the current proposal would not be as regimented as the previous
proposals but would have similar aspects. She stated Staff was concerned with the lack of street
frontage and parking for the wetlands park; adding that the on-street parking might not be
counted toward the dwelling requirements.
Mr. Delaney stated the circular trail going along the west side of the site would contain 7 or 8
parking stalls with directional signs to provide for the trail and added that they were attempting
to create the largest wetland park in Bozeman on their site. He stated they were trying to have
complexity and variety on the frontages of the homes to carry on the existing character of the
downtown area with emphasis on the use of brick and stone; he added that those materials had
been requested by potential owners of the units. He stated Front Street only went through as an
emergency access to avoid large trucks using the street as a main thoroughfare. He stated the
120
Design Review Board Minutes – March 14, 2007 2
proposal contained one of the most well lit, safe, and well constructed streets in the city and he
disagreed with the condition of extending Front Street.
Mr. Rea asked if the applicant wanted to maintain Front Street as it existed. Mr. Delaney
responded he did. Mr. Rea asked how that would occur. Mr. Delaney responded there would be
an opening for pedestrians and bicycles with a break-away gate for emergency vehicle access.
He added that the construction vehicles coming through the site was sort of abusive and when
construction was finished Front Street would be closed off and the landscaping would be
completed. Mr. Rea asked if the applicant would prefer to place a house there. Mr. Delaney
responded that he would not prefer to see a house there. Planner Windemaker added that a house
could not be located there due to the City of Bozeman owning the street right of way. Mr. Rea
asked if more parking could be located by the tennis courts. Mr. Delaney responded there could
be more parking located there, but they had roughly calculated the required parking and did not
think they would need more parking stalls in that location. He added that there were 50 stalls at
the front of the Village Downtown development that weren’t used by anyone and they would be
more than enough to accommodate patrons of the trail system on the site. Mr. Rea asked if this
proposal was a much lower density than the previous proposals. Mr. Delaney responded it
would be a lower density.
Mr. Banziger asked the real reason for the requested relaxation to allow a reduction in the
required setbacks. Mr. Delaney responded that they were attempting to maintain the overall
appearance of the subdivision and surrounding area. He added that they were trying to
encourage people to use their garages for their vehicles instead of storage. Mr. Banziger asked if
the applicant was trying to remain in keeping with the downtown atmosphere of the area. Mr.
Delaney responded that he was. Mr. Banziger asked the applicant to walk through the style of
the facades. Mr. Delaney responded they had not worked those details out as of yet and they
would be included in the Preliminary Plan PUD Application.
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost asked if Thomas Bitnar would do the design of the proposal
similar to what existed. Mr. Delaney responded the design would be similar, but would have
variation to make each one individual. He added that there would be several style options
available to choose from with a set list of materials and colors that were allowable.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the parcel was interesting as it so clearly belonged with the
surrounding area. He stated he was not too worried about the streetscape but was concerned with
the backside of the development as it would affect the community (backs of the garages). He
stated that ultimately the discussion would be one of design and not the request for decreased lot
widths or setbacks. Mr. Renslow stated that the backs of the structures would be addressed using
attention for the architectural design of the garages. Mr. Rea stated the seclusion of the
development caused there to be a danger that it would be abused. Mr. Delaney responded that it
had already been abused. Mr. Rea asked if the tennis courts were for the public’s use. Mr.
Delaney responded the tennis courts would be for the residents. Mr. Rea suggested the design of
the path should be pedestrian oriented and he was not opposed to the break-away gate, but it
might not be needed if the design of the path was clearly pedestrian. Mr. Delaney added that all
the features of the development needed to be similarly designed and aesthetically pleasing. Mr.
Rea stated his biggest concern would be the back side of the proposal; adding that the Village
Terraces proposal had been more detailed and had given the DRB more to discuss.
Mr. Howe stated he would be interested to see the graphics for the architecture at the Preliminary
121
Design Review Board Minutes – March 14, 2007 3
Plan PUD stage; he was in support of the requested relaxations and not extending Front Street.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with previous DRB statements that Front Street did not need
extended as long as it maintained a pedestrian appearance. He stated he could not envision the
distance proposed in between the structures being enough of a space. Mr. Delaney responded
there were several locations in older parts of town where you could stand between two homes,
extend your arms and touch them both, but they were some of the best houses that had been
built; he added that the proposed distance between these structures seemed like a lot compared to
some. Mr. Renslow stated the closeness of the structures would provide for a sense of
community. Mr. Banziger stated he would like to see architectural renderings before he made a
judgment on the proposal adding that he needed to see the quality of what the space would look
like before he passed judgment on the requested relaxations. He stated he would like to see the
reason that the City Engineering Department wanted Front Street to be extended as it did not
seem necessary at this time.
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he encouraged that Front Street not be extended as it
would change the entire character of the development. He stated he had no problem with the
requested relaxation for the rear setback as the lots had no houses across the alley and it would
work fine. He stated he was not in agreement with Mr. Banziger’s comment regarding the four
foot setback and suggested articulating the sides of the structures. He stated the rear garage
being ten feet from the house would not allow for a back porch and suggested moving forward
with the requested relaxation. He asked the allowable distance of separation from protected
openings to the property line. Planner Windemaker responded she thought the allowable
distance was three feet. He stated the only question he had was what the elevation grade change
would be. Mr. Delaney responded the change in elevation would be 15-20 feet. Chairperson Pro
Tem Pentecost stated there would be a grade differential aside from the differential between
three-story and two-story structures. Mr. Delaney added there would be incorporated roofs.
Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost stated he thought the proposal had potential.
Planner Windemaker asked if the applicant had considered a zero lot line on one side as the
narrow side yards would have landscaping issues. Mr. Delaney responded that the problem with
zero lot lines would be the lack of windows below six feet. Planner Windemaker asked how Mr.
Delaney would address the landscaping in those locations. Mr. Delaney responded there would
be no fences between the living portions of the houses and they would instead incorporate
landscaped features to provide separation.
Mr. Banziger stated he was more conservative than Chairperson Pro Tem Pentecost and he
would need to see three dimensional graphics before he offered any more suggestions. Mr.
Delaney stated the cul-de-sacs would provide a sense of safety. Planner Windemaker responded
that the police had studied and found that cul-de-sacs were not the safest place as more crimes
occurred in those locations.
Mr. Howe asked what the extension of Front Street would serve. Planner Windemaker
responded it was the police, fire, and engineering departments that were concerned with
circulation and public safety and those concerns would be served by the extension of Front
Street.
ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review
122
Design Review Board Minutes – March 14, 2007 4
Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
There was no public available for comment at this time.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
________________________________
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson Pro Tem
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
123
Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
1. Name of Project/Development:
2. Property Owner Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
3. Applicant Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
4. Representative Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
5. Legal Description:
6. Street Address:
7. Project Description:
8. Zoning Designation(s): 9. Current Land Use(s):
10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation:
124
Page 2
(Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03)
11. Gross Area: Acres: Square Feet: 12. Net Area: Acres: Square Feet:
13. Is the Subject Site Within an Overlay District? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14
13a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor
14. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes No
15. Application Type (please check all that apply): O. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan
A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands P. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan
B. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site Q. Planned Unit Development – Final Plan
C. Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 R. Planned Unit Development – Master Plan
D. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development, Amendment /COA S. Subdivision Pre-application
E. Special Temporary Use Permit T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat
F. Sketch Plan/COA U. Subdivision Final Plat
G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use V. Subdivision Exemption
H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA W. Annexation
I. Preliminary Site Plan X. Zoning Map Amendment
J. Preliminary Master Site Plan Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment
K. Conditional Use Permit Z. Zoning Variance
L. Conditional Use Permit/COA AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment
M. Administrative Project Decision Appeal BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment
N. Administrative Interpretation Appeal Other:
This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s), number of plans or plats, adjoiner information and materials, and fee
(see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½-
by 11-inches or larger than 24- by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8½- by 14-inches. If 3-ring binders will be used,
they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are 5:00 pm every Tuesday. This
application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted.
As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development, approved by the
City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by
the approval authority. Finally, I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project.
I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
125
Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
1. Name of Project/Development:
2. Property Owner Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
3. Applicant Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
4. Representative Information:
Name: E-mail Address:
Mailing Address:
Phone: FAX:
5. Legal Description:
6. Street Address:
7. Project Description:
8. Zoning Designation(s): 9. Current Land Use(s):
10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation:
126
Page 2
(Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03)
11. Gross Area: Acres: Square Feet: 12. Net Area: Acres: Square Feet:
13. Is the Subject Site Within an Overlay District? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14
13a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor
14. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes No
15. Application Type (please check all that apply): O. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan
A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands P. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan
B. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site Q. Planned Unit Development – Final Plan
C. Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 R. Planned Unit Development – Master Plan
D. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development, Amendment /COA S. Subdivision Pre-application
E. Special Temporary Use Permit T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat
F. Sketch Plan/COA U. Subdivision Final Plat
G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use V. Subdivision Exemption
H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA W. Annexation
I. Preliminary Site Plan X. Zoning Map Amendment
J. Preliminary Master Site Plan Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment
K. Conditional Use Permit Z. Zoning Variance
L. Conditional Use Permit/COA AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment
M. Administrative Project Decision Appeal BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment
N. Administrative Interpretation Appeal Other:
This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s), number of plans or plats, adjoiner information and materials, and fee
(see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½-
by 11-inches or larger than 24- by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8½- by 14-inches. If 3-ring binders will be used,
they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are 5:00 pm every Tuesday. This
application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted.
As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development, approved by the
City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by
the approval authority. Finally, I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project.
I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Applicant’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
Property Owner’s Signature: Date:
127
128
129