Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14. A3 Village1 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Valerie Sutton, Senior Planner Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Village Downtown Lofts Planned Unit Development – Request for Extension of Final Site Plan Approval – Z14390 MEETING DATE: February 9, 2015 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Delaney & Company’s request for a five (5) year extension of their Village Downtown Lofts Planned Unit Development Final Site Plan, extending the approval until May 3, 2020. BACKGROUND: As noted in the attached application, Delaney & Company have requested a five (5) year extension to their Village Downtown Lofts Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Site Plan approval. Buildings A and B (located on the west side of Village Downtown Boulevard) have been constructed. Buildings C and D (located on the east side of Village Downtown Boulevard) have not been constructed and are subsequently the issue of this request. According to BMC Section 38.20.060.B (Duration of Final “PUD” Plan Approval), this extension request must be reviewed and approved by the City Commission. Site Plan 265 2 The Final PUD Site Plan for these four buildings was originally approved on May 3, 2005. Under the allowances of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), in 2007 the Planning Director administratively granted two six month extensions. In June of 2008, the City Commission approved an additional two year extension (expired May 3, 2010). An additional extension of five (5) years, or until May 3, 2015, was subsequently granted by the Commission March 22, 2010. The current request would extend the Final PUD Site Plan another five (5) years to May 3, 2020. Under the terms of the BMC governing Final Site Plans, these types of extension requests require the Planning Director/City Commission to “determine whether the relevant terms of this title and circumstances have (or have not) significantly changed since the initial approval.” The only significant ordinance change that has been made since the original approval of this site plan that would/could materially affect this project is the adoption of the Workforce Housing Ordinance in August of 2007. However, this ordinance is currently suspended and under review for potential reinstatement, revision or replacement. This extension request was discussed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) at their January 14, 2015 meeting and no code related issues or circumstances were identified that would preclude approval of the requested final PUD site plan extension. While this request would effectively extend a site plan approval for thirteen (13) years beyond the original expiration date (May 2, 2007), it is important to consider that fact that the public infrastructure (e.g. streets, sidewalk, street lights, water, sewer, etc). to serve this development has already been completed. In addition, the developer is not proposing any changes to the approved plan. The longest initial site plan approval period contemplated in the BMC is for five (5) years for a “Master Site Plan” or the development guidelines for a “Phased PUD”. Because the required public infrastructure to serve the two (2) unconstructed buildings has been completed, it is self-evident that the developer has already expended significant resources to complete this work. Only construction of the remaining buildings and typical site work to serve them is outstanding. The developer states in the extension application that the decision to defer construction on the remaining two buildings in the project is still market driven, and that the ability to complete the project is not an issue. FISCAL EFFECTS: The standard application fee for review of site plan extension requests was received and added to the Community Development Department’s application fee revenue. Approval of this extension allows for timely development of the site to create new taxable residences. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the extension as requested. 2) Approve a different extension time. 3) Denial of the extension request. 4) As suggested by the Commission. Attachments: Applicant’s Extension Request Application Report compiled on: January 29, 2015 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274