The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18567 DRB staff report 4-2-19 DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 1 of 11 Application No. 18567 Type Site Plan (SP) Project Name Enterprise Apartments Summary Site plan application for a three-story, 60-unit apartment building consisting of 21 one- bedroom units and 39 two-bedroom units. The application provides 109 parking spaces. Zoning R-4 Growth Policy Residential Parcel Size 2.33 acres Overlay District(s) N/A Street Address 300 Enterprise Blvd., Bozeman MT Legal Description Meadow Creek Sub Ph 1, S23, T02 S, R05 E, Block 1, Lot 1, Plat J-453 Plus Common Areas Owner Zermatt LLC, 115 West Kagy Blvd, Suite L, Bozeman, MT 59715 Applicant Allied Engineering Services (attn: Rory Romey), 32 Discovery Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718 Staff Planner Melissa Pope Engineer Anna Russell Noticing Public Comment Period Site Posted Adjacent Owners Mailed Newspaper Legal Ad TBD TBD TBD N/A Advisory Boards Development Review Committee Adequacy determination March 18, 2019 Advisory Boards Design Review Board Reviewing April 10, 2019 Recommendation Approval with conditions Decision Authority Director of Community Development Date Full application and file of record: Community Development Department, 20 E. Olive St., Bozeman, MT 59715 DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 2 of 11 PROJECT SUMMARY SECTION 38.230.040: DRB REVIEW THRESHOLDS When a development is subject to design review and meets one or more of the following thresholds the design review board must conduct the design review: 1. Forty-five or more dwelling units*; 2. Thirty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial space, service commercial space or industrial space; 3. Four stories or more; 4. Twenty thousand or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or goods; 5. Parking for more than 90 vehicles* *The subject application meets two of the above DRB thresholds and therefore requires their review. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. 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. 2. Per Section 38.570.040.G ground-mounted sign lighting may be used only for monument style signs. Fixtures used to illuminate signs must be aimed so as not to project their output beyond the sign. CODE PROVISIONS Code provisions required by the Development Review Committee are still being satisfied by the applicant. All required revisions listed below are expected to be addressed prior to Site Plan approval. 1. Section 38.570.040.G Site lighting. All outdoor lighting must be designed and located such that the maximum illumination measured in footcandles at the property line may not exceed 0.3 onto adjacent residential properties and 1.0 onto adjacent commercial properties and public rights-of-way. There are a couple instances of the lighting exceeding 0.3 footcandles on the northwest property line. 2. Section 38.520.060. On-site residential open space a. On the north of the project site the “common open space” does not meet standards. When programming this space, also consider regulated activities in wetlands and watercourse setback areas. b. Only up to 50% of the required open space may be provided by private balconies. The calculation of open space on the cover sheet and C1.2 is incorrect. 3. The number of bicycle stalls written on sheet C1.2 says 16 stalls, although more bike racks are now being provided. Revise the text so it accurately reflects that 24 stalls are being provided. 4. Section 38.520.070.C.2. Landscaping of a minimum of 5’ in width on the sides of the trash enclosure is required. The Landscape and Irrigation plans do not show any landscaping beside the trash enclosure. 5. A storm drainage maintenance plan will need to be incorporated into the Owners Association Documents and a copy must be submitted prior to Site Plan approval. The maintenance recommendations in the storm Drainage Report are missing the following items: a. Short, mid, and long-term budget estimates b. Financing mechanisms DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 3 of 11 6. The applicant must provide a watercourse setback planting plan for the wetland setback area within the property boundary. Include the planting plan with the wetland package submittal. 7. The applicant must provide an aquatic resources map within the wetland package submittal. A map of “current conditions (i.e. delineation results is required in all delineations reports). An aerial photo superimposed with delineation boundaries of all aquatic resources, their IDs, callouts, or a table of wetland acreage and streambed linear feet, and data point locations should be included. 8. A noxious weed management plan must be included with the wetland package submittal. 9. The applicant must verify with the USACE whether a 404 permit is required to modify the outlet structure. Submit correspondence to the City and include a brief sentence in the Stormwater report describing if it is or isn’t. 10. The applicant must verify with Montana DEQ whether a 404 permit is required for this project. Submit correspondence to the City and include a brief sentence in the Stormwater report describing if one isn’t required or if it is, if it already exists. 11. The applicant must verify with Montana DNRC whether a 310 permit is required. Submit correspondence to the City and include a brief sentence in the Stormwater report describing if it is or isn’t. 12. The applicant must verify with Montana DEQ whether a 318 permit is required due to any constructio n activity which may increase turbidity temporarily. Submit correspondence to the City. DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 4 of 11 Figure 1: Vicinity Map of 300 Enterprise Blvd. DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 5 of 11 Figure 2: Perspective Views of Proposed Site Plan DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 6 of 11 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application materials, municipal codes, standards, plans, public comment, and all other materials available during the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review. The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review. Plan Review, Section 38.230.100, BMC In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the Director of Community Development shall consider the following: 1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy 38.100.040 B Meets Code? Growth Policy Land Use Residential Yes Zoning R-4 (Residential High Density District) Yes Comments: The uses are allowed within the zoning district with the approval of this application, pursuant to Section 38.310 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The property is within the City’s municipal service area and otherwise complies with the goals and objectives of the growth policy. No conflicts between the proposed uses, zoning compliance and the growth policy are identified. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations 38.200.160 Meets Code? Current Violations None Yes Comments: 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. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations 38.100.080 Meets Code? Conflicts None Yes Condominium ownership NA NA Comments: Private neighborhood bylaws, covenants, conditions and restrictions are not administered or enforced by the City of Bozeman. Applications are reviewed and evaluated against the Bozeman Municipal Code. No conflicts with the conformance with laws, ordinances and building regulations have been identified during the Site Plan review. 4. Conformance with special review criteria for applicable permit types as specified in article 2 Meets Code? Type Site Plan Yes Comments: NA 5. Conformance with zoning provisions of article 3 38.230.100 Meets Code? Permitted uses 38.310 Apartment Yes Form and intensity standards 38.320 Yes Zoning R-4 Setbacks (feet) Structures Parking / Loading Yes Front 10’ 10’ Rear 20’ 20’ DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 7 of 11 Side 5’ 5’ Alley NA NA Watercourse 50’ Wetland Yes Block Frontage Landscaped 10’ Yes Comments: Meadow Creek to the north of the property requires a 50’ watercourse setback and associated watercourse planting plans. The ‘wetland’ on the stormwater parcel to the west of the site does not require special setback provisions per Section 38.610.010 (“the regulations do not apply to wetlands created by a wholly manmade water source used for irrigation purposes or stormwater control”). Watercourse setback planting plan still to be provided for review. Relationship to adjacent properties standards 38.520.030 (light and air access and privacy) and angled setback plane 38.360.030 Yes Applicable zone specific or overlay standards 38.330-340 NA Building Height R-4 Requirements 38.320.010-.060 Yes Lot coverage 26.5% Allowed 50% Height 34’ and 38’ Allowed 38’ for a 3:12 pitch Yes Comments: 3:12 pitch accent roof features are shown at 38’ in height; the roof interior to the accent roof pitches is flat and is 34’ in height. 6a(1). Conformance with the community design provisions of article 4: Transportation facilities and access 38.400 Meets Code? Street vision triangles Yes Yes Secondary access Yes Traffic Impact Study / LOS NA Transportation grid adequate to serve site Yes Yes Comments: A Traffic Impact Study was not required by the Engineering Division. Street dedication NA Yes Drive access locations and widths Yes Number of drive accesses 2 Yes Street easements NA Special Improvement Districts NA NA Comments: Conformance with this section or Article 4 was reviewed by the Engineering Division. No outstanding code provisions were identified. 6a(2). Conformance with the community design provisions of article 4: Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress 38.400 Meets Code? Design of the pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems to assure that pedestrians and vehicles can move safely and easily both within the site and between properties and activities within the neighborhood area Yes Pedestrian access location(s) Yes Fire lanes, curbs, signage and striping Yes Non-automotive transportation and circulation systems, design features to enhance convenience and safety across parking lots and streets, including, but not limited to paving patterns, grade differences, landscaping and lighting Crosswalks Yes Curb ramps Yes Pedestrian lighting Yes Comments: There is an existing sidewalk network that is integrated with the City. There are no known DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 8 of 11 obstructions to the site vision triangles. Curbing and gutters on Enterprise Blvd and Lantern Drive already exist. Concrete walkway will be installed to provide safer pedestrian walkways through the parking lot. 7-foot walkways were required where parking spaces are adjacent to the walkway. Lighting complies with dark sky and lighting requirements. Adequate connection and integration of the pedestrian and vehicular transportation systems to the systems in adjacent development and the general community Yes Access easements NA Yes Dedication of right-of-way or easements necessary for pedestrian, shared use pathway and similar transportation facilities NA Comments: A water and sewer easement was provided by the applicant. 6b Community design and element provisions 38.410 Meets Code? Lot and block standards 38.410.040 Yes Rights of way for pedestrians alternative block delineation NA Comments: Landscape block frontage Provisions for utilities including efficient public services and utilities 38.410.050-060 Yes Municipal infrastructure requirements Yes Easements (City and public utility rights-of-way etc.) Yes Water, sewer, and stormwater Yes Other utilities (electric, natural gas, communications) Yes CIL of water rights Yes Comments: Adequate cash in lieu of water rights were provided with the Meadow Creek subdivision. The amount allocated to Lot 1 Block 1 is 6.8 AF. The typical multiple family unit demand of 0.124 AF/unit paid allowed for up to 62 dwelling units to be built on this lot. Public Works Division did not require additional CILWR since the units built is less than 62 units. A water and sewer easement was provided by the applicant. Site Surface Drainage and stormwater control 38.410.080 Yes Location, design and capacity Yes Landscaping per 38.410.080.H Yes Comments: Grading and drainage plan was reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. Grading 38.410.080 Yes Maximum 1:4 slope requirements met Yes Comments: Stormwater detention exclusively on adjacent property. Existing pond serves Meadow Creek Subdivision and will be expanded to serve this proposed development as well. 6c. Park and recreation requirements 38.420 Meets Code? Enhancement of natural environment NA Wildlife habitat or feeding area preservation NA Maintenance of public park or public open space access NA Park/Recreational area design NA Parkland Cash-in-lieu for maximum known density not to exceed 12 units/acre (ac.). NA ___ ac. X ___ units/ac. X 0.03 ac.= _____ ac. Cash donation in-lieu NA NA Improvements in-lieu NA NA Comments: Parkland dedication already satisfied during subdivision. Determination from Director of Parks & Recreation will be provided in the final application materials. DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 9 of 11 7a-c. Conformance with the project design provisions of Article 5, Compatibility, Design and Arrangement Meets Code? Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to architectural design, building mass, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration Yes Block Frontage Standards 38.510 Yes Building Design 38.530 Yes Location and design of service areas and mechanical equipment 38.520.070 Yes Comments: Mechanical screening is achieved by integrating the panels in to the architectural fabric and covering them with matching doors. Design and arrangement of the elements of the plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) so that activities are integrated with the organizational scheme of the community, neighborhood, and other approved development and produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive development Yes Relationship to adjacent properties 38.520.030 Yes Non-motorized circulation and design 38.520.040 Yes Vehicular circulation and parking 38.520.050 Yes Comments: A sidewalk has been added to the project proposal to connect the sidewalk on Enterprise Blvd. on to the property and so it meets the site circulation requirements. A proportionately designed main entrance from Lantern Drive satisfies the building entrance design requirements. Other primary building entries are legible. Design and arrangement of elements of the plan (e.g., buildings circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with the existing natural topography, natural water bodies and water courses, existing vegetation, and to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration Yes Site Planning and Design Elements 38.520 Comments: Building footprint and site layout has maintained a 50’ watercourse setback as required by the review authority. 7d. Conformance with the project design provisions of Article 5, Landscaping including the enhancement of buildings, appearance of vehicular use, open space and pedestrian area and the preservation of replacement of natural vegetation Meets Code? Submittal requirements for landscape plans 38.220.100 Yes Mandatory landscaping 38.550.050 Yes Yard Yes Additional screening NA Parking lot screening Yes Interior parking lot landscape Yes Off-street loading spaces screening NA Street frontage Yes Street median island NA Acceptable landscape materials Yes Protection of landscape areas Yes Irrigation: plan, water source, system type Yes (incl. rain/freeze sensor) Trees for residential adjacency Yes Performance points 23 required (25 provided) NA DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 10 of 11 City rights-of-way and parks Yes Tree plantings for boulevard ROW, drought-resistant seed Yes Public ROW boulevard strips Yes Irrigation and maintenance provisions for ROW Yes State ROW landscaping NA Additional NA NA Fencing and walls NA NA Comments: All landscaping requirements are met. Pedestrian area landscaping, including pathways and internal circulation 38.520.040 Yes Internal roadway landscaping 38.520.050 NA Open space landscaping 38.520.060 No Service area and mechanical equipment landscaping and screening 38.520.070 Yes Comments: The common open space area includes the following amenities: BBQ, fire pit, a variety of outdoor seating. Common open space requirements not satisfied, see section 7e (below). 7e. Conformance with the project design provisions of Article 5, Open Space Meets Code? Open Space No Total required 7,950-sf No Total provided 5,395-sf No Comments: The common open space area includes the following amenities: BBQ, fire pit, a variety of outdoor seating. Minimum required residential open space has not been satisfied. The common open space area designated on the north of the project site does not meet standards. 7f. Conformance with the project design provisions of Article 5, Lighting 38.570 Meets Code? Building-mounted lighting (cutoff and temperature) Yes Site lighting (supports, cutoff and temperature) Yes Minimum light trespass at property line No Comments: Parking lot and site lighting surpasses 0.3 footcandles onto the adjacent residential zoned property. 7g. Conformance with the project design provisions of Article 5, Signage 38.560 Meets Code? Allowed (sq. ft)/building 16 Yes Proposed (sq. ft) 16 Comments: No signage is approved with the approval of this application. A sign permit is required for the installation of all signage. 8a-c. Conformance with environmental and open space objectives in articles 4- 6 Meets Code? Enhancement of natural environment: Integrated stormwater, LID, removal of inappropriate fill Yes Grading Yes On-site retention/detention Yes Comments: The grading and drainage plan was reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division. Stormwater pond Detention Drainage design Yes Stormwater maintenance plan 38.410.030.A Yes Stormwater feature: landscaping amenity, native species, curvilinear, 75% live vegetation Yes DRB Staff Report Enterprise Apartments Site Plan Review Application: 18567 Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Comments: The stormwater maintenance plan must be incorporated into the Owners Associate Documents and recorded at the County clerk and recorder. There are currently two outstanding items from the stormwater report, specified in the Code Provisions section of Page 2 of this report. Watercourse and wetland protections and associated wildlife habitats Yes If the development is adjacent to an existing or approved public park or public open space area, have provisions been made in the plan to avoid interfering with public access to and use of that area NA Comments: Watercourse zone plantings are not yet provided on the Landscape plan, but are required prior to consideration of final approval. 9. Conformance with the natural resource protection provisions of articles 4-6 Meets Code? Watercourse setback 38.410.100 Yes Watercourse setback planting plan No Floodplain regulations 38.600 Yes Wetland regulations 38.610 Yes Comments: A 50’ watercourse setback is shown on the site plan. The wetland delineation report was reviewed by a professional wetland consultant to the City and the consultant’s finding were reviewed by the Engineering Division. On 3/27/19 the applicant’s were provided with a list of application revisions pertaining to the wetland. These revisions are anticipated to be resolved prior to being considered for site plan approval (see Code Provisions section of this report on Page 2) 12. Phasing of development 38.230.020.B including buildings and infrastructure Meets Code? Phasing No # of phases NA Yes Comments: NA