Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19320 Annex of Bozeman SP - Parks Review Memo 2 MEMORANDUM 2 FROM: ADDI JADIN, PARKS PLANNER AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGER TO: SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE OF RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY BOARD RE: COTTONWOOD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION 19401 DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2019 New comments are provided in green. Recommended motion follows review comments. 26. Parkland dedication is required for each residential unit proposed. Please refer to section 38.420.020 for details. The B-2M zoning district is capped at 12 dwelling unit per net acre for parkland dedication. Based on general assessments of the site approximately 1.8 acres of parkland or equivalent will be required. A combination of land dedication and improvements/cash-in-lieu of land dedication is proposed. Please refer to Resolution No. 4784 for specific criteria when the City may consider alternatives other than land dedication. Applicant Response: The proposed development will utilize both options for meeting this requirement for Parkland dedication. The applicant met with staff in the Parks department to identify appropriate options and develop an approach amenable to the Parks department. This includes a dedicated Park area of 15,640 sf for public use the remainder of the requirement is proposed to be met through the improvements-in-lieu and “fee-in-lieu” option outlined in 38.420.030. Please see narrative for further details and site plan for parkland location. 2019/08/22 Comments: 1. Based on the net lot area of 4.36 acres, the total park area required is 1.57 acres; however, staff does not agree with the area provided as parkland which currently includes the area of utilities, snow storage for the private parking area, and the residential sidewalk on the west end. Removal of these elements from the park area will impact the net lot area and the reported area of parkland provided. 2. There is a discrepancy between the area depicted on Sheet A.10 (15,895 sf), that described in the narrative (15,640 sf), and that shown in the Park Tracking Table on the Cover Sheet (15,895 sf). Please clarify and make corrections. 3. This original comment from Planning included an assessment of park land based on group living. Please clarify/correct. 2019/10/11 Comment: Applicants have clarified that the application will be reviewed as group living which would require 67,689 square feet of parkland for the 4.36 net acre property. Because initial and subsequent development in non-residential zoning districts typically requires all parkland as cash-in-lieu, staff recommends approval of the park plan as a combination of a mini park and improvements-in-lieu (with required revisions and variance or administrative determination described below). Further discussion is needed regarding utilities within the park. Required improvements in lieu equivalent to 67,689 square feet (0.33 acres) must amount to $85,418. Notes on the Cover Sheet indicate that $108,000 has been provided as improvements in lieu. Staff does not include signage or general installation in the calculation, resulting in a value closer to $95,000 which meets standards. 1. REVISION REQUIRED: Cover sheet and park plan narrative must be amended per above comments. Please provide park plan as a separate document. 27. Section 38.420.060 requires parkland must have frontage along 100 percent of its perimeter on public or private streets or roads. The city may consider and approve the installation of streets along less than 100 percent, but not less than 50 percent in certain situations. Streets are defined as a right-of-way, dedicated or otherwise legally established, for public use by motorized and non-motorized vehicles and pedestrians, usually affording the principal means of access to abutting property. Right-of-way width and construction standards are included in the most recently adopted long range transportation plan; the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications. Alleys do not meet these standards. See section 38.420.060, BMC for additional requirements for parks without 100 percent street frontage. Applicant Response: The proposed parkland area meets the minimum of 50% of the perimeter area with the adjacency to Remington Way and Stockman Way. Both edges of the proposed parkland are accessible to the public sidewalks and are connected to the internal pedestrian circulation within the development, refer to the narrative for further details and specifics. 2019/08/22 Comments: 4. Per Planning conceptual comment, Stockman Way is an alley and cannot be counted toward the park frontage. Furthermore, the park area currently fronts on a utility area and private snow storage area to the east rather than Stockman Way. Provide other determination or a variance would be required. Because the constraints of the building are self-imposed, staff does not see that a variance would be granted. (See also comment 6) 5. When less than the standard 100% frontage is provided, applicants must mitigate the lack of frontage. Applicants propose to mitigate with access to internal pedestrian circulation, but no public access easement over those sidewalks is provided. Furthermore, the pedestrian pathways are not treated in any manner to make it known that the general public would be allowed within the internal residential sidewalk area. When proposing a reduction from 100% to 50%, further mitigation seems appropriate particularly considering the parking lot adjacency and proximity to residential service entry (see Trail/park frontage examples in Figure 38.510.030.I. for design ideas that provide clear delineation between public and private space or activate the park area-- although the proposal may not be required to meet the frontage for Trail/park block frontage because of other frontage required, these ideas could be employed to mitigate the reduced park frontage). Applicants must separate out elements provided for frontage mitigation Improvements-in-Lieu as allowed in 38.420.060.A.2.c. from other improvements-in-lieu proposed to meet the balance of the park area requirement. 2019/10/11 Comment: It may be appropriate to allow the parkland as shown given the public easement provided along the east property boundary however an administrative determination is required. The park fits the description of a Mini Park as defined in the PROST plan which recommends 50 feet of frontage. PROST Description of Mini Park: Mini Park. Mini parks are used to address limited, isolated or unique recreational needs. They are often developed as tot lots to provide recreational opportunities for young children with slides, swings, spring toys and the like. They may also function as landscaped public use areas in commercialized parts of town. The service area for a mini park is a ¼-mile radius around the park in a residential setting. Accessibility by way of interconnecting trails, sidewalks, or low- volume residential streets increases use opportunities. Recognizable public access should be provided with at least 50 feet of frontage on a public or approved private street. In terms of size, they are generally between 2,500 square feet and one acre in size. Soroptomist and Creekside Parks are good examples of mini parks. 2. REVISION REQUIRED Provide Written Determination from Planning. 28. For additional alternatives to meet minimum parkland dedications requirements please review section 38.420.100, BMC details waiver of required park dedication. KTGY Response: The applicants has met with the Parks department to discuss options for meeting the parkland dedication requirement. Refer to the narrative for specifics. 2019-08-22 Comment: 6. In the meeting with Planning, staff suggested that the area of parkland provided may be acceptable given the size of the overall parcel, however, considerable mitigation would be required to compensate for the parkland frontage, reduction in parkland, parking lot adjacency, utilities within the park and close residential proximity. It was suggested that a visual connection between this park and the park to the west could help to improve the parkland frontage and public perception about the public/private interface. The proposal gives only a small percentage of the parkland required for the development and the application notes its design is more in line with a mini-park as described in the PROST plan. This may be appropriate but Parks staff does not see how to overcome the frontage requirement particularly because the constraints of the building/site design are self-imposed. 2019/10/11 Comment: Per previous comments and adjustments made in the application, staff recommends approval of the park plan as a mini park. 7. Please respond to all CIL criteria from Resolution 4784 including the primary and secondary criteria. 2019/10/11 Comment: Subdivision Review Committee must review the CIL criteria and forward a recommend to the Parks Director for final review: Primary criteria: • City’s preference for acquisition of land- the application provides a mini park in a zoning district that would normally require only CIL. • Desirability and suitability of land – the park meets the description of a mini park which is suited for a more urban condition and infill project. • Proximity to existing parks – there is a nearby park with active recreation area. There are no parks within the 10-minute walk/1/2-mile threshold • Type of facilities within nearby parks - there is a nearby park with active recreation area but the area provides a relatively low level of service for parks. The amenities in the park dramatically improve the los in the area with pavilion, active sports court, picnic tables and lawn games • Correspondence with the city-wide park master plan – the park meets the description of a mini park in the PROST plan and has provided improvements exceeding those outlined on page 7-31 which are: benches, play equipment or features, trees, fencing, dog station. The proposal includes features more conducive to the expected college-age students to be residing in the development such as permanent bean bag toss, volleyball court, bike racks, and grilling stations. • Availability of partnerships or grant money – na/ the park will be fully built prior to occupancy • Maintenance by property owners – maintenance will be required • Long-term Maintenance – a parks and trail district will be presented to voters in 2020 • Requirements for parkland based on project density – the park plan and Improvements-in- lieu proposal meet current standards and appraisal value of $1.60 • Expressed preference of developer – condition met Secondary criteria: • Repeat comment – see above • Maintenance for CIL-receiving area – n/a; IIL proposed • Unable to meet development standards – based on the lot size, meeting full parkland dedication would be a significant portion of the lot size. CIL/IIL is preferred in non- residential zoning districts • Area less than 5300 sf – the park provided is larger than the minimum preferred park area • Cannot readily add land to an existing park or extend a trail network – the property is not immediately adjacent to these features. Joining the park with onsite open space or adjacent park would have been preferred • Repeat comment – see above • Mixed use development in a commercial area – yes • Infill location – yes • Repeat comment – see above 8. No CIL and IIL proposal is provided, stating that this will be done at the recommendation of the RPAB. Applicants are recommended to coordinate a meeting with the Subdivision Review Committee prior to resubmittal to get input directly from the committee members. Currently, staff is planning a meeting for either September 6 or 12th. A proposal prior to that meeting is appropriate. 9. Please submit a park name with proposal. 2019/10/11 Comment: Issues resolved. Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, staff memo, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 19320 and move to recommend approval to the review authority of the Stockman Park Plan subject to conditions and all applicable code provisions.