Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19460 Mountain Vista - CILP Memo w Application Materials MEMORANDUM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Subdivision Review Committee FROM: Addi Jadin, Parks Planning and Development Manager RE: 19460 Mountain Vista Housing Complex Site Plan DATE: May 15, 2020 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to section 38.420.030.A, BMC, the review authority may determine whether the park dedication must be a land dedication, cash donation in-lieu of land dedication or a combination of both. For the purposes of this section construction of park improvements above the minimum improvements required by ordinance may be allowed as a method of cash donation. All proposed dedication of land and cash-in-lieu must meet standards of 38.420., BMC. Project Project Name: MOUNTAIN VISTA HOUSING COMPLEX Type: SITE PLAN File Number: 19460 Zoning Classification: R-2 Description: A proposed 25-unit residential development in single and two-household building configurations with associated site improvements on a 2.43 acre lot (1.93 net residential acres) zoned R-2. Calculations WITH DENSITY CAP Parcel size (acreage) 1.93 Units 25 Density (units/acre) 12.95 With Density Cap (10 du/acre for R-2 development) 10 DU per acre x 1.93 acres Parkland owed for 19.3 units Land area required 19.3 units x 0.03 acres/unit (square feet) 0.58 acres (25,264.80) Value per square foot City established value at final plat or final site plan approval $1.60 City approved cost appraisal NA Total cash value $40,423.68 Review Criteria The Bozeman City Commission delegated authority to the Parks and Recreation Director the authority to evaluate requests for authorization of accepting cash-in-lieu and improvements-in-lieu of parkland dedication through Resolution 4614. Further, Resolution #4784 establishes criteria for evaluation of requests for use of cash-in-lieu and improvements-in-lieu of parkland dedication pursuant to section 38.420.030. This delegation includes approval of acceptance of improvements-in-lieu as a subset of cash-in-lieu. Additional guidance is given in Resolution 4784, subsection 3, which may preclude acceptance of cash/improvements-in-lieu even if other criteria are favorable. Findings FINDINGS, CHECK ALL THAT APPLY The City’s preference for acquisition of real property for parks. The desirability and suitability of land within or proposed by the developer for parks and playground based on size, topography, shape, water supply, location or other circumstance. Proximity of the development to existing parks and recreation facilities. Type, function of and facilities including within nearby park(s) (i.e. pocket parks, special use park, neighborhood park, community park, etc.). The level of service (as defined in the adopted city-wide park master plan) provided by nearby parks(s). Correspondence with the City’s adopted city-wide park master plan. Whether the proposal provides an opportunity for partnerships, or whether grant funds are currently available. Whether the developer or future property owners are required to particulate in the costs of maintenance of nearby park or recreational facilities. Long term availability of city funds for maintenance of the proposed facilities. The expressed preference of the developer. WHEN CASH-IN-LIEU WILL ALWAYS BE ACCCEPTED Development is located within the B-3 zoning district Section 38.420.020.A requires payment of cash-in-lieu. FACTORS FOR CONSIDERAION OF IMPROVEMENTS-IN-LIEU are consistent with the master plan for the park where the improvements are proposed, Are included in the city’s most recently adopted city-wide park master plan, or Are included on the capital improvement program for the Parks and Recreation Department. Must be consistent with the city’s approved specifications for park equipment and improvement; and. THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS FOR CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION. DIRECTOR SIGNATURE Mitchell J. Overton, MS, CPRP , Director, Parks & Recreation CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 Cash-in-lieu of parkland must be paid within 30 days of approval by Recreation and Parks Advisory Board. CODE CORRECTIONS 18,0560.6 Miles This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. Feet 2,1030 Legend 1,051 Location 2,103 Addi Jadin CILP Review 08/06/2020 Created By: Created For: Date: 1/2 - mile / 10-minute walk to a park radius 19460 Mountain Vista Site Plan Proposed Application Received On Hold Initial Review In Review Public Notice Final Review Approved Street Names Trails Paved Paths Gravel Paths Proposed Shared Use Paths (PROST) Proposed Trails (PROST) Parks City Limits 1091 Stoneridge Drive • Bozeman, Montana • Phone (406) 587-1115 • Fax (406) 587-9768 www.chengineers.com • E-Mail: info@chengineers.com Civil/Structural Engineering and Surveying February 19, 2020 Addi Jadin City of Bozeman Recreation and Parks Department 20 E. Olive Street Bozeman, MT 59718 RE: Response to Completeness Review Mountain Vista Housing Complex Site Plan Application (#180334) Dear Ms. Jadin: This letter is to provide a narrative response to the criteria laid out in Resolution 4784 stating whether the project does or does not meet each criterion. Reponses are in bold. • The City's preference for acquisition of real property for parks As an infill project with limited public street frontage, this project cannot meet this criterion. • The desirability and suitability of land within or proposed by the development for parks and playgrounds based on size, topography, shape, water supply, location or other circumstances. The property is border by existing residential development and a city collector street. Development of parks or playgrounds within the project is not considered desirable. • Proximity of the development to existing parks and recreational facilities. The property is adjacent to the existing trail system that connects to the Bozeman Ponds Park and Lewis and Bark Dog Park through Babcock Meadows. • Type, function of and facilities included within nearby park(s) (i.e., pocket park, special use park, neighborhood park, community park, etc.). The project is adjacent to existing neighborhood parks (Babcock Meadows) and in close proximity to a community park (Bozeman Ponds) Civil/Structural Engineering and Surveying • The level of service (as defined in the adopted city-wide park master plan) provided by nearby park(s). • Bozeman Ponds Park has recently been improved with new park facilities. The park is not expected to have a low level of service. • Whether the proposal provides an opportunity for partnerships, or whether grant funds are currently available. No use of grant funds or partnership opportunities are proposed with the project. • Whether the developer or future property owners are required to participate in the costs of maintenance of nearby park or recreational facilities. The developer or future property owners are not required to participate in the costs of maintenance of near by facilities. • Long term availability of city funds for maintenance of the proposed facilities. No facilities are proposed with this project. • Requirements established pursuant to 38.27 .020 and 38.27.030, BMC regarding residential density. The project is not expected to be affected by the above section of the BMC. • The expressed preference of the developer. The developer’s preference for the proposed project is to pay Cash In-Lieu of Parkland. In addition to the above criterion, the project is an infill project that is adequately connected to the existing parks in the area. As such, the Cash In-Lieu of Parkland has been requested to meet the parkland requirements of the developments. If you require any further information, please give me a call at (406) 587-1115. Sincerely, Andrew Kirsch, EI Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 1 of 22 Application No. 19460 Type Site Plan Project Name Mountain Vista Housing Complex Site Plan Summa ry A proposed 25-unit residential development in single and two-household building configurations with associated site improvements on a 2.43 acre lot zoned R-2. Zoning R-2 Growth Policy Residential Moderate Density District Parcel Size 2.43 Acres 106,053 Sq. Ft Overlay District(s) None Street Address 2829 W. Babcock St., Bozeman MT, 59718 Legal Description The SW ¼, Sec. 11, T. 2 S, R 5 E. of P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, MT. Owner Glen Haven Properties, Inc., 1516 W. Babcock St. Ste 1, Bozeman, MT 59715 Applicant Ryan McIntosh – McIntosh Construction, mcintoshconstruction@bresnan.net Representative C&H Engineering, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718, dkirsch@chengineers.com Staff Planner Danielle Garber Engineer Anna Russell Noticing Public Comment Period Site Posted Adjacent Owners Mailed Newspaper Legal Ad 4/17/20 – 5/4/20 4/17/20 4/16/20 N/A Advisory Boards Board Date Recommendation NA NA Recom mendation Approval Decision Authority Director of Community Development Date Full application and file of record: Community Development Department, 20 E. Olive St., Bozeman, MT 59715 Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 2 of 22 FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPEAL PROVISIONS CERTIFICATE A) PURSUANT to Chapter 38, Article 2, Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), and other applicable sections of Ch.38, BMC, public notice was given, opportunity to submit comment was provided to affected parties, and a review of the Site Plan described in this report was conducted. The applicant proposed to the City a Site Plan (SP) for a 25-unit residential development in single and two-household building configurations with associated site improvements. The purposes of the Site Plan review were to consider all relevant evidence relating to public health, safety, welfare, and the other purposes of Ch. 38, BMC; to evaluate the proposal against the criteria of Sec. 38.230.100 BMC, and the standards of Ch. 38, BMC; and to determine whether the application should be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. B) It appeared to the Director that all parties and the public wishing to examine the proposed Site Plan and offer comment were provided the opportunity to do so. After receiving the recommendation of the relevant advisory bodies established by Ch. 38, Art. 210, BMC, and considering all matters of record presented with the application and during the public comment period defined by Ch. 38, BMC, the Director has found that the proposed Site Plan would comply with the requirements of the BMC if certain conditions were imposed. Therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come before him regarding this application, the Director makes the following decision. C) The Site Plan meets the criteria of Ch. 38, BMC, and is therefore approved, subject to the conditions listed in this report and the correction of any elements not in conformance with the standards of the Title. The evidence contained in the submittal materials, advisory body review, public testimony, and this report, justifies the conditions imposed on this development to ensure that the Site Plan complies with all applicable regulations, and all applicable criteria of Ch. 38, BMC. On this ______ day of ________________, 2020, Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development, approved with conditions this Site Plan for and on behalf of the City of Bozeman as authorized by Sec. 38.200.010, BMC. D) This Director of Community Development’s project decision may be appealed by filing a documented appeal and paying an appeal fee to the Clerk of the Commission for the City of Bozeman within 10 working days after the date of the final decision as evidenced by the Director’s signature, following the procedures of Sec. 38.250.030, BMC. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 3 of 22 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report. Recommended 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. All grass seed must be financially guaranteed for a minimum period of two years prior to final occupancy of the first building. 3. Site landscaping must be financially guaranteed prior to final occupancy of the first building. 4. All site infrastructure including the drive aisle, curb, cluster mailbox, bicycle parking, landscaping, sidewalks and crosswalks must be completed or financially guaranteed, where appropriate, prior to occupancy of the first building. 5. Payback assessments must be paid prior to Site Plan approval. 6. The applicant must provide a copy of the recorded Waiver of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts prior to Site Plan approval. 7. Provide DNRC exempt well approval prior to final site plan approval. 8. Cash-in-lieu of parkland must be reviewed by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Subdivision Review Committee, be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation, and be paid within 30 days of Parks and Recreation approval, and no later than final occupancy for the first phase. 9. The 10-foot utility easement, and the 30-foot public access and utlity easement must be recorded prior to building permit approval. 10. Cash-in-lieu of water rights must be paid prior to building permit approval. 11. The condominium association declaration must include the stormwater maintenance plan and be reviewed by the City and recorded prior to occupancy of the first phase. 12. The condominium association declaration must include snow removal and maintenance responsibilities for all pedestrian pathways, be approved by the City, and recorded prior to occupancy of the first phase. CODE PROVISIONS 1. BMC Section 38.410.100.A.2.e. The Applicant must provide revised site and landscaping plans removing the concrete sidewalk from zone 2 of the watercourse setback. This sidewalk must be replaced with a gravel fines trail connection that terminates when the pathway meets zone 1 of the watercourse setback. These revisions must be submitted prior to the final site plan approval. Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 4 of 22 Figure 1: Current Zoning Map Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 5 of 22 Figure 2: Proposed site plan Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 6 of 22 Figure 3: Proposed Architecural Site Plan Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 7 of 22 Figure 4: Proposed Elevations, Design #1 (left) & #2 (right) Figure 5: Proposed Elevations, Design #3 (left) & #4.1 (right) Figure 6: Proposed Elevations, Design #4.2 Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 8 of 22 Figure 7: Proposed Landscape Plan Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 9 of 22 Figure 8: Proposed Phasing, Constrution, and Open Space Plan Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 10 of 22 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-2, Residential Moderate Density District Yes Comments: The uses of 1 and 2-household structures are allowed withing the R-2 District. The property is within the City’s municipal service area. Staff finds that the project does contribute to the goals of the growth policy and the residential category including a blending of housing types to achieve the desired density between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre, as well as the following goals and objectives:  Land Use Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or design. This objective is met by providng infill development and housing on an underutilized city zoned lot. The proposed development respects the the context of the existing development surrounding the subject parcel of single and two story, one to four household structures developed in R-3 zoning to the west, north and south. The growth policy encourages development of urban density housing. That aspiration is balanced against other community priorities and “new and existing development must coexist and remain in balance”. Appendix K, Glossary, of the growth policy defines several terms to help the user understand how such coexistence can occur. Compatible development is defined as “The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city’s adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-motorized transportation and open spaces and parks.” Compatible land use is defined as “A land use which may by virtue of the characteristics of its discernible outward effects exist in harmony with an adjoining land use of differing character. Effects often measured to determine compatibility include, but are not limited to noise, odor, light and the presence of physical hazards such as combustible or explosive materials.” As a residential use proposed to meet the required use, form, and intensity of the R-2 zoning district, the objective of compatibility is met.  Housing Objective 1.1: Encourage and support the creation of a broad range of housing types in proximity to services and transportation options. The proposed project meets this objective because the subject parcel is located on an existing collector street, Babcock, with the adjacent park trail to the east connecting to a north-south bike route along Virginia Way and Hunters way, and an established east-west bike lane on Babcock. The Streamline bus system passes by the proposed development with an existing route, and a bus stop 0.11 miles to the west at Wilda Lane and Babcock. Nearby B-2 districts with services are approximately a half mile away to the east along Babcock, including grocery and other shopping opportunities.  Community Quality Objective C-1.3: Support compatible infill within the existing area of the City rather than developing land requiring expansion of the City’s area. This objective is met by developing land within an existing annexed lot according to the adopted zoning standards of Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 11 of 22 the R-2 district. The code standards of the residential district ensure compatibility with adjacent residential districts.  Design Guidelines Objective C-4.2: All new residential buildings should be designed to emphasize the visually interesting features of the building, as seen from the public street and sidewalk. The visual impact of garage doors, driveways, and other off-street parking will be minimized and mitigated. This objective is met by providng drive access and private parking internally, with three units fronting and architecturally addressing the public street and sidewalk with direct pedestrian connections to the sidewalk. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations 38.200.160 Meets Code? Current Violations None Yes Comments: There are no current violations on the subject property 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations 38.100.080 Meets Code? Conflicts None Yes Condominium ownership Yes Yes Comments: No specific conflicts were identified. Additional steps include infrastructure review by the Engineering Division. Condominium review, completion of the conditions of approval with final plan documents, and approval of building permits. The Building Division will review the requirements of the International Building Code for compliance at the time of building permit application. 4. Conformance with Plan Review for applicable permit types as specified in article 2 Section 38.230 Meets Code? Site Plan Yes Comments: The site plan criteria are met with this project. The proposal is compatible and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods. Further review will be required prior to the construction of any structures or site work. 5. Conformance with zoning provisions of article 3 38.320.100 Meets Code? Permitted uses 38.310 Single and two-houshold dwellings Yes Form and intensity standards 38.320 Yes Zoning R-2 Setbacks (feet) Structures Parking / Loading Yes Front 15’ NA Rear 20’ NA Side 5’ 5’ Alley NA NA Comments: R-2 zoning requires a front setback along Babcock (north property line) of 15-feet which the application meets. The side setback of 5-feet is met along the west property line without encroachments. As outlined in BMC Section 38.320.030, all proposed setbacks, lot coverage, and building height are code compliant. The side setback along the east property line is extended to meet the 50-foot watercourse setback for the upper Baxter Creek tributary that runs through the adjacent Babcock Meadows park. A rear setback of 20-feet with allowable encorachments for the patios, design 4.2 in the architectural plans, meets the zoning standard for patios and eave encroachment per Section 38.350.050. Relationship to adjacent properties standards 38.520.030 (light and air access and privacy) and angled setback plane 38.360.030 NA Applicable zone specific or overlay standards 38.330-340 NA Building Height Requirements 38.320.010-.060 Yes Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 12 of 22 Lot coverage 29% Allowed 40% Height 25’ 10” #1 5:12 Pitch 26’ 4” #2 5:12 25’ 8” #3 5:12 26’ 5” #4.1 5:12 26’ 8” #4.2 5:12 Allowed 28’ 3:12 – 6:12 Pitch Yes Comments: Lot coverage of structures is 29% of the 2.4 acre lot meeting the zoning standard which allows a maximum of 40% coverage by structures. Coverage with all structures and hardscape is 62.1%. Building heights range from 25’ 8” to 26’ 8” for a 5:12 pitched roof, below the maximum height allowed of 28-feet. General land use standards and requirements 38.350 Yes Comments: The rear yard encroachment of 2-feet conforms to the allowable setback encroachments outlined in 38.350.050.A.1 & A.3. The location of the garages off an internal drive aisle and not facing Babcock Street meets the provisions of 38.350.070. The standards set forth in 38.350.070.D. are inapplicable to this project because none of the garages face a street. Rather, the garages face an internal drive aisle. Applicable supplemental use criteria 38.360 Yes Supplemental uses/type Townhouse and rowhouse dwellings. Yes Comments: The proposed project is subject to the provisions of Section 38.360.240 and meets the following provisions for rowhouses:  Parking and garage access in section B, no garages face the street, driveway standards are being met.  Covered porches and 20 square feet of planted area for enhanced entrances off an internal vehicular access in Section C. Each unit with primary pedestrian access off the internal drive- aisle is designed with a transitional porch and 50.75 square feet of landscaping. See figure to the right from the Applicant’s landscaping Plan Sheet L-1  Internal drive aisles reviewed by Engineering and for International Fire Code in Section D. The internal drive acess is designed with an at-grade embedded concrete sidewalk pedestrian system, the specified minimum access road standard according to the 2012 International Fire Code of 20-feet is accomplished. A fire turnaround or hammerhead has been designed to meet 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D for the main access drive into the site. The proposed design exceeds the standard with two hammerheads configured into the access roads at the required 150-foot length. No “on-street” parking is proposed in the drive aisle so the full width of the access is preserved for emergency vehicle access.  Usable open space is provided as usable private open space equal to 10% of each unit’s living space directly accessible and adjacent to each unit in compliance with Section 38.360.240.E, see figure 8.  Building articulation equal to each unit’s width in Section F. See figures 4-6, entries, weather protection features, and change in color of a single siding material provide articulation for residential units per Section 38.530.040.C Wireless facilities 38.370 NA Affordable Housing 38.380.010 NA NA Affordable housing plan NA Comments: NA, Affordable housing does not include condominium or rental units per Section 38.380.040.A. Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 13 of 22 6a(1). Conformance with the community design provisions of article 4: Transportation facilities and access 38.400 Meets Code? Street vision Yes Yes Secondary access No Traffic Impact Study / LOS No Transportation grid adequate to serve site Yes Yes Comments: Based on the low amount of peak hourly trips generated by this project, a traffic impact study was not required by the Engineering Division. BMC Table 38.400.090-1 requires access onto Collector roads be at least 330 feet apart. Therefore, this project could not meet the secondary access requirement. The requirement was waived by the DRC, which is allowable. This access was evaluated by Engineering and Fire Department DRC members and found to be adequate per this section. A fire turnaround in the form of a hammerhead has been provided with this project. Street dedication NA Yes Drive access locations and widths Yes Number of drive accesses 1 Yes Street easements NA Special Improvement Districts Waiver Yes Comments: A signed waiver of right to protest creation of special improvement districts was provided by the applicant, condition of approval 6 requires a recorded copy of the waiver be provided prior to final site plan approval. Parking requirements of 38.540 Required parking residential 75 Yes Required parking nonresidential NA Reductions residential None Provided parking off street 100 On street parking None Comments: The demand for parking generated by the proposed residences is 75 parking spaces. A breakdown of the demand by unit type is:  Type 1, 2 units at 3 bedrooms each = 6 parking spaces required  Type 2, 1 unit at 3 bedrooms = 3 parking spaces required  Type 3, 2 units at 3 bedrooms each = 6 parking spaces required  Type 4.1, 12 units at 3 bedrooms each = 36 parking spaces required  Type 4.2, 8 units at 3 bedrooms each = 24 parking spaces required Parking to satisfy the required demand is provided off-street through a combination of interior garage stalls and stacked spaces in private driveways. Floor plans show each of the 25 units with a garage that meets the two car dimensional standards in this section of 20-feet wide by 22-feet deep, interior wall to interior wall. Each of the 25 garages is accessed from the internal drive aisle by a private driveway. All private driveways are sized to accommodate two stacked parking spaces in front of the garage door at 9- feet by 18-feet each. The total provided parking for the proposed project is 100 spaces. 10 bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in the form of 5 inverted-U racks located along the central drive access meeting the standards of this section. 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 Vehicle accesses to site 1 Yes Pedestrian access location(s) Yes Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 14 of 22 Site vision triangles 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 Yes Crosswalks Yes Curb ramps NA Pedestrian lighting NA Comments: Three units front Babocck Street and direct pedestrian connections to the sidewalk will be provided. A sidewalk is proposed to be constructed at grade on the east side of the north-south oriented drive aisle with stamped concrete crosswalks where the pathway crosses a drive access. The north-south oriented sidewalk will connect each unit to the public street as required by this section. Two east-west sidewalks on the south side of each drive access will be constructed at grade with the drive aisle. These east-west sidewalks will connect the pedestrian to the north-south access as well as the existing trail system in the park to the east. Where there is no sidewalk on the north side of each east-west drive access, stamped concrete crosswalks are proposed to each set of private driveways connecting the pedestrian on the north side of the drive access to the pedestrian circulation system. No curb ramps are proposed as sidewalks are designed at grade with the drive aise. No pedestrian lighting is proposed. Condition of approval approval 12 requires that the condominium association declaration must include snow removal and maintenance responsibilities for all shared pedestrian pathways, be reviewed and approved by the City prior to occupancy of the first building. BMC Section 38.400.080.A. and block frontage standards for sidewalks are inapplicable because this project utilized internal drive aisles rather than public or private streets, except for the northern side of the project that fronts on Baxter where applicant has proposed a compliant City standard sidewalk. Adequate connection and integration of the pedestrian and vehicular transportation systems to the systems in adjacent development and the general community Yes Access easements Yes Yes Dedication of right-of-way or easements necessary for pedestrian, shared use pathway and similar transportation facilities Yes Comments: A 30-foot public access and utility easement is required through the site. Condition of approval 9 requires this easement and the 10-foot public utility easement be recorded prior to building permit approval. 6a(3) Loading and Unloading areas Meets Code? Loading and unloading area requirements 38.540.080 NA Loading and unloading NA NA First Berth (min. 70 feet length, 12 feet in width and 14 feet in height) NA NA Additional Berths (min. 45 feet length) NA NA Comments: NA. No off-street loading berths are required for this use. 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: Lot is in conformance with the lot and block standards. Provisions for utilities including efficient public services and utilities 38.410.050-060 Yes Municipal infrastructure requirements Yes Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 15 of 22 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 Yes Comments: CIL water rights will be collected prior to building permit approval, see condition of approval 10. Water and sewer services are available from Babcock Street. A combination of site grading of pavement, curb and gutter, a retention pond, and underground infiltration chambers will be used to manage stormwater runoff on the site. The stormwater design report was evaluated by the Engineering Division for compliance with adopted standards. A new 10-foot utility easement is required along Babcock Street, a 30-foot access and utility easement for water and sanitary sewer is required through the site. Private utilities are to be accessed from Babcock. Public and private utility design was evaluated by Engineering and the Development Review Committee (DRC). Site Surface Drainage and stormwater control 38.410.080 Yes Location, design and capacity Yes Landscaping per 38.410.080.H Yes Comments: A combination of site grading of pavement, curb and gutter, a retention pond, and underground infiltration chambers will be used to manage stormwater runoff on the site. The stormwater design report was evaluated by the Engineering Division for compliance with adopted standards. Native grass seed will be used at the retention pond and the pond will be landscaped with wetroot tolerant small trees and boulders meeting the required landscaping piece for grading and drainage design. Grading 38.410.080 Yes Maximum 1:4 slope requirements met Yes Comments: Site grading was found to be adequate by the Engineering Division. 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 12.98 du / acre (capped at 10 du/acre R-2 zoning) 10 DU x 1.930 Net Acres = 19.3 DU 19.3 DU x 0.03 Acres/DU = 0.58 Acres or 25,264.8 SF of Cash-in-lieu of parkland. Yes 25,264.8 SF x City Approved Land Value of $1.60/SF = $40,423.68 Cash donation in-lieu(CIL) $40,423.68 Yes Improvements in-lieu NA NA Comments: Cash-in-lieu of parkland was proposed according to Resolution #4784. The Recreation and Parks Advisory board Subdivision Review Committee must review the proposal and provide a recommendation to the Director of Parks and Recreation who is responsible for the final decision. Condition of approval 8 requires cash-in-lieu of parkland be reviewed, approved, and be paid within 30 days of Parks and Recreation approval, and no later than final occupancy for the first phase. The proposed development is situated next to a small watercourse and existing park with a pedestrian trail. This trail system provides an off-street connection to Bozeman Ponds Park which is approximately ¼ mile to the west and southwest from the proposed development. This park contains several amenities including a basketball court, trails, a beach, a dog beach and fenced off-leash facilities, a climbing boulder, fishing docks, and pavilion shelter. The project is within ½ mile (10-minute walk) of over 10 other parks and trail cooridors including neighborhood parks, community parks, pocket parks and linear parks (trails) and schools with playgrounds. The expansion of the adjacent park in an area with an Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 16 of 22 abundance of parks of high level of service and diverse facilities is not desireable. Furthermore, this infill project is in an area already targeted for trail enhancements by the Parks Division and Gallatin Valley Land Trust and it is within ½ mile of the skate park with plans for expansion. The Parks Division supports the proposal of Cash-in-lieu of parkland for the entire parkland requirement to contribute to the aforementioned projects. 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 – Landscaped NA Building Design 38.530 NA Location and design of service areas and mechanical equipment 38.520.070 NA Comments:The parcel has a landscaped block frontage along Babcock. Per 38.510.010.B, Block frontage provisions do not apply to single to four-household dwellings in any configuration. Per 38.530.020, Building Design provisions do not apply to single, two, three, and four-household dwellings on individual lots. Since this development is propoising one and two-househld vertically integrated structures on a shared lot, the townhouse and rowhouse standards do apply and were discussed above in Section 5 of this report, including building articulation and design. 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 NA Non-motorized circulation and design 38.520.040 Yes Vehicular circulation and parking 38.520.050 Yes Comments: As discussed above there are three main 5-foot wide pedestrian pathways through the site, two east-west, and one north south. These conections provide all structures with a connection to the public sidedwalk along Babcock Street, and the trail system in the adjacent parkland. These pathways are required to be constructed of concrete, with stamped crosswalks where the pathway meets a drive aisle. The proposed drive aisles meet design standards in the townhouse and rowhouse section discussed above, and were evaluated by Fire and Engineering for design and safety. 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 Yes Comments: Other than non-motorized circulation and design, and utility meter screening, no other provisions of this section apply. The on-site residential open space is provided according to the townhouse and rowhouse standard in Article 3, and individual garbage totes with common collection points will be provided negating the need for service area enclosures. Solid Waste reviewed the plans and supports the use of individual totes in this manner. Utility meters for private utilities are proposed to be located between buildings and screened with vegetation. Landscaping Yes 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? Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 17 of 22 Submittal requirements for landscape plans 38.220.100 Yes Mandatory landscaping 38.550.050 Yes Yard Yes Additional screening NA Parking lot screening NA Interior parking lot landscape NA Off-street loading spaces screening NA Street frontage Yes Street median island NA Acceptable landscape materials Yes Protection of landscape areas NA Irrigation: plan, water source, system type Yes Trees for residential adjacency Yes City rights-of-way and parks Yes Tree plantings for boulevard ROW, drought-resistant seed NA 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: A landscaping plan meets the applicable mandatory requirements in this section including street trees and irrigation in the public ROW boulevard, yard landscaping, the use of drought tolerant species, trees in the rear setback for residential adjacency every 50-feet, and wetland setback plantings for zone 2 of the adjancent watercourse setback. This landscaping is to be irrigated with a new exempt irrigation well, condition of approval 7 requires the applicant to provide DNRC exempt well approval prior to final site plan approval. Site planning and design required 38.520 Yes Pedestrian area landscaping, including pathways and internal circulation 38.520.040 NA Internal roadway landscaping 38.520.050 NA Open space landscaping 38.520.060 NA Service area and mechanical equipment landscaping and screening 38.520.070 NA Open space NA Comments: All applicable site planning and design elements are provided. Open space is to be provided according to the townhouse and rowhouse provisions in Section 38.360.240. 7e. Conformance with the project design provisions of Article 5, Open Space Meets Code? Open Space Section 38.520.060 NA Total required NA NA Total provided NA NA Comments: Open space per this section is not applicable. See Section 5 of this report for the required townhouse and rowhouse open space provisions. 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) NA Minimum light trespass at property line Yes Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 18 of 22 7g. Conformance with the project design provisions of Article 5, Signage 38.560 Meets Code? Allowed (sq. ft)/building NA NA Proposed (sq. ft) NA Comments: NA, no signage proposed at this time. 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: Site grading and stormwater design has been reviewed by engineering for compliance with standards. Native grass seed and wet-root tolerant plants will be utilized at the retention pond that drains to an underground infiltration chamber. Drainage analysis was provided by C&H Engineering and reviewed by the engineering division. Drainage design Yes Stormwater maintenance plan 38.410.030.A Yes Stormwater feature: landscaping amenity, native species, curvilinear, 75% live vegetation Yes Comments: See comments above. Condition of approval 11 requires the stormwater maintenance plan to be included in the condominium association documents and recorded prior to occupancy of the first building. 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 Yes Comments: A small watercourse and park with a pedestrian trail lies directly to the east of the subject property. Native grasses will be re-established where the watercourse setback intersects this project’s side yard. Three plant groups of small trees (16 total) and shrubs (28 total) are proposed in zone 2 of the 390 foot long setback. This meets the watercourse setback planting standard of one tree and shrub every 30-feet. Condition of approval 13 requires applicant to revise the final site plan to ensure compliance with BMC Section 38.410.100.A.2. 9. Conformance with the natural resource protection provisions of articles 4-6 Meets Code? Watercourse setback 38.410.100 Yes Watercourse setback planting plan Yes Floodplain regulations 38.600 NA Wetland regulations 38.610 NA Comments: See comment above. 10. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties 38.220 Meets Code? Public Comment Yes Yes Comments: The public notice period is detailed on page 1 of this report. Six letters of public comment were received during that period, they are summarized below, and located in the project file. See Section 1 of this report for general conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy including compatible infill. Comments: Only building mounted lighting is proposed at front and rear building entries. The photometric plan confirms that there will be no light trespass onto adjacent properties. Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 19 of 22  4-22-20, P. Snyder o Comments: Density, quality of architectural design including mirroring of units and exterior material colors, preference for single-household uses to front Babcock and be used internally, alignment of drive access with Michael Grove and need for a crosswalk across Babcock, open space, and retention pond landscaping. o Staff Analysis: The density meets the form and intensity standards detailed in Section 5 above and outlined in Section 38.320.030, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. Open space requirements are met per the townhouse and rowhouse standard detailed in Section 5 above and outlined in Section 38.360.240.E which requires open space area for each unit equal to 10% of the building living space, not counting automobile storage. The applicant provided the required open space in the form of usable private open space directly adjacent and accessible to each dwelling unit in the required dimensions. The uses of two-household attached structures (duplexes) is allowed by the R-2 zoning per Section 38.310.030. The retention pond landscaping meets the landscaping standards in Section 38.410.080 for stormwater detention/retention facilities. The building design standards of Section 38.360.240.F, are being met by the use of entries, weather protection features, and articulation of a single building material through varying colors. Per Section 38.400.090., driveway intersections must be across from existing roads or at least 330’ apart; this project is directly across from Michael Grove Avenue and meets this requirement. The proposed drive entrance into this project will not be a street and therefore will not be an intersection. The City’s Design Standards, mid block crosswalkws are discouraged and Engineering determined a crosswalk is not warranted in this location. There is an existing crosswalk approximately 250 feet to the east.  4-30-20, J. Reidelbach o Comments: Density, side setbacks along west property line, adequate parking, and parkland and open space comments. o Staff Analysis: The density meets the form and intensity standards detailed in Section 5 above and outlined in Section 38.320.030 BMC, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. Side setbacks are defined in Section 38.700.170 as a “setback extending between the front building line and the rear building line, the width of which is the least distance between the side lot line and the nearest part of the principal building.” With a front setback along the north property line, along Babcock Street, and the south property line constituting the rear setback, the 5-foot side setbacks along the west property line meet this definition. No setback encroachments are proposed by the applicant. Parking is evaluated in Section 5 above. One space per bedroom for each 3 bedroom units requires 75 spaces. 25 spaces in excess of the minimum required parking spaces is proposed. Fire lanes will be signed and painted to ensure access is maintained along the main north-south drive access. Open space requirements per the townhouse and rowhouse standard detailed in Section 5 above and outlined in Section 38.360.240.E which requires open space area for each unit equal to 10% of the building living space, not counting automobile storage. The applicant provided the required open space per the townhouse and rowhouse standard detailed in Section 5 above and outlined in Section 38.360.240.E in the form of usable private open space directly adjacent and accessible to each dwelling unit in the required dimensions. Section 38.420 outlines park area requirements for development. The applicant has proposed paying cash-in-lieu of parkland according to Resolution 4784 and this proposal will be evaluated by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) Subdivision Review Committee. This proposal must be accepted by the Parks Department Director and be paid within 30 days of Parks and Recreation approval, and Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 20 of 22 no later than final occupancy for the first phase. The Parks Department staff supports the cash-in-lieu proposal.  5-1-20, T. Montee o Comments: Setbacks along west property line, parking, and density. o Staff Analysis: The density meets the form and intensity standards detailed in Section 5 above and outlined in Section 38.320.030 BMC, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. Side setbacks are defined in Section 38.700.170 as a “setback extending between the front building line and the rear building line, the width of which is the least distance between the side lot line and the nearest part of the principal building.” With a front setback along the north property line, along Babcock Street, and the south property line constituting the rear setback, the 5-foot side setbacks along the west property line meet this definition. No setback encroachments are proposed by the applicant. Parking is evaluated in Section 5 above. One space per bedroom for each 3 bedroom unit requires 75 spaces. 25 spaces in excess of the minimum required parking spaces is proposed.  5-3-20, A. Becker o Comments: Density, adequate parking, west side setback, height and roof pitches, infill compatibility. o Staff Analysis: The density meets the form and intensity standards detailed in Section 5 above and outlined in Section 38.320.030 BMC, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. Side setbacks are defined in Section 38.700.170 as a “setback extending between the front building line and the rear building line, the width of which is the least distance between the side lot line and the nearest part of the principal building.” With a front setback along the north property line, along Babcock Street, and the south property line constituting the rear setback, the 5-foot side setbacks along the west property line meet this definition. No setback encroachments are proposed by the applicant. Section 5 above details the height requirments of the proposed 5:12 roof pitches, all units are below the maximum height of 28-feet. Parking is evaluated in Section 5 above. One space per bedroom for each 3 bedroom unit requires 75 spaces. 25 spaces in excess of the minimum required parking spaces is proposed. Fire lanes will be signed and painted to ensure access is maintained along the main north-south drive access. Compatibility of infill development and conformance with the growth policy is discussed in Section 1 above.  5-3-20, J. Tomlinson – Comments on growth, community character, and neighborhood compatibility. Staff Analysis: Compatibility of infill development and conformance with the growth policy is discussed in Section 1 above. Specific comments and analysis are provided related to the following Sections: o Section 38.400.010.A.8 – Second or emergency access required. Staff Analysis: The applicant proposed a single access due to site constraints. BMC Table 38.400.090-1 requires access onto Collector roads be at least 330 feet apart. Therefore, this project could not meet the secondary access requirement. The requirement was waived by the DRC, which is allowable.This access was evaluated by Engineering and Fire Department DRC members and found to be adequate per this section. A fire turnaround or hammerhead has been designed to meet 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D for the main access drive into the site. Their design exceeded requirements with two hammerheads configured into the access roads. o International Fire Code Sec. 503.2.1 – Fire apparatus access roads. Staff Analysis: As there is not a code provision prohibiting the inclusion of grade/road level and vehicle weight designed concrete walkways as part of access road as prescribed in 2012 International Fire Code 503.2.1. The specified minimum access road width of 20 feet is accomplished, on average the width dimension is 24 feet. Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 21 of 22 o Section 38.410.100.A.2.e.3 – Sidewalks in watercourse setbacks – Staff Analysis: Staff agrees with the comment. A trail is permissible per this section A.2.e(2). Staff has included a new code provision to address this issue and the applicant must revise the final plan. o Section 38.350.070.D.1 – Residential garage width standards. Staff Analysis: These standards only apply when a garage door faces a street not an internal access. o Section 38.400.010.A.5 – Dead-end streets and alleys must comply with the International fire code requiring a maximum 150-feet. Staff Analysis: A fire turnaround or hammerhead has been designed to meet 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D for the main access drive into the site. Their design exceeded the standard with two hammerheads configured into the access roads. The 150 foot length is determined from road section start after corner to end, the proposed development is meeting the 150 foot standard. o Snow storage – Snow removal storage in 5-foot setback and adjacent property to the west. Staff Analysis: The code only prohibits snow storage in City right-of-way, over landscaping that can be damaged, or in required parking areas. Snow storage can be located within setbacks, but snow melt must be contained on the property. The site drainage topography plan shows snow melt will be contained onsite. o Section 38.400.080.A – City standard sidewalks on all public and private streets. Staff Analysis: This is a drive access, not a public or private street. Therefore, 38.400.080.A. is inapplicable to this project, except for the northern side of the project that fronts on Baxter where applicant has proposed connections to a compliant City standard sidewalk.  5-4-20, W. Gehl o Comments: Side setbacks and parking. o Staff Analysis: The density meets the form and intensity standards detailed in Section 5 above and outlined in Section 38.320.030 BMC, including setbacks, lot coverage, and height. Side setbacks are defined in Section 38.700.170 as a “setback extending between the front building line and the rear building line, the width of which is the least distance between the side lot line and the nearest part of the principal building.” With a front setback along the north property line, along Babcock Street, and the south property line constituting the rear setback, the 5-foot side setbacks along the west property line meet this definition. No setback encroachments are proposed by the applicant. Parking is evaluated in Section 5 above. One space per bedroom for each 3 bedroom unit requires 75 spaces. 25 spaces in excess of the minimum required parking spaces is proposed. Fire lanes will be signed and painted to ensure access is maintained along the main north-south drive access. 11. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming OR Are the subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. 38.410.060 Meets Code? Subdivision exemption NA NA Required Easements Utility easement Yes Reciprocal access and shared parking easement NA NA NA NA Staff Report Mountain Vista Site Plan Review Application 19460 May 15, 2020 Page 22 of 22 Mutual access easement and agreement Yes Not yet recorded Yes Yes Comments: A new 10-foot utility easement along Babcock Street, and a 30-foot public access and utility easement through the site were required by the DRC. Condition of approval 9 requires these easements be recorded prior to building permit approval. 12. Phasing of development 38.230.020.B including buildings and infrastructure Meets Code? Phasing Yes # of phases 14 Yes Comments: Phase 1 includes the southwest structure and all site infrastructure including the drive aisle, curb, mailbox, bicycle parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and crosswalks. Condition of approval 4 requires all functional aspects of the site be completed prior to occupancy of the first building. Landscaping may be financially guaranteed for one year, grass seed must be financially guaranteed for two years. After phase 1, each subsequent building may receive final occupancy according to their construction schedule and inspection by Water and Sewer, the Building Division, and Fire Department. See figure 8. 13. Standards for certificate of appropriateness 38.340.050 Meets Code? Certificate of appropriateness standards NA Secretary of the Interiors Standards for new construction NA Architectural appearance NA Proportion of doors and windows NA Relationship of building masses and spaces NA Roof shape NA Scale NA Directional expression, with regard to the dominant horizontal or vertical expression of surrounding structures NA Architectural details NA Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment NA Materials and color schemes NA Comments: NA, not in an overlay district.