HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 19440 DRC Memo3 w applicant responses 2020-10-13
MEMORANDUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
RE: NORTHWEST CROSSING MASTER SITE PLAN, APPLICATION
19440
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant responses in Blue.
Section 1 – Project
Description: A master site plan for 160 acres zoned B-2M and REMU northwest of
the corner of North Cottonwood and West Oak. Bound on the south by Oak, East by
Cottonwood and north by Baxter Lane.
Location: Property is currently addressed at 5250 Baxter Lane and is legally
described as S04, T02 S, R05 E, C.O.S. 2552, Tract 5 NE4, City of Bozeman, Gallatin
County, MT.
Recommendation: Staff has found that the application does not comply with the
requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) and is deeming
the application inadequate for further review.
Section 2 – Draft Conditions of Approval
Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions
identified in this report. The following conditions are specific to the development:
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. BMC 38.610 – Wetland delineation review is attached. The Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, SCS, Montana Department of
Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted
regarding the proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404,
Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained prior to final plat approval.
3. The initial master plan entitlement is five years from the date of the
Planning Directors signature on the final plan. Extensions to this initial
timeframe may be requested per 38.230.140.F.
4. Each phase of this master site plan shall be evaluated independently at the
time of development. Aspects including (but not limited to) water rights or
cash in lieu of water rights, required parkland, grading and drainage, payback
districts, off site infrastructure improvements, affordable housing ordinance
requirements, and waivers of right to protest will all be evaluated with each
phase at the time of development.
5. Further master site plan review is required for all phases that meet or exceed
the thresholds in Section 38.230.020 – Classification of plans.
6. All dedicated park lands including those dedicated by easement and linear
parkways shall be titled “Public Park” on the final plans.
7. The parkland tracking table in the design guidelines must be updated with
each phase of development including subsequent site plan and subdivision
review.
8. The tracking table for non-residential uses in the design guidelines must be
updated with each phase of development including subsequent site plan and
subdivision review. Non-residential uses in the REMU district must not
exceed 30 percent of the total gross building square footage of all uses within
the master planned area.
Section 3 – Required Code Corrections
PLANNING COMMENTS:
1. BMC 38.310.060.A.1 - REMU districts are intended to be developed with a
mix of uses that encourage a range of building types, scales, densities, and
site configurations. The 2009 Community Plan includes the following in the
definition of REMU, “Housing choice for a variety of households is desired
and can include attached and small detached single-household dwellings,
apartments, and live-work units.” The proposed design guidelines limit uses
in REMU to “general residential” and associated accessory uses, public
buildings and parks, and community centers in most areas, and limit the
density to 12 DU per acre in all areas except D & E. It is unclear what is meant
by the density cap of 12 DU per acre and how that will be applied lot to lot. It
is unclear what is meant by general residential and live work. Does live work
mean no home based businesses? These terms must be defined in the
document prior to applying standards to them. Due to the nature of city
zoning, staff will not support a blanket density cap and use exclusions like
this. Urban densities are expected, provide further guidelines to ensure that a
mixture of building types, each with unique character, is incorporated
throughout the development and not limited to certain areas. Staff does not
support limiting the uses geographically and in the design guidelines.
Not addressed still listed in the design guidelines and sheet MSP 1.03.
This is not a PUD, the master site plan must meet the base zoning
standards to be approved. If the applicant wishes to limit uses privately
through the Property Owner’s Association Documents staff
recommends the following: MSP1.03 and Design Guidelines, section 2.3
have been modified and there is no reference to restriction of any lots.
a. Blocks M and N are not colored on the framework plan to reflect
multi-family / commercial as specified. M and N are no longer
shown as multi-family/ commercial. Framework plan depicts these as
single family attached & detached.
b. The referenced code sections for temporary lodging, group
residential, and general residential have multiple uses listed
which are subject to change in the UDC. Noted.
2. BMC 38.410.040 – Provide design sections and easement widths and
locations for mid-block pedestrian crossings including adjacent setbacks.
Provide location of street alignment through areas A and B consistently
through all design plans. Staff does not support the use of a mid-block
pedestrian crossing to mitigate block length between blocks C and D.
Revise the plan to show the adjacent east-west street through blocks C
and D to an intersection at Rosa Way - Not Addressed. Staff finds that
East-West connectivity is not limited by the access requirements on
cottonwood Road. The watercourse does not prohibit east-west road
connections to either side of it. A 60’ ROW has been added between C&D.
However, applicant does not agree with this requirement and believes an
alternative more desirable design solution that demonstrates connectivity
and life safety goals of the code can be achieved rather than forcing gridded
streets across all areas of the development.
3. BMC 38.420 - Provide a complete general park master plan for review by the
Parks Department, RPAB, and the City Commission with the master site plan.
The master park plan submitted must place all information in one place from
the application as a whole so that it can be distributed to the reviewing
bodies. A narrative, master plan drawings, waiver request, watercourse and
wetland information, and density and area calculations must be included.
Planning and Parks Staff will coordinate review of the master park plan
through the applicable review board and City Commission following
resubmittal. The waiver request received with the most recent revisions
must be approved by City Commission prior to master site plan
approval.
Per follow up conversations with Parks Division staff on 8th, Oct 2020, a waiver is no
longer being requested. See additional comment responses below and revised sheet
MSP1.04 noting revised direction on how dedicated park land will be calculated and
shown on plans.
9/11/2020 Update:
Parks Division does not support the waiver requested for the following reasons: 1)
No evidence is provided that this is critical habitat now. While, it has the potential
for wildlife and natural resources values to be restored there are other factors that
undermine that potential (see 2 and 3); 2) The agricultural water rights in Baxter
Ditch could allow users to do maintenance in the easement area which would
uproot the restored vegetation; 3) Due to the limited size of upland park adjacent to
the wetland/riparian areas, there is very little buffer provided from the human and
development impacts. The buffer provided appears to be the minimum established
in the code.
Given the net area of lots and required parkland, the park area given is insufficient.
Parkland required is 29.59 acres. The Master Park Plan currently provides only 4.2
of that as traditional unrestricted land and staff does not support a waiver for the
approximately 11 additional wetland/riparian acres shown. Prior versions of the
Master Park Plan showed closer to 13 acres outside of restricted areas. Given the
adjacency to Bozeman Sports Park, potential for privately maintained open space
corridors where the waiver is requested (see 38.420.070.A.1), and given that some
of the B-2M and REMU lots may come forward without residential development, this
level of parkland is a more appropriate level of parkland for this development and
the additional parkland must be shown conceptually at this time so that Park staff is
not negotiating with future lot owners for larger park tracts.
Park information has been updated. See the tables on MSP 1.04.
There are areas where park lots could be added that would achieve several of the
required objectives. Lot L would solve frontage issues for a park at the southern half
of that block and might provide reasoning for that riparian area to be included – if
not counted – within a larger dedicated park.
Although staff doesn’t support the waiver, please note that this trail system can be
used as justification for a cash- or improvements-in-lieu proposal and construction
of the trail and related appurtenances within an public easement can be counted
(38.420.070.A.1).
a. Any cash-in-lieu of parkland requests must also provide justification
in accordance with the criteria in Resolution 4784. NOT ADDRESSED,
provide the CILP request in combination with the land dedication
and waiver request. A framework will be established that can be
used for Phase 1, with each final plat, and individual site plan
review. Provide a breakdown of waived areas included in the
land dedication, unrestricted areas, and cash- or improvements-
in-lieu. As discussed with Parks staff on 10-08-2020, additional text
will be added to sheet MSP1.04 describing CLIP intent. Parks will be
provided along with specific CILP information at time of subdivision
review if required, otherwise they will be provided at Site Plan
review. No waivers are being requested.
b. Provide surfacing details for the 10-foot regional trail along Rosa Way.
If asphalt is proposed, Staff would prefer the standard 5-foot concrete
sidewalk, especially given that the regional trail proposed does not
directly connect or align to any existing trails. PARTIALLY
ADDRESSED, trail moved to west to follow Baxter Creek and
connect with the prost plan regional trail connections. Trail
surfacing will be addressed with subsequent subdivision and site plan
applications when trail alignments are finalized. A note has been
added to sheet MSP1.04 that concrete surfacing is preferred over
asphalt for hard-surface trails
• Advisory: At least 25-feet of width outside of the watercourse
setback is required according to linear park specification in
Section 38.420.070. Noted and added to drawings.
c. Provide width and surfacing materials of all trails defined by Section
38.420.110. and the PROST Plan (see section 6.2 for trail
classification). What is meant by “other” trails? ADDRESSED.
Surfacing can be determined upon subsequent subdivision
review, however this master plan should be amended to
demonstrate a more direct path of travel for the transportation
pathway along Baxter Creek. Due to unknown impacts of
infrastructure, roadways, grading and other future constraints in this
area a finalized alignment is challenging to determine through the
MSP submittal. A note has been added to this area on sheet MSP1.04
indicating that “Transportation pathways along the Baxter Creek
corridor shall be made in as direct a route as possible, while balancing
wetlands, floodway and infrastructure considerations.”
4. Parkland, excluding linear trail corridors, must have frontage along 100
percent of its perimeter on public or private streets or roads per
38.420.060.A. Any reduction up to 50% requires certain conditions are met
from A.1. and/or 2. Provide this detail in your master plan with
approximate percentage of frontage for each park section. The park
frontage calculations have been updated on sheet MSP1.04 to reflect
compliance with the standard requirements and note linear parks which are
excluded from this requirement.
9/11/20 Update:
NOT ADDRESSED SUFFICIENTLY. The Parkland proposal if waiver is not accepted,
creates “pocket parks” without adequate street frontage.
a. Show potential linkages to adjacent parks. Note: BMC
38.510.030.I. Where a property fronts onto a park or a public trail,
such frontages must comply with the mixed block frontage standards
set forth in subsection D of this section. For non-residential
developments/uses where the review authority determines that an
orientation to the trail would not be appropriate based on the context
of the site, the development must be subject to the standards for
"other block frontages" set forth in subsection G above, with a
minimum building setback of 20 feet from the applicable park/trail
right-of-way, easement, or property line. NOT ADDRESSED, add
specifics to design guidelines for future lots fronting trails.
Design Guidelines, section 2.6 (see 2nd to last paragraph in this
section), refence to follow the UDC for these standards.
• Advisory: Show potential linkages from the proposed
Homestead Park to the Bozeman Sports Park, are users
intended to use Traditions Drive?
Per discussions with Parks on 10-08-2020 text and a graphic
overlay has been added to indicate suggested east-west
connections toward BSP. Please note City is currently not
allowing any pedestrian crossings between Oak and Baxter
(only crossings are at roundabouts at these intersections) so
there is no method for pedestrians to cross Cottonwood safely
between the intersections.
9/11/20 Update:
NOT ADDRESSED. Connections to BSP have been removed
Written text and conceptual intent has been provided to portray the east west park
connectivity.
5. BMC 38.560 – Staff encourages the integration of subdivision identification
signage and/or wayfinding signage with this submittal. A comprehensive
sign plan can be reviewed as a part of the district master site plan and
incorporated into the design guidelines. The following revisions to the
comprehensive sign plan are required:
a. Wayfinding signage is permitted for defined districts of 30 acres
or more. Provide the following detail/response for approval of
wayfinding signs: The following has been added to the Wayfinding
section.
• Include a description of the installation and maintenance
program for the signs including, but not limited to: who is
responsible for installation and maintenance; identified
reliable funding for installation and maintenance; contact
plan for the responsible individual; and a description of
how the sign program will be kept updated or removed. If
the signs are to be illuminated, a description of how the
power source may be removed and made safe must be
included.
• Demonstrate how it will enhance the streetscape by
promoting a unified and enhanced visual aesthetic
consistent with the streetscape design elements in the
district; coordinate information for pedestrians and
drivers in a clear, consistent, and understandable format,
and reduce visual clutter.
• Include information on how the district stakeholders were
given opportunity to collaboratively participate in the
selection of the sign types and designs.
• Clearly describe the hierarchy of signs and include the
criteria for determining sign placement and size. Any signs
intended to be read from the right-of-way must comply
with the lettering standards of the Manual for Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for the road type and speed.
• Include signage elevations and plans with corresponding
map, designating sign types and locations. (This can be a
condition of approval if not yet developed).
b. The temporary freestanding signs described on page 3 are
portable signs as defined in section 38.700.070. Portable signs
are prohibited per 38.560.030.A.1 except as allowed by Public
Works encroachment permits within the downtown area and
must be removed from the plan. Noted. This has been eliminated.
c. Staff recommends providing visual examples of all types of
permitted and prohibited illuminated and non-illuminated signs
with the comp sign plan. We understand the intent of this however
due to the fact all signs must be pre-approved by the Master
Developer we are not inclined to add this information at this time.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
1. See attached memo.
Reviewing Staff
1. Planning Division, Danielle Garber, dgarber@bozeman.net, 406-582-2272
2. Engineering Division, Griffin Nielsen, gnielsen@bozeman.net, 406-582-2279
3. Building Division; Bob Risk, brisk@bozeman.net, 406-582-2377
4. Parks and Recreation; Addi Jadin, ajadin@bozeman.net, 406-582-2908
5. Sustainability Division; Natalie Meyer, nmeyer@bozeman.net, 406-582-2317
6. Solid Waste Division; Russ Ward, rward@bozeman.net, 406-582-3238
7. Water Conservation; Jessica Ahlstrom, jahlstrom@bozeman.net, 406-582-2265
8. Stormwater Division; Kyle Mehrens, jkmehrens@bozeman.net, 406-582-2270
9. Water and Sewer Division; John Alston, jalston@bozeman.net, 406-582-3200
10. Forestry Division; Alex Nordquest, anordquest@bozeman.net, 406-582-3205
11. NorthWestern Energy; Cammy Dooley, cammy.dooley@northwestern.com
12. Fire Department, Scott Mueller, smueller@bozeman.net, 406-582-2382