Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 Preliminary Plat Application No. P-11001.pdf 1 REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Tim McHarg, Director, Planning and Community Development Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Meadow Creek Major Subdivision, Phase 2 Preliminary Plat Application #P-11001 MEETING DATE: March 21, 2011 AGENDA MEETING ITEM: Action Agenda Item RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission approves the requested variances to Section 18.42.040.B, Section 18.44.010.A and Section 18.44.050, BMC, and conditional approval of the Preliminary Plat Application for Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2, planning application P-11001, with said conditions listed in Planning Board Resolution #P-11001. Staff recommends that the City Commission first take action on the three specific variance requests and then recommends that this application be conditionally approved with the conditions listed in Planning Board Resolution #P-11001. RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR VARIANCE REQUESTS: “Having heard and considered public comment, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for P-11001 and move to approve the requested variances to the following sections of Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code: 1) Section 18.42.040.B - “Block Length”, to exceed the maximum block length of 400 feet for Blocks 15-21, 2) Section 18.44.010.A - “Relation to Undeveloped Areas”, to allow the construction of South 23rd Avenue southward to the southern boundary line of Phase II to full City standards, and 3) Section 18.44.050 - “Street and Road Right Of Way Width and Construction Standards”, to allow construction of a section of South 23rd Avenue to the southern boundary of Phase II within a right-of-way less than 60 feet wide. RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION: “Having heard and considered public comment, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for P-11001 and move to approve the preliminary plat application for Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 requested in application P-11001 authorizing to subdivide 34.966 acres and create 82 (eighty-two) residential, single household lots, 2 (two) residential, multi-household lots, 1 (one) neighborhood center, including 2 (two) workforce housing lots and the remaining area as parks, open spaces, streets and alleys subject to the conditions, as listed in Planning Board Resolution P-11001” BACKGROUND: Flathead Bank and Shady Lane, LLC, and representative Madison Engineering, LLC have submitted a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application to subdivide 34.996 acres and Commission Memorandum 135 2 create 82 (eighty-two) residential, single household lots, 2 (two) residential, multi-household lots, 1 (one) neighborhood center, including 2 (two) workforce housing lots and the remaining area as parks, open spaces, streets and alleys. The subject property is annexed with a zoning designation of R-3, Residential Medium Density District), and is located west of South 19th Avenue, north of Blackwood Road and south of Graf Street. The DRC provided a recommendation of conditional approval on January 12, 2011. The Planning Board held a public hearing and reviewed the proposal on March 1, 2011, and voted 8-0 to recommend conditional approval of the preliminary plat application and variances to Section 18.42.040.B, Section 18.44.010.A and Section 18.44.050, BMC. Staff’s full analysis of the review criteria for this major subdivision is included in the attached staff report. A full and complete digital version of the preliminary plat application is available upon request at the office of the Department of Planning and Community Development. Included in the back of the applicant’s preliminary plat notebook is a full digital version of the supplemental information. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None determined at this time. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approval of the Preliminary Plat Application as submitted to include the request for variances to the Bozeman Municipal Code with no conditions. 2) Approval of the Preliminary Plat Application with the recommended conditions of approval provided by the Planning Board in Planning Board Resolution #P-11001. 3) Denial of the application. 4) As determined by the Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased property tax revenues, along with increased costs to deliver municipal services to the property, when the property is developed. The public parkland will be owned by the City of Bozeman as dedicated parkland, but maintained by the homeowner’s association until such time that a park maintenance district is created. Initial improvements outlined in the park master plan will be implemented by the developer within one year of filing the final plat. Attachments: Planning Staff’s Summary Review Agency Comments Preliminary Plat application materials Report compiled on March 8, 2011 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 Page 1 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE President Pro Tem Krauss called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 8:45 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to take attendance. Members Present: Staff Present: Bill Quinn Tim McHarg, Planning Director Trever McSpadden David Skelton, Senior Planner Ed Sypinski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Jodi Leone Adam Fruh Erik Garberg Eugene Graf Jeff Krauss Members Absent: Guests Present: Chris Budeski Tim Fink Joe DaHinden ITEM 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS President Pro Tem Krauss called for nominations. Mr. Quinn nominated Mr. Sypinski as Board President, Mr. McSpadden seconded. Mr. Sypinski accepted the nomination. Mr. Graf nominated Mr. McSpadden as President, Mr. Sypinski seconded. President Pro Tem Krauss asked each candidate to present their qualifications for consideration by the Board. Mr. McSpadden stated he did not know how to campaign for the position and either way one of them would end up running the meeting as the other would likely be the Vice President. Mr. Sypinski listed his positions as an officer on other advisory agencies. Mr. McSpadden stated Mr. Sypinski was better qualified for the position. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. McSpadden seconded, to appoint Mr. Sypinski as President. The motion carried 7-1. Those voting aye being President Pro Tem Krauss, Mr. Quinn, Mr. McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being Mr. 186 Page 2 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. Graf. MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Ms. Leone seconded to appoint Mr. McSpadden as Vice President. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Seeing no general public comment forthcoming, President Sypinski closed the public comment portion of the meeting. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2010 MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Garberg seconded, to approve the minutes of December 7, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Preliminary Plat Application #P-11001 – (Meadow Creek MaSub Phase 2) A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application with Variances requested by the property owners, Flathead Bank and Shady Lane, LLC, and representative, Madison Engineering, requesting the subdivision of 34.966 acres into 82 residential, single household lots, 2 residential, multi household lots, including 1 neighborhood center and workforce housing lot with the remaining area as streets, alleys, open space and parkland for property legally described as Minor Subdivision #235, Document 2057476, SE ¼, Range 5 East, Township 2 South, Section 23, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana and generally located on the west side of South 19th Avenue between Enterprise Boulevard and Blackwood Drive. (Skelton) Senior Planner David Skelton addressed the Planning Board and congratulated President Sypinski and Vice President McSpadden on their officer appointments. He presented the Staff Report noting the formal recommendation would be forwarded to the City Commission and suggested two actions would need to be taken at the end of the proposal; one for the variances requested and one for the subdivision preliminary plat application. He noted the zoning designation for the property was R-3 and a mix of land uses would be controlled by the size of the lots. He stated the parcel had been planned with a six phase development plan that would move from the south to the north on the site; there was no guarantee the phases would be filed sequentially but infrastructure would be required. He stated the majority of the proposal was for residential, single family lots with two multi-family residential lots as well as workforce housing lots and park/open space areas. He stated 2 landowners were dealing with the development of the property. He stated Staff had encouraged the owners to bring in the proposal at the same time and noted the desire of the southern landowner was not to move forward as quickly as the northern landowner. He 187 Page 3 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. stated Staff was supportive of the proposal with the conditions as outlined by Staff in the Staff Report. He stated the original Preliminary Plat approval had expired and there were some changes since 2005. He stated he had asked Mr. Budeski to provide exhibits of the phasing of the original approval for Meadow Creek Subdivision. He stated the discussion for this evening’s hearing was for that section of the subdivision along South 19th Avenue. He noted the middle section of the subdivision that was not platted and not part of this application, but had on the impact on the applicant’s request for variances to the UDO. He noted the existing physical features on the property and added that they included a no name watercourse that would require 50 foot setbacks as well as development permits. He stated the infrastructure was already installed with phase 1 of the development and would somewhat dictate the design of the subdivision; the applicant had chosen to stay the course with the original design that had been approved in 2005. He stated there were three variances being requested with the application. Planner Skelton directed the Board to a rendering of a rough layout of what the streets would be. He noted portions of the right of way would be on the subject property while portions would be off the property along the west side which was the reason Staff was supportive of the requested variances. He stated the park plan was being met with two parks being proposed; one adjacent to South 19th Avenue and one along the west edge of the property. He stated there was plenty of parkland in phase 1 to meet the requirements for that phase. He noted the locations of other parks planned for the site and noted the orientation of the current proposal to Miller Park. He stated the vision for the active parkland was Miller Park which was still the vision for the entire subdivision as a whole; required parkland was proposed to be met with the first phase of the development. He stated the applicant was negotiating with Meadow Creek Partners for a public parkland easement on the property so that improvements to Miller Park could begin. He stated the applicant had agreed to seed and maintain the area, but would not provide irrigation until it was determined what would happen to Miller Park. He stated there were no unusual recommended conditions of approval with regard to parkland or trails. Planner Skelton stated the RSL requirement was no longer in affect for the development, but affordable housing would still be in effect. He stated the applicant was proposing an individualized plan to meet their affordable housing requirements; their proposal being to donate the lots to someone to build out. He stated Staff was supportive of the individualized plan and CAHAB had suggested the requirement be met within the first or second phase of development. Planner Skelton stated Staff was supportive of the block length variance as requested as a 400 foot block length was typical in Bozeman and it wasn’t until closer to 800 feet in length that another street should be considered. He stated South 23rd Avenue was part of the dilemma as portions of the right of way were on an adjoining owner’s property. He stated the street on the north and south ends of the site could not be extended at the required width except for the sidewalks and Staff’s position was that there was really not a need for sidewalks and the circumstance would be too much for the applicant to complete. He stated Staff was supportive of the proposal with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. He directed the Board to condition of approval #4 and suggested striking the language “along South 19th Avenue”, in conditions #12 & 13 he suggested striking the language “phase 2A” and replacing it with “subsequent second phase”, and he suggested that in condition #6 striking the language “Edward Drive” and replacing it with “Nicole Drive”. 188 Page 4 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. Chris Budeski addressed the Board. He congratulated the President on his position and welcomed new members to the Planning Board. He stated Planner Skelton had gone through the application thoroughly and suggested the owners could introduce themselves. Joe DaHinden, President of Valley Bank, stated he was the unfortunate developer of the subdivision, not by choice, and they wanted the subdivision to continue had originally been intended. Tom & Nikki Fink, owners of Shady Lane, LLC, stated they had thought they had sold the property but it had defaulted back to them. He stated they felt they could afford to develop 1/3 of the property with the hopes they could develop the remaining property in the future. Mr. Budeski added the applicant was in agreement with all conditions of approval with the exception of #21 limiting street loaded lots to 30%. President Sypinski commended Mr. Budeski on his individualized plan for the Workforce Housing requirement. He asked if there were any concerns with high ground water or floodplain levels. Mr. Budeski responded the ground water is high in that location, but storm water mains had been put in and a note would be included on the plat to keep crawl spaces out of the water. Mr. Garberg stated that conditions #7 and #18 were contradicting each other with regard to the grade above curb. Mr. Budeski responded he would prefer to remain consistent with the phase 1 plat and the dimension it indicated. Vice President McSpadden asked if the applicant foresaw any concerns with the phase 1 Home Owners Association and its relation to the proposed phase 2. Mr. Budeski responded they had attempted to contact the HOA and had intended to combine with them. Public comment closed. MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Krauss seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission and having heard and considered public comment, to adopt the findings presented in the Staff Report for P-11001 for the requested variances to the following sections of Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code: 1) Section 18.42.040.B - “Block Length”, to exceed the maximum block length of 400 feet for Blocks 15-21, 2) Section 18.44.010.A - “Relation to Undeveloped Areas”, to allow the construction of South 23rd Avenue southward to the southern boundary line of Phase II to full City standards, and 3) Section 18.44.050 - “Street and Road Right Of Way Width and Construction Standards”, to allow construction of a section of South 23rd Avenue to the southern boundary of Phase II within a right-of-way less than 60 feet wide. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none. MOTION: Mr. Garberg moved, Mr. Krauss seconded, to strike Staff condition of approval #21. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay 189 Page 5 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. being none. MOTION: Mr. Krauss moved, Ms. Leone seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Preliminary Plat Application #P-11001 having heard and considered public comment, to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for P-11001 and move to approve the preliminary plat application for Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 requested in application P-11001 authorizing to subdivide 34.966 acres and create 82 (eighty-two) residential, single household lots, 2 (two) residential, multi-household lots, 1 (one) neighborhood center, including 2 (two) workforce housing lots and the remaining area as parks, open spaces, streets and alleys subject to the conditions listed on page 4-7 of the Staff report as amended by Staff and the Planning Board with the removal of Staff condition of approval #21. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none. ITEM 6. DISCUSSION ITEM (IF TIME ALLOWS.) 1. Staff recommendations for changes to approval structure. (Saunders) Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated the item was based on an earlier request from the Planning Board to modify the UDO. He stated there were 134 separate points discussion decision making processes; a number were required by statute, some were already distributed to the Planning Director or City Engineer, and the rest were possible modifications. He noted which projects had been suggested for consideration. Mr. Quinn asked how Staff wanted the Planning Board to weigh in and if they should just provide input on Planning Director decisions. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Staff had prioritized the recommendations and was seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Commission. Mr. Garberg stated the amount of work to create the list was impressive and he commended Assistant Director Saunders for his efforts. Vice President McSpadden asked for clarification of whether or not the document was the culmination of Planning Board Work Sessions and if a recommendation was being sought during the evening’s meeting. Assistant Director Saunders responded it was the result of the Work Sessions and Staff was comfortable forwarding the document to the City Commission as presented if the Planning Board agreed. Mr. Krauss asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify some of the included language. Assistant Director Saunders explained the item in question and the standard process currently required; medium meant a medium priority for amendment. Mr. Graf stated they had seen the document for awhile and he did not see any recommended draft language. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff did not want to draft alternative language until they had determined which sections would be affected. Director McHarg added the amendments would all be compiled as specific code amendments that would be brought to the Planning Board for recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Quinn asked for clarification of #52 as far as approval for holding tennis tournaments with 190 Page 6 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. restrictions on hours of operation and asked how it was a priority. Assistant Director Saunders responded the priority was high value due to its ease of completion and the issue had not come up in 20 years. Mr. Krauss asked if the City Engineer made a decision about partial street construction that the applicant didn’t like, what would happen afterward? Assistant Director Saunders responded that any administrative action would be subject to appeal and would be reviewed by the City Commission. Mr. Krauss clarified that every time someone wanted to appeal it would take them 30 days to be heard. Assistant Director Saunders responded noticing requirements would need to be met as dictated by State statute and it would take close to 30 days. Mr. Garberg added the appeal could include multiple items and would not take 30 days for each item being appealed. Director McHarg responded that valid findings would need to be made for the decision and possible litigation from the appeal. Mr. Krauss responded he was still looking for a red button that would allow an applicant to be heard by the City Commission. Director McHarg responded a request could be made to the Commission and would take roughly the same time as the thirty day statutory appeal requirement. Mr. Krauss cited the Rialto as an example and noted the applicant had abandoned the project due to getting the run around by so many review agencies. Director McHarg suggested that, from his perspective, he thought resolving how applications are reviewed by advisory boards would need to be fundamentally reviewed. Mr. Krauss stated that when an applicant was stuck, they got the opportunity to present the application to the City Commission for review and approval with the possibility of an option that was not presented by either Staff or the applicant. Assistant Director Saunders responded an application could get hung up both directions and the appeal process would still be valid. Director McHarg responded that many of the review processes required advisory board recommendation; something could be written into the code to request the City Commission alleviate the advisory board requirement for specific projects. Mr. Graf stated he thought the purpose of the review was to figure out why any application was taking a certain amount of review time; review by the same advisory body multiple times might be a correction that could be made to expedite the review process. Director McHarg suggested one of the best ways to ensure consistency is not to have public hearings for every project; he added it was not be an effective use of the City Commission or Staff’s time. Mr. Graf suggested the Board could forward a recommendation to proceed with Staff’s recommendations as presented; he suggested investigation of something like a “red button” to allow review by the City Commission. Mr. Krauss stated that one of the things they were seeking was making sure the clock starts when the application is submitted and shortening the review time frame. Director McHarg stated he thought Mr. Budeski would believe that Staff had already begun streamline the review process. Mr. Budeski responded the comments had already begun to be sent to the applicant prior to the meetings but other agencies would need to be contacted. Director McHarg added the Meadow Creek application had been reviewed by advisory boards in a timely manner. Mr. Budeski concurred and added Staff had been great in moving the application forward. Vice President McSpadden stated it appeared that many of the high and medium priorities dealt 191 Page 7 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. with zoning issues that would affect site plan review. He suggested a recommendation for Staff to move forward with the high and medium recommendations and return at a future date with the lower priorities. Director McHarg stated he and Assistant Director Saunders had discussed their top ten code amendments and had grouped them together; if the Board wanted to bundle site plan issues into one set of UDO amendments that would be fine and Staff would likely bundle those amendments anyway in the interest of efficiency. Vice President McSpadden stated it sounded like the site plan items had always been on the radar. MOTION: Vice President McSpadden moved, Mr. Krauss seconded, to forward a recommendation to direct Planning Staff to single out site plan components listed in the Staff Report and return to the Board with a UDO text amendment. Mr. Garberg suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include the flowchart modifications as well. Director McHarg responded it was more of an operational issue than a flowchart issue and other Departments would need to be involved. Mr. Garberg withdrew the amendment. Vice President McSpadden stated he felt comfortable forwarding the recommendations without including Mr. Garberg’s amendment. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Krauss stated he would like to see Mr. Kukulski, or whoever, come in to help the Board take a look at the recommended changes as well as an Engineering Department representative. Director McHarg responded direction could be given to him or the City Manager so legwork could be done in advance. MOTION: Mr. Krauss moved, Mr. Graf seconded, to direct Staff to request the City manager and a representative sample of the DRC join the Planning Board to discuss UDO amendments that would streamline the review process within the statutory limits. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Fruh asked if things with a high priority were perceived deficiencies or were people just being a part of the established review process; people feeling like their being drawn through an ordeal when they are actually just a part of the review process. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Attorney Luwe had suggested that sometimes it would be best to deny a proposal that had too many issues; it would shorten the time frame if a proposal were not patched together or repaired while during meetings for project review. He stated sometimes the applicant gets stuck in the middle of two warring advisory board opinions which is the reason advisory bodies are not the approval authority. Mr. Krauss responded the advisory body was appointed to provide advice to the City Commission or Board of Adjustment so that they can make their decision; advisory board recommendations had to be balanced. President Sypinski stated the advisory boards sometimes provided clarity to the applicant. Mr. 192 Page 8 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. Krauss added the City Commission weighed those comments. Mr. Fruh asked if they were discussing removing advisory boards from the process. Director McHarg responded Staff was investigating removing advisory boards from the process; the actual review should be delegated to Staff unless there was a question regarding the adopted policy documents. President Sypinski stated a good example was the Historic Preservation Advisory Board which had helped write the ordinances that could be used as policy guidelines. Mr. Quinn complimented Planning Staff on the document and their efforts to improve and streamline the review process; even though the Board didn’t make decisions he thought it was a step in the right direction. He suggested he would have been supportive of all 21 being revised at once. Director McHarg stated the City Commission had been going through their annual goal setting process and there would be ongoing discussions that would articulate the Planning Department’s goals. Mr. Krauss suggested a motion be made to prioritize the Planning Board decision to have Staff bring forward UDO amendments to help better streamline the review process. Director McHarg responded he would be happy to carry the Board’s recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Krauss responded he would prefer to see the request in the minutes and that the Planning Board ask that Board recommendations be a priority to the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Fruh seconded, to forward a recommendation to the City Commission to make streamlining the review process a priority as recommended by Staff and as outlined in the document presented by Staff. Mr. Garberg asked if that would focus the City Commission discussion on site review. Mr. Quinn responded the center ring would be site review. Director McHarg responded it was in the collective best interest of Staff as well as the community to make those recommendations a priority. The motion carried 8-0. Those voting aye being President Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Vice President McSpadden, Ms. Leone, Mr. Fruh, Mr. Garberg, Mr. Graf, and Mr. Krauss. Those voting nay being none. Mr. Graf asked if every motion needed to be made a priority for review by the Commission. Mr. Krauss responded he made every effort to forward recommendations to the City Commission, but when there was no support it was not worth it. ITEM 7. NEW BUSINESS No items were forthcoming. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Sypinski adjourned the 193 Page 9 of 9 City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 1, 2011. meeting at 10:13 p.m. Ed Sypinski, President Tim McHarg, Planning Director Planning Board Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 194 Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 1 RESOLUTION #P-11001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD REGARDING A MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION, TO SUBDIVIDE 34.966 ACRES, LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH 19TH AVENUE, NORTH OF BLACKWOOD ROAD AND SOUTH OF GRAF STREET INTO 82 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE HOUSEHOLD LOTS, 2 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY LOTS, 1 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, 2 WORKFORCE HOUSING LOTS, AND THE REMAINING AREA AS OPEN SPACES, STREETS AND ALLEYS, AND PARKS ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN NE ¼ OF SECTION 23, T2S, R5E, PMM, CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA BELING LOT 4, MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 235 AND FILM 179 PAGE 4219, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA. WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a growth policy pursuant to Section 76-1- 601, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and WHEREAS, the property owners, Flathead Bank and Shady Lane, LLC, and representative, Madison Engineering, LLC, submitted a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application to subdivide 34.966 acres, located west of South 19th Avenue, north of Blackwood Road and south of Graf Street and create 82 (eighty-two) residential, single household lots, 2 (two) residential, multi-household lots, 1 (one) neighborhood center, including 2 (two) workforce housing lots and the remaining area as parks, open spaces, streets and alleys on property legally described as a tract of land situated in the southeast ¼ of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, being Lot 4, Minor Subdivision No. 235 and Film 179 Page 4219, Gallatin Country, Montana. WHEREAS, the proposed Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application has been properly submitted, reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the procedures of Section 18.04 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application includes a request for variances to Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code: 1) Section 18.42.040.B - “Block Length”, to exceed the maximum block length of 400 feet for Blocks 15-21, 2) Section 18.44.010.A - “Relation to Undeveloped Areas”, to allow the construction of South 23rd Avenue southward to the southern boundary line of Phase II to full City standards, and 3) Section 18.44.050 - “Street and Road Right Of Way Width and Construction Standards”, to allow construction of a section of South 23rd Avenue to the southern boundary of Phase II within a right-of-way less than 60 feet wide; and 195 Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 2 WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 1, 2011, to review the application and any written public testimony on the request for said Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application; and WHEREAS, no members of the generally public provided written or oral public testimony on the matter of the preliminary plat application; and WHEREAS, members of the City of Bozeman Planning Board discussed the proposed preliminary plat application regarding high ground water, floodplain levels, grading, and the home owner’s association being part of phase one; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board considered amendments to the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report as recommended by the Planning Staff; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board moved to recommend approval of the applicants’ three requested variances to the Unified Development Ordinance, BMC; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board moved to recommend conditional approval of the preliminary plat application with said recommended conditions of approval, as amended, and striking condition twenty-one (21); and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board reviewed the application against the requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and found that, with conditions as amended, the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application would comply with those requirements; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Planning Board, having heard and considered public comment, adopted the findings presented in the staff report for P-11001 and voted 8-0 to recommend approval the requested variances to the following sections of Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code: 1) Section 18.42.040.B - “Block Length”, to exceed the maximum block length of 400 feet for Blocks 15-21, 2) Section 18.44.010.A - “Relation to Undeveloped Areas”, to allow the construction of South 23rd Avenue southward to the southern boundary line of Phase II to full City standards, and 3) Section 18.44.050 - “Street and Road Right Of Way Width and Construction Standards”, to allow construction of a section of South 23rd Avenue to the southern boundary of Phase II within a right-of-way less than 60 feet wide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Planning Board, having heard and considered public comment, adopted the findings presented in the staff report for P-11001 and voted 8-0 to recommend approval the preliminary plat application for Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 requested in application P-11001 authorizing to subdivide 34.966 acres and create 82 (eighty-two) residential, single household lots, 2 (two) residential, multi-household lots, 1 (one) neighborhood center, including 2 (two) workforce housing lots and the remaining area as parks, open spaces, streets and alleys subject to the 196 Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 3 following conditions, as amended, and removal of condition twenty-one (21) regarding public street access (conditions amended by Planning Board underlined and removed by Planning Board strikethrough): Planning Department Recommended Conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats and shall be accompanied by all required documents, including certification from the City Engineer that as-built drawings for public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and corrected certificates. The Final Plat application shall include four (4) signed reproducible copies on a 3 mil or heavier stable base polyester film (or equivalent); two (2) digital copies; one (1) PDF copy; and five (5) paper prints. 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. The applicant shall submit with the application for Final Plat review and approval, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval and noted code provisions listed in the staff report have been satisfactorily addressed, and shall include a digital copy (pdf) of the entire Final Plat submittal. This narrative shall in sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal. 3. That phasing for the major subdivision shall be clearly delineated using phase letters, in-lieu of numbers (i.e., Phase 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E). 4. That the 50-foot wide watercourse setback along South 19th Avenue shall be identified and dimensioned accordingly on the final plat. 5. That the 100-year floodplain boundary shall be delineated on the final plat(s). 6. That the final plat(s) contain a notation stating that all downstream water user facilities will not be impacted by this subdivision and that it also be noted accordingly in the by-laws and protective covenants for the homeowner’s association. 7. That the final plat(s) contain a notation that all finished floor elevations shall be a minimum of 18 inches above the top of the curb in front of the residence or building. This building restriction shall also be addressed and demonstrated in the covenants/development guidelines. 8. The final plat and homeowner’s association documents shall reference a 25-foot yard setback along the arterial road, South 19th Avenue. 9. Lot 1-3, Block 20 shall be restricted to development as single family dwelling lots and noted accordingly on the final plat and in the homeowner’s association documents, unless 197 Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 4 otherwise reviewed and approved for multi-family development. Should subsequent development other than for single family dwellings occur, cash-in-lieu of park dedication requirements shall be met by the property owner for any additional density in accordance with the BMC. This note shall be recorded on the individual lots in a manner that will appear on a title search. 10. A note shall be included on the plat for all multi-family lots describing public park dedication allowances; e.g. park dedication requirements for Lot 1, Block 26 and Lot 1, Block 27 have been met for 12 dwelling units per acre, at the time of subsequent development, when net residential density becomes known, cash-in-lieu of park dedication requirements shall be met by the property owner for any additional density in accordance with the BMC. This note shall be recorded on the individual lots in a manner that will appear on a title search. 11. All dedicated park lands including linear parkways shall be titled “Public Park” on the final plat. The open space shall be titled “Open Space, Public Access”. Notes shall be included on the plat describing ownership and maintenance responsibility for both the park and open space areas, (e.g. public park, dedicated to the city and maintained by the homeowners association and/or future Park Maintenance District, etc.). 12. That the applicants execute at the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office a public parkland easement for that portion of Block 15 to be reserved for an Interim Park with the filing of Phase 2A the subsequent second phase until such time that the development of Miller Park is resolved and/or adequate dedicated parkland is provided for Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2. 13. Development of the interim park in Block 15 shall occur within one (1) year of final plat approval of Phase 2A the subsequent second phase. Said improvements to the interim park shall be described in the Parks Master Plan as approved by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and City Commission, and reviewed and approved by the City of Bozeman Parks Department and Planning Office. 14. The Final Park Plan(s) shall include: a. Current and future site plan(s) for the entire property with the current plan showing developer installed improvements and the future plan showing any planned improvements not intended to be installed by the developer; b. The location of watercourse setbacks, wetland delineation, and wetland fringe; c. Park landscaping plan, prepared by a qualified landscape professional in accordance with §18.78.100 for all parkland areas including linear parkways; d. Trail design and construction showing compliance with adopted City standards and trail classifications; e. The requirement for a preconstruction meeting prior to any site work, including boardwalks, bridges, and trails; f. Appropriate sections from the “Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks”; g. Cost estimate and installation responsibility for all improvements; 198 Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 5 h. A neighborhood gathering place (pavilion, community building, wetland interpretation and viewing platforms, etc.) and playground equipment in the Neighborhood Center in addition to the standard requirement for boulevard street trees, irrigation, seeding, sidewalks, etc. i. A notation that a building permit will be required for any structural improvements including bridges, boardwalks, and shelter structures. j. Parking area, design and construction drawings showing compliance with adopted City standards including ADA parking and signage. 15. A six-foot wide Type II public pedestrian and bicycle trail within a 30-foot wide public access easement shall be installed along the Shady Lane linear park, originating at the intersection of South 20th Avenue and Lance Drive, and continuing north until its termination at South 20th Avenue and Edward Drive Nicole Drive. The final location and placement of the trail and/or creek crossings shall be determined by Parks and Recreation Department in concert with the Recreation PAB and GVLT. 16. Sidewalks along park land should be constructed to a six foot width to accommodate snow removal equipment and adequate pedestrian and bicycle access. 17. The final plat shall provide all necessary utility easements and shall be described, dimensioned and shown on each subdivision block of the final plat in their true and correct location. Any rear or side yard utility easements not provide will require written confirmation from ALL utility companies providing service indicating that rear or side yard easements are not needed. 18. That the final plat contain the following language that is readily visible with lettering, at a minimum height of 3/16-inch, placing future landowners of individual lots on notice of the presence of high groundwater in the area of the subdivision for review and approval by the Planning Office: “Due to the potential of high ground water tables in the areas of the subdivision, it is not recommended that residential dwellings or commercial structures with full or partial basements be constructed without first consulting a professional engineer licensed in the State of Montana and qualified in the certification of residential and commercial construction. The finish floor of all residential structures shall be not less than two (2) feet above the established elevation from the top of curb of the adjoining street.” 19. Should the subdivider propose subdivision perimeter fencing, a fencing plan that includes plans and specifications to fence the perimeter of the project shall be provided for review and approval prior to final plat approval. Fences located in the front, side or rear yard setback of properties adjacent to any park or open space shall not exceed a maximum height of 4 feet, and shall be of an open construction designed in a manner to be consistent along all park land and open space areas. This requirement with appropriate exhibits of fence types shall be addressed and illustrated in the home owner’s association documents. 199 Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 6 20. Buildings constructed on lots fronting along South 19th Avenue shall either front onto the roadway and/or have double-front architectural features facing the roadway as found on the front of the dwellings units, for example; end gables, covered porches, varied roof lines, multiple façade materials, varied façade plane, and decorative lighting. These architectural requirements shall be addressed and demonstrated in the homeowner’s covenants/development guidelines. The homeowner’s association documents shall also specify that a maximum 4’ tall fence, with coordinated design detail, is permitted along the back of these lots. 21. That up to thirty percent of all lots along the block face of Block 15 shall be permitted to be use the public street for access to each individual lot. The final plat shall include a notation that will specifically identify those lots that will be allowed to be accessed from the street and shall be addressed and demonstrated in the covenants/development guidelines. 22. Homeowner’s association documents shall address the requirements for street trees, a City of Bozeman planting permit for street trees and obtaining utility locates before any excavation begins in the City of Bozeman right-of-way. The covenants shall include a planting note stating that the planting hole shall be at least twice the diameter of the root ball, that the root flare of the newly planted tree is visible and above ground, and there should be a mulch ring 3’- 4’ in diameter around each newly planted boulevard tree. 23. Street lighting, including pathway intersection lighting, shall be installed by the subdivider. Light locations and specifications shall be provided to the City Engineer for review and approval with the public improvements plans and specifications. All street light poles shall be installed a minimum of 10’ from any water or sewer main or appurtenance. 24. Should historical, cultural and/or archeological materials be inadvertently discovered during construction of this project, the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Bozeman Historic Preservation Office shall be contacted immediately and construction activities shall cease. 25. Should any species of concern, as defined by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, be discovered on-site during construction, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Natural Heritage Program shall be contacted immediately and construction activities shall cease. 26. A 1’ No Access Strip shall be shown on the plat along the entire frontage of 19th and on both sides of Edward Drive from the 19th right of way line west 150’. 27. All weather access roads shall be installed to provide access to all sewer mains that are not located within an existing street. 28. Water mains shall be looped to provide service from 2 separate mains for each phase of the subdivision. 200 Meadow Creek Subdivision, Phase 2 7 29. The easement for the offsite water main that was installed east of 19th as part of Meadow Creek Phase I shall be submitted prior to final plat approval for any phase of this subdivision. 30. All subdivision streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision in accordance with 18.44.010.A unless a variance is granted by the City Commission. 31. Temporary turnarounds meeting City of Bozeman requirements along with associated easements shall be installed on any dead end street which is more than 1 lot width long for any/all phases of the subdivision. 32. Any sewer or water service that ends up closer than 10’ to a side property line as a result of the newly proposed lot layout shall be abandoned and a new service installed in the standard location. Services which end up in non-standard location, but further than 10’ from side property lines may remain. DATED THIS DAY OF , 2011 Resolution #P-11001 _____________________________ ____________________________ Tim McHarg, Planning Director Ed Sypinski, President Department of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board 201 Page 1 Appropriate Review Fee Submitted CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1. Name of Project/Development: 2. Property Owner Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 3. Applicant Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 4. Representative Information: Name: E-mail Address: Mailing Address: Phone: FAX: 5. Legal Description: 6. Street Address: 7. Project Description: 8. Zoning Designation(s): 9. Current Land Use(s): 10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation: 11. Gross Area: Acres: Square Feet: 12. Net Area: Acres: Square Feet: 202 Page 2 (Development Review Application – Prepared 11/25/03; Amended 9/17/04, 5/1/06; 9/18/07) 13. Is the subject site within an urban renewal district? Yes, answer question 13a No, go to question 14 13a. Which urban renewal district? Downtown Northeast (NURD) North 7th Avenue 14. Is the subject site within an overlay district? Yes, answer question 14a No, go to question 15 14a. Which Overlay District? Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor 15. Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes, list UDO section(s): No 16. Application Type (please check all that apply): O. Planned Unit Development – Concept Plan A. Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands P. Planned Unit Development – Preliminary Plan B. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site Q. Planned Unit Development – Final Plan C. Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 R. Planned Unit Development – Master Plan D. Reuse, Change in Use, Further Development, Amendment /COA S. Subdivision Pre-application E. Special Temporary Use Permit T. Subdivision Preliminary Plat F. Sketch Plan/COA U. Subdivision Final Plat G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use V. Subdivision Exemption H. Preliminary Site Plan/COA W. Annexation I. Preliminary Site Plan X. Zoning Map Amendment J. Preliminary Master Site Plan Y. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment K. Conditional Use Permit Z. Zoning Variance L. Conditional Use Permit/COA AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment M. Administrative Project Decision Appeal BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment N. Administrative Interpretation Appeal Other: This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s), number of plans or plats, adjoiner information and materials, and fee (see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8½- by 11-inches or larger than 24- by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8½- by 14-inches. The name of the project must be shown on the cover sheet of the plans. If 3-ring binders will be used, they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are Wednesdays at 5:00 pm. This application must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority. I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. Further, I agree to grant City personnel and other review agency representatives access to the subject site during the course of the review process (Section 18.64.050, BMC). I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant’s Signature: Date: Applicant’s Signature: Date: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: Property Owner’s Signature: Date: 203 Page 3 (Subdivision Preliminary Plat Checklist – Prepared 11/26/03; revised 9/20/04; revised 5/2/05; revised 7/24/07) SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT CHECKLIST These checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked “No” or “N/A” (not applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. A. Subdivision Type. First Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record First Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record with a Variance Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record Major Subdivision B. Total Number of Lots. C. Proposed Uses. Indicate the number of lots (or spaces subdivisions for rent or lease, or units for condominiums) for each of the following uses: Residential, single household Park/Recreation/Open Space Residential, multi household Manufactured Home Space Planned Unit Development Recreational Vehicle Space Condominium Unit Commercial Townhouse Industrial Other: D. Preliminary Plat Requirements. The preliminary plat submittal must include the following information. Please refer to Section 18.78.040, BMC for the specific requirements for each item. Preliminary Plat Requirements Yes No N/A 1. All information required with the pre-application plan, as outlined in Section 18.78.030 (Subdivision Preapplication Plan), BMC 2. Name and location of the subdivision, scale, scale bar, north arrow, date of preparation, lots and blocks (designated by number), the dimensions and area of each lot, and the use of each lot, if other than for single family 3. All streets, roads, alleys, avenues, highways, and easements; the width of the right-of-way, grades, and curvature of each; existing and proposed road and street names; and proposed location of intersections for any subdivision requiring access to arterial or collector highways 4. The names of adjoining platted subdivisions and numbers of adjoining certificates of survey 5. An approximate survey of the exterior boundaries of the platted tract with bearings, distances, and curve data indicated outside of the boundary lines. When the plat is bounded by an irregular shoreline or a body of water, the bearings and distances of a closing meander traverse shall be given 6. The approximate location of all section corners or legal subdivision corners of sections pertinent to the subdivision boundary 7. If the improvements required are to be completed in phases after the final plat is filed, the approxi- mate area of each phase shall be shown on the plat 8. Ground contours at 2-foot intervals if slope is under 10 percent; 5-foot intervals if slope is between 10 and 15 percent; and 10-foot intervals if slope is 15 percent or greater 9. List of waivers granted from the requirements of Section 18.78.060 (Additional Subdivision Preliminary Plat Supplements), BMC during the preapplication process 10. Request for exemption from Montana Department of Environmental Quality Review as described in Section 18.78.040.K (Request for Exemption from MDEQ Review), BMC 11. All appropriate certificates (refer to Chapter 18.12, BMC) 204 Page 4 E. Preliminary Plat Supplements Required for All Subdivisions. The supplemental information shall include the following. Please refer to Section 18.78.050, BMC for the specific requirements for each item. Preliminary Plat Supplements Required for All Subdivisions Yes No N/A 1. A map showing all adjacent sections of land, subdivision, certificates of survey, streets and roads 2. Map of entire subdivision on either an 8½-inch x 11-inch, 8½-inch x 14-inch, or 11-inch x 17-inch sheet 3. A written statement describing any requested subdivision variance(s) and the facts of hardship upon which the request is based. Refer to Chapter 18.66 (Variance, Deviation and Appeal Procedures), BMC 4. Covenants, Restrictions and Articles of Incorporation for the Property Owners’ Association 5. Encroachment permits or a letter indicating intention to issue a permit where new streets, easements, rights-of way or driveways intersect State, County, or City highways, streets or roads 7. A letter of approval or preliminary approval from the City of Bozeman where a zoning change is necessary 8. A draft of such other appropriate certificates 9. Provision for maintenance of all streets (including emergency access), parks, and other required improvements if not dedicated to the public, or if private 10. Profile sheets for street grades greater than 5 percent 11. If an authorized representative signs on behalf of an owner of record, a copy of the authorization shall be provided 12. A Noxious Weed Management and Revegetation Plan approved by the Weed Control District for control of noxious weeds 13. A preliminary platting certificate prepared by a Montana title company F. Additional Subdivision Preliminary Plat Supplements. The following list of preliminary plat application supplements shall also be provided for all subdivisions unless waived by the Development Review Committee during the pre- application process. The developer shall include documentation of any waivers granted by the City after the pre- application meeting or plan review. Please refer to Section 18.78.060, BMC for the specific requirements for each item. Additional Subdivision Preliminary Plat Supplements Yes No N/A Waived 1. Surface water 2. Floodplains 3. Groundwater 4. Geology, soils and slope 5. Vegetation 6. Wildlife 7. Historical features 8. Agriculture 9. Agriculture water user facilities 10. Water and sewer 11. Stormwater management 12. Streets, roads and alleys 13. Utilities 14. Educational facilities 15. Land use 16. Parks and recreation facilities 17. Neighborhood center plan 18. Lighting plan 19. Affordable Housing 20. Miscellaneous 205 Page 5 G. By marking the checkbox below, the developer agrees to allow the Department of Planning & Community Development to send copies of correspondence to all parties listed on Page 1 of the Development Review Application (Property Owner, Applicant and Representative). If the checkbox is not marked, correspondence will be sent to the APPLICANT ONLY! By marking this checkbox I agree to allow the Department of Planning & Community Development to send copies of correspondence to all parties listed on Page 1 of the Development Review Application. Applicant’s Signature: Date: Applicant’s Signature: Date: 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268