Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26.2_Norton Phase 4 Park EmailFrom:Addi JadinTo:Nicole Olmstead; Matthew Lee Cc:Ross Knapper; Art MalitoSubject:Re: Mayfly Townhomes Pre Plat App #22310Date:Monday, January 2, 2023 11:46:43 AMAttachments:LinkedIn_icon_teal_eab3e198-ada5-4916-b445-7ab6a45a1183.pngTwitter_icon_teal_7116b3e6-4583-4d6e-8764-aaf20e227c84.pngInstagram_icon_teal_231c6090-3632-4fca-844f-5c96ef34c32f.pngFacebook_icon_teal_7dd3ce24-c562-45c4-b38a-2f74c2be7031.pngPhone_icon_teal_ec4e89bf-1bf7-4941-9490-c24b3fe13977.pngWebsite_icon_teal_c1c2bcac-4de5-47f3-b080-9309a44f8ab4.pngimage002.pngimage001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngLogo_CushingTerrell_Sig_c8278f6f-8f3f-45ad-8476-3bbae351291a.pngct-bftwf-v3_f334187f-b8d7-4c7e-88f6-1cbb002c0d26.png Nicole, Thanks for laying this out and digging out our initial correspondence. 1. The 0.66 has not been paid according to our records. I believe that tracking table is pointing out what would be required by Block 11, 1-4 when it developed assuming it came in at a high density. 2. Yes, we will accept the prior dedication toward this project as described in the table. Addi Jadin | Park Planning and Development Manager City of Bozeman | Parks and Recreation Department P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 | 406-582-2908 Pronouns: She/Her engage.bozeman.net/pratplan From: Nicole Olmstead <NicoleOlmstead@cushingterrell.com> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 5:12 PM To: Addi Jadin <AJadin@BOZEMAN.NET>; Matthew Lee <mjlee@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: Ross Knapper <rknapper@BOZEMAN.NET>; Art Malito <artmalito@cushingterrell.com> Subject: Mayfly Townhomes Pre Plat App #22310 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Addi- After our conversation regarding the Mayfly Townhome stormwater impact on the Norton Ranch Park, I took a closer look at the Norton Ranch Parkland Tracking Tables. Specifically, I was interested to understand how they relate to the Mayfly Townhome Preliminary Plat application our team is working on. As you know, our initial application (#22310) proposed satisfying the parkland requirements using Cash in Lieu. This approach was supported by the Parks Department. However, after looking at the Tracking Tables for both Norton Ranch Phase 4 and Phase 5, I believe this approach may need to be reevaluated. It appears that at least 1.31 acres of Norton Ranch Parkland has been accounted for, for the initial subdivision of Block 11 and the development of the Mayfly Townhomes. Take a look at what was found to support this: The site for the proposed Mayfly Townhomes is located on Lots 1-4 of Block 11 in the Norton Ranch Phase 4 subdivision. I’ve attached the plat to this email. According to the Parkland Tracking Table included on the plat, when Block 11 was platted, 1.31 acres of Norton Ranch parkland and .66 acres of Cash In Lieu appears to have been accounted for. At the time of Final Plat for Phase 4 (including 96 DU’s for Block 11), Norton Ranch subdivision had an excess of dedicated parkland totaling 0.26 acres. I wanted to be sure that the park dedication for Block 11 had not been impacted by any development that occurred after Phase 4 was approved. According to an updated Norton Ranch Parkland Tracking Table included in the August 2020 Parks Master Plan submitted & approved for Preliminary Plat of Norton Ranch Phase 5A, 1.31 acres of parkland remains allocated for the development of Block 11. Not only is the development of Block 11 continues to be accounted for, but with additional parkland dedicated in Phase 5, the total excess parkland for Norton Ranch Subdivision is 1.97 acres. In application #22310, the proposed Net Residential Area for Mayfly Townhomes is 4.19 acres with 62 DUs resulting in a Net Residential Density of 14.81 DU/acre. Parkland at 12 DU/acre: 1.51 acres- 1.00 acre = .51 acres (CIL obligation) Parkland at 8 DU/acre: 1.00 acres (Max acres) Due to the fact that Final Plat was approved for Block 11 in Phase 4 and that an excess of parkland remains for Norton Ranch Phase 4 and Phase 5, it appears that there is sufficient parkland set aside in the Norton Ranch Park system to satisfy a Parkland obligation of at least 1.31 acres for the development of the Mayfly Townhomes. The remaining questions are: 1. In regards to the .66 acres of Cash in Lieu of Parkland noted on the Phase 4 Tracking Table. I was interested to know whether the city had record of this payment? 2. Will the city accept all 1.31 acres as approved in Phase 4 Final Plat and Phase 5A Preliminary Plat for further development of Block 11? Below is email correspondence from 2021 indicating that the parkland dedicated with the Norton Ranch Subdivision could potentially be used for this application. I hope this information provides the sufficient clarification. Thank you for your time. Our team is interested to hear your thoughts on this. Nicole Olmstead Project Manager | Land Planner406.922.7128 cushingterrell.com#DesignMeetsYou CT-BFTWF-v3.png From: Addi Jadin <AJadin@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 4:28 PMTo: Nicole Olmstead <NicoleOlmstead@cushingterrell.com>Cc: Wes Baumgartner <WesBaumgartner@cushingterrell.com>; Matthew Lee <mjlee@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Re: TBD Baxter Follow up questions Hello again - I've updated our answers below. To understand all this, it will be helpful for you to look at the attached sheet from phase 5 which was the last phase with parkland. The parkland tracking table shows how much land was required per block and lot and the amount of parkland provided for the subdivision. There is a surplus of 1.97 acres that could be applied to future lots; however we don't have guidance on how that should be allocated to future lot development. Other lots may have already claimed some of the surplus. We would ask that you coordinate with the developers of Norton to provide evidence that the balance remains if you will claim it. 1. Can a direct pedestrian pathway placed around the perimeter of the Grand Park be used to satisfy the Frontage requirements without going to through a PUD process? Not unless you get to at least 50% frontage 2. Could Cash-In-Lieu money calculated from subdividing an adjacent parcel (Lot R2A Norton Ranch Phase 4) be directed for use within the park of Lot R4? Yes, generally that's how it works. It's not the easiest for us to earmark the funds specifically. For example, Peet's Hill project is community park serving the whole city so it will skim from the City-wide fund and we wouldn't except a project from that. You guarantee the direct benefit if the nearby lot did Improvements-in-lieu (IILP) 3. Does the park dedicated within Block 15 of Norton Phase 4 satisfy park requirements for development of Block 11, 12, 13 & 14? The parkland provided throughout the subdivision including Block 15 park did include Blocks 11-14. The parkland tracking table shows that parkland up to 8 du/acre has been provided on 11-14. For any units above 8 du/acre on lots 11-14, parkland must be provided for the additional density up to 12 du/acre. If you will claim parkland excess from previous phases, you must provide proof that it hasn't already been claimed by a site plan. 4. Would development of Lot R2A of Norton Phase 4 require additional parkland dedication or was it considered in Block 15 park? We confirmed that R2A was not previously included in parkland dedication. 5. How does the Waiver of required park dedication calculation work? Is there an example of a successful waiver proposal using “long term protection” and not a PUD that comes to mind you could share with me? Haven't seen it done well. You'll have to set the precedent! We recommended a waiver to City Commission for the development going in behind Smiths because they have amenities in their trail corridor next to riparian area and significant trail connections, but couldn't quite meet our parkland requirements. They got a waiver of some of their park requirement and give CILP for the rest. They are an infill project with significant constraints so it's not exactly apples to apples. Honestly, the commission was focused on other things with that project so it barely was mentioned during their hearing. Addi Jadin | Parks Planning and Development Manager City of Bozeman | Parks and Recreation Department P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 | 406-582-2908Pronouns: She/Her From: Nicole Olmstead <NicoleOlmstead@cushingterrell.com> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:05 PM To: Addi Jadin <AJadin@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: Wes Baumgartner <WesBaumgartner@cushingterrell.com> Subject: [SENDER UNVERIFIED]TBD Baxter Follow up questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Addi- Thanks for meeting to discuss TDB Baxter Creek this morning with me and Wes. I wanted to follow up with a few questions that we didn’t have time for… 1. Can a direct pedestrian pathway placed around the perimeter of the Grand Park be used to satisfy the Frontage requirements without going to through a PUD process? 2. Could Cash-In-Lieu money calculated from subdividing an adjacent parcel (Lot R2A Norton Ranch Phase 4) be directed for use within the park of Lot R4? 3. Does the park dedicated within Block 15 of Norton Phase 4 satisfy park requirements for development of Block 11, 12, 13 & 14? 4. Would development of Lot R2A of Norton Phase 4 require additional parkland dedication or was it considered in Block 15 park? 5. How does the Waiver of required park dedication calculation work? Is there an example of a successful waiver proposal using “long term protection” and not a PUD that comes to mind you could share with me? Nicole Olmstead Project Manager | Land Planner406.922.7128 cushingterrell.comCTA is now Cushing Terrell. City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law. City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.