On April 1, 2011, owner, Regal Land Development, Inc., applied for preliminary major plat approval for Ironwood Estates Subdivision, 5th Filing. The proposed subdivision re-plats 23 lots and portions of public streets and parkland originally platted in the Ironwood Subdivision, 4th Filing, into 102 lots. The subject property is generally located east of Molt Road, north of Ironwood Drive, and west of Aspenridge Drive in northwest Billings. The property is zoned Residential-9600 (R-96) and the proposed lots would be for single-family residential use. The Yellowstone County Board of Planning conducted a public hearing on May 24, 2011. The owner is Regal Land Development, Inc., Dan Wells, President. The representing agent is Sanderson Stewart.

In accordance with state law, the City Council has 60 working days to act upon this major preliminary plat; the 60 working day review period for the proposed plat ends on June 24, 2011. State and City subdivision regulations also require that preliminary plats be reviewed using specific criteria, as stated within this report. The City may not unreasonably restrict an owner’s ability to develop land if the subdivider provides evidence that any identified adverse effects can be mitigated. Within the 60 day review period, the City Council is required to:

1. Approve;
2. Conditionally Approve; or
3. Deny the Preliminary Plat

Should the City Council approve the preliminary plat, the subject property may further develop under private ownership, resulting in additional tax revenues.

General location: North side of Ironwood Drive, west of Aspenridge Drive, in Ironwood Estates Subdivision.

Legal Description: The following lots within Ironwood Estates Subdivision, 4th Filing: Lots 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 15, 31, 32, 33A, and a portion of parkland in Block 1; Lots 1, 2, 8, 1, 18, 20, and the parkland in Block 2; Lots 1-4, 8, 11, 14, 21 and the parkland in Block 4
Owner/Subdivider: Regal Land Development, Inc.; Dan Wells, Pres.

Engineer and Surveyor: Sanderson Stewart

Existing Zoning: R-96

Existing land use: Platted vacant lots and parkland

Proposed land use: Single-family residential and parkland

Gross and Net area: 51.37 acres; 37.36 acres

Proposed number of lots: 102

Lot size: Max: 29,449 square feet
Min.: 13,206 square feet

Parkland requirements: 4.11 acres is required by law based on the current proposal; 5.41 acres is proposed. Since portions of previously dedicated parkland are proposed to be vacated and returned to the developer (at fair market value) an update to the Park Master Plan will be processed concurrently with this application.

Variance requested: Variance from the requirements for standard curb and gutters along streets to allow two-foot wide concrete ribbon edges on all streets.

A public hearing was conducted by the Yellowstone County Board of Planning on May 24, 2011. Eight nearby Ironwood property owners spoke in opposition to the proposal, and two others had sent letters of opposition to the Board prior to the meeting. Two nearby property owners spoke in favor of the proposal; one was neutral. Overall, the opponents’ objections to the proposal were that they were sold one concept of development via the marketing of the original master plan (see Attachment) and personal discussions with the subdivider at the time they purchased their homes, and now they were being presented with a whole new concept. Specific objections focused on four things: the increased housing density, the proposed change in parkland layout, the proposed change in street layout, and drainage issues. Proponents generally didn’t mind the new layout and density, and liked the idea that the neighborhood would continue developing rather than stay unfinished for many more years. They felt a completed neighborhood would increase property values.

The new proposal increases lot density from 67 to 102 homesites and average lot sizes decreased from over 20,000 square feet to around 16,000 square feet. The developer indicated that in other parts of Ironwood, the larger lot sizes are not selling, whereas he only has four lots remaining that are closer to the proposed size. Changes in market conditions have necessitated the revision.

The proposed parkland amendment takes away approximately 3.2 acres of previously dedicated parkland and redesigns the trail network (see Attachment). The original Park Master Plan proposed a network of trails behind the houses, with connections to the streets. No sidewalks were proposed originally. The new park proposal takes the trail network to specific trail corridors along the perimeters of the subject property, and proposes sidewalks to connect to them. The PRPL Board reviewed the plan at its May 11, 2011, Board meeting and determined the park changes were not substantial enough to warrant a new full-blown Master Plan review. Opponents to the new proposal indicated that the original trail network created a more secure, children-friendly, atmosphere. Proponents felt the new network would be heavily used, and that the informal trails are already a “race track” being used by many people.

The new proposed street layout orients many of the streets in a north-south direction with cul-de-sac ends on the north. It also adds a second east-west route, off of Woodcreek Drive. Opponents to this indicated that they felt the north-south streets may cause drainage issues since they run parallel to the grade; also, the second east-west route would change traffic patterns. Most everyone seemed to find the new broken alignment for Canyonwoods Drive agreeable for traffic calming reasons. One couple (Mr. and Mrs. Tim Smith) spoke at length about the fact that when they bought their lots in August of 2008 (Lots 6 & 7, Block 1, of the 4th Filing) just west of the proposed 5th Filing off of Woodcreek Drive, the roads were not completed as the SIA said they should have been. They indicated that they did not like the new layout with two streets coming off of Woodcreek Drive. They felt they would not have purchased the lots under this new proposal. Even though their lots are not a part of this 5th Filing, they feel the proposal should not be allowed to move forward due to the previous SIA construction requirements.

In terms of drainage, the proposal would continue to use swales in lieu of curb and gutters. Opponents to the proposal were concerned that this would perpetuate drainage issues already experienced within Ironwood.

Consistency with the Growth Policy, the Transportation Plan 2009 Update, and Heritage Trail Plan are discussed within the Findings of Fact.