HomeMy WebLinkAbout17546 Hoover Way Preliminary PUD - DRB SRPage 1 of 20
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Date: Design Review Board (DRB) Meeting of January 24, 2018 at 5:30 pm in the City
Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana
Project Description: A Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) application for a
phased 24-unit residential development located approximately 1/4-mile northwest of
the intersection of Baxter Lane and N. 27th Avenue/Thomas Drive. The PUD is
associated with a proposed 2.72-acre major subdivision to create 24 residential lots,
3 open space lots and the associated right-of-way. The application requests 8
relaxations.
Project Location: The subject parcel is legally described as the East Half (E1/2) of the
West Half (W1/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) of the Southwest Quarter
(SW1/4) of Section 35, Township One South (T01S), Range Five East (R05E), Less
a Portion of the Baxter Square Subdivision Phase 1 and 2, P.M.M., City of Bozeman,
Montana.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in
the staff report for application 17546 and move to recommend approval of the
planned unit development with conditions and subject to all applicable code
provisions.
Report Date: January 18, 2018
Staff Contact: Addi Jadin, Community Development
Shawn Kohtz, Engineering
Agenda Item Type: Action (Quasi-judicial)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
None
Project Summary
The PUD is proposed in conjunction with a subdivision to create 24 residential lots for 24
townhome units in 3- and 4-household dwellings with associated open space in the R-3
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 2 of 20
zoning district. Unless the PUD relaxations modify a standard, the base requirements of the
Unified Development Code remain in effect.
The PUD appears to conform to the requirements of the Unified Development Code criteria.
A PUD is a discretionary approval and the review authority must find that the overall
development is superior to that offered by the basic existing zoning standards. See Section
38.20.030.A.4, BMC. The obligation to show a superior outcome is the responsibility of the
applicant. The applicant asserts in the Application Narrative that the overall outcome of the
proposal is superior to what would be obtained from the application of the default R-3
district: the project will provide 100% affordable housing surpassing the minimum 10%
required by the Affordable Housing Ordinance. In addition, housing designs, private lot
landscaping, and elements to reduce human impacts to the wetlands are included as elements
of the PUD which would go beyond the baseline requirements for a major subdivision.
Parkland for the Hoover Way PUD and subdivision was provided at the filing of the final plat
for Baxter Square Subdivision Phases 1 and 2 and is drawing on the parkland balance that
remains after the recording of Baxter Square Phase 3. Further background is provided in
Appendix B of the staff report and in the Applicant Narrative item #3.
The PUD proposes phasing as described in item #8 of the Applicant Narrative in order to be
granted occupancy for the individual buildings as they are completed (please note there is an
error in the first paragraph of the Applicant Narrative that states the project will be completed
in one phase). All subdivision improvements will be completed in Phase 1.
The PUD also proposes to utilize the concurrent construction provisions of Section
38.39.030.D. in order to allow building permit application, review and issuance prior to
completion of the public infrastructure.
Alternatives
1) Recommend approval of the PUD as presented.
2) Recommend approval of the PUD with suggested changes.
3) Recommend denial of the PUD.
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 3 of 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 2 –REQUESTED RELAXATIONS ....................................................................... 7
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ...................................... 7
SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS ................. 8
SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................ 8
SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................. 8
Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. .............................................. 8
Applicable Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC .............. 12
APPENDIX A –PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY................................ 16
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.............. 17
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF............................ 18
APPENDIX E –PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT ........................................... 18
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 19
ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 20
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 4 of 20
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
Project Boundary and Vicinity Map
Page 5 of 20 Proposed Site Plan and Wetland Exhibit (from Application Drawing A1.2)
Page 6 of 20
Proposed Site Plan with Landscaping (from Application Drawing L100)
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 7 of 20
SECTION 2 –REQUESTED RELAXATIONS
Planned Unit Development Relaxations are requested with this application. The applicant
has requested relaxations to the standards in the following summary list and has provided the
overall reasoning behind the relaxations in the PUD application item #7 of the “Hoover Way
Townhomes Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat Submittal Project Narrative” (Applicant
Narrative). The altered standards are also depicted throughout the application, particularly
on Sheets A1.1, A1.2 and A1.3 of the application submittal.
Summary List of Relaxations
Code Section Summary of Relaxation
1) 38.08.040.A. Reduce Minimum Lot Area;
2) 38.23.100.A.2.c.(4)(d) Reduce Watercourse Setback for Connected Wetlands;
3) 38.23.100.A.2.e.(2)(b) Allow a Non-spur Trail in Zone 1 (Open Space Lot 3);
4) 38.24.020 Reduce Right-of-Way Width (Hoover Way);
5) 38.08.050.A.1.c. Reduce Front Yard Setback (Lot 6, Block 2);
6) 38.08.050.A.4. Reduce the Garage Entry Setback (Lot 6, Block 2);
7) 38.25.020.A. Reduce Minimum Parking Space Length (Lot 6, Block 2);
8) 38.26.060.A.1. Allow Alternate Methods for Providing Landscape Plan Points.
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in
this report. These conditions are specific to the planned unit development. Additional
conditions may apply to the subdivision of the property being processed concurrently with
this planned unit development.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The final PUD plan shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to approval of the final
plat.
2. The applicants shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Bozeman Public Works
Department to document the parking space for Lot 6 of Block 2 prior to submittal of the final
PUD plan.
3. 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.
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 8 of 20
SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN
CORRECTIONS
None are identified at this time.
SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Having considered the criteria established for residential planned unit developments,
approval with conditions is recommended to the Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB
shall forward its recommendation to the City Commission for consideration and action.
The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on the related subdivision and make a
recommendation to the City Commission. The public hearing is scheduled for February 6,
2018.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the Planned Unit Development on
December 13, 2017. The DRC found that the application was adequate to proceed in review.
The City Commission is scheduled to consider the proposal on February 12, 2018.
SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application
materials, municipal codes, standards, and plans, public comment, and all other materials
available during the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review.
The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review.
Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC.
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.
In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy
This project is proposing residential uses within a residentially planned area. No conflicts
have been identified with the growth policy future land use designation or goals and policies.
The application’s “Statement of objectives and conformance to city policy and plans”
provides greater detail regarding this criterion. The application supports various growth
policy goals and principles as described in the aforementioned document.
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 9 of 20
2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations
There are no known violations on the property. The project proposes several alternative
standards for development within the PUD. If the remaining PUD and subdivision processes
are completed, and the City Commission approves the requested relaxations, then the project
will be in conformance. If the Commission does not approve the relaxations then the project
will not be in conformance and should not be approved.
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations
Applications for design and review of infrastructure, compliance with building permits, and
related processes are future events. Compliance will be required as the project advances. The
application includes a copy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit required for the
wetland permit.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property
The proposed construction of the street network provides for connectivity and continuity of
streets. A trail is proposed along an historic railroad berm as called for in the PROST plan
and is connected to internal sidewalks. The proposed locations of additional open space will
integrate with the existing Baxter Square Park and will allow the extension of connected
wetlands along the railroad berm. The open spaces will integrate with the existing park and
promote an open viewshed across the wetland mitigation area continuing to the north and
northwest.
In response to the growth of the wetland area within Baxter Square Park and the subject
property, the street cross-section on the eastern side of Georgia Marie Lane has been altered
in order to allow lots bordering the park to shift north on the south side of Georgia Marie
Lane.
The individual home sites are unlikely to have negative affects off the property. Fencing and
signage is incorporated in the PUD plan in order to prevent misuse of or dangers associated
with the open waters in the wetland.
The completion of subdivision roads will connect a loop around the park for adjacent
properties. No particular conflicts have been identified at this time.
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking
conditions
Adequate parking appears to be provided as the application does not request PUD-specific
relaxations. The associated preliminary plat application does request parking relaxations
allowed as affordable housing incentives in UDC Section 38.43.130, BMC.
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress
Adequate circulation is provided by sidewalks. The proposed extension of Hoover Way
provides transition from a non-standard street cross section in the subdivision to the south to
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 10 of 20
a standard section further north within the subdivision. The street cross sections will be
further analyzed with the subdivision.
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of
vehicular use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of
natural vegetation
The pedestrian trail, street networks, and private and open space landscaping are shown on
the Landscaping drawings in the application. If relaxation number 8 is approved, the
landscaping plan will be in compliance with the landscaping requirements of Article 38.26.
8. Open space
The project proposes three open spaces. Two will be used for stormwater management and
one will be an open space with trail in a wetland area.
9. Building location and height
No changes are requested for building height.
The proposed lot sizes are smaller than normal for the R-3 district as requested in Relaxation
#1 to allow the townhome lots to pull further away from the wetland areas.
10. Setbacks
Relaxation #2 requests to reduce the watercourse setback for connected wetlands. Essentially
all of the other relaxations are intended to keep the amount of reduction to a minimum while
maintaining as many affordable housing units as possible.
Relaxations 5 and 6 modify front yard setbacks for Lot 6, Block 2 in order to accommodate
the jog in the right-of-way on Georgia Marie Lane that was designed to pull the lots
adjoining the park away from the wetlands. Relaxation 7 is necessary to allow the stacked
driveway parking space to count toward parking requirements despite the shorter setback to
garage.
11. Lighting
New dark-sky compliant lighting will be required to be installed along the public streets as a
condition of subdivision preliminary plat approval.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities
Not applicable to DRB.
13. Site surface drainage
Drainage is placed within appropriate locations. Placement and design will be addressed with
the subdivision conditions.
14. Loading and unloading areas
None are proposed.
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 11 of 20
15. Grading
The western and northern edges of the wetland within the Baxter Square Park will be
impacted and regraded for installation of Hoover Way as is described in the wetland
delineation report. Grading work will be done in the area of the wetlands adjacent to the
railroad berm and to the railroad berm itself in order to construct the road and the trail in
open space #3 as requested by relaxation #3. The Geotechnical Report accompanying the
Preliminary Plat application includes comments about grading in Section 6.8.
16. Signage
None is proposed at this time.
17. Screening
No proposed element of the project requires screening.
18. Overlay district provisions
Not applicable to this application.
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties
No public comment has been received at this time.
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation
or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either:
Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved
configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become
nonconforming
or
The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the
City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of
the development to become nonconforming.
Not applicable. The site will be divided according to the associated subdivision.
21. Compliance with article 38.43 of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
Not relevant to the DRB.
22. Phasing of development
As stated previously in the Executive Summary of the staff report, the PUD proposes phasing
as described in item #8 of the Applicant Narrative in order to be granted occupancy for the
individual buildings as they are completed. All subdivision improvements will be completed
in Phase 1.
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 12 of 20
Applicable Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC
E. In addition to the review criteria of section 38.19.100, the review authority shall, in
approving a conditional use permit, determine favorably as follows:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to
accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and
landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the
vicinity;
The site is adequate for residential development. The existing wetlands will be impacted;
however, the applicant has utilized the PUD to request relaxations to minimize impacts and
have designed open space to enhance the wetlands areas that will remain onsite for the
benefit of the natural resource and the enjoyment of the public. Parking is provided on each
lot and along the public street adjacent to the park.
The applicant has proposed housing, signage and fencing designs for approval as part of the
PUD application.
2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting
property. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden
of proof;
No adverse impacts to abutting properties have been identified. Issues of traffic impacts
which does interact with the larger transportation system will be addressed with the related
subdivision.
3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include,
but are not limited to:
a. Regulation of use;
b. Special yards, spaces and buffers;
c. Special fences, solid fences and walls;
d. Surfacing of parking areas;
e. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate
bonds;
f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress;
g. Regulation of signs;
h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds;
i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors;
j. Regulation of hours for certain activities;
k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed;
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 13 of 20
l. Duration of use;
m. Requiring the dedication of access rights; and
n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly
and efficient manner.
The proposed covenants associated with the project will address these areas. The covenants
will be addressed primarily through the comments on the related subdivision.
F. In addition to all other conditions, the following general requirements apply to every
conditional use permit granted:
1. That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the
fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit
procedure; and
2. That all of the conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use,
shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, shall be
binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in
writing, and shall be recorded as such with the county clerk and recorder's office by the
property owner prior to the issuance of any building permits, final plan approval or
commencement of the conditional use.
The necessary recording of documents will be addressed as part of the final site plan process
and will be required prior to approval of the final site plan.
Applicable Planned Unit Development Review Criteria, Section 38.20.090.E, BMC
The application “Statement of objectives and conformance to city policy and plans”
addresses the following criteria.
2. In addition to the criteria for all site plan and conditional use reviews, the following
criteria will be used in evaluating all planned unit development applications.
a. All development. All land uses within a proposed planned unit development shall
be reviewed against, and comply with, the applicable objectives and criteria of the
mandatory "all development" group.
(1) Does the development comply with all city design standards, requirements and
specifications for the following services: water supply, trails/walks/bike ways, sanitary
supply, irrigation companies, fire protection, electricity, flood hazard areas, natural gas,
telephone, storm drainage, cable television, and streets?
Except for those standards proposed for relaxation it appears the application conforms.
(2) Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation?
Existing vegetation along the wetlands will be preserved except in areas where wetlands will
be impacted as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with a 404 permit.
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 14 of 20
(3) Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping,
etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive
planned unit development?
Yes, the proposal appears cohesive and has a variety of coordinating elements ranging from
design standards to landscaping plans to physical street configurations.
(4) Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., building construction,
orientation, and placement; transportation networks; selection and placement of landscape
materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources; etc.) contribute to the overall reduction
of energy use by the project?
The development will consist of all multifamily townhome units which are inherently more
energy efficient than detached single-family units. The PUD design integrates with existing
transportation networks for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. Landscaping materials were
chosen for long-term viability and appropriateness within the wetland areas, yards and open
spaces.
(5) Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping,
etc.) designed and arranged to maximize the privacy by the residents of the project?
The buildings incorporate large covered rear patios and covered front porches. Perimeter lot
fencing is proposed to enhance the privacy of rear yards and to ensure the long-term
affordability of the properties.
(6) Park land. Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas
contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration, and has the area of park
land or open space been provided for each proposed dwelling as required by section
38.27.020.
The project has a surplus balance of parkland from prior dedications. No additional park land
is proposed with this phase. The tabulation of parkland is provided in the subdivision
submittal. The standard has been met. Individual open space by unit is met because rear
yards are provided; however, the PUD application includes the following site plan
enhancements to ensure privacy and to ensure the long-term affordability of the lots: fencing,
large covered patios, individual lot landscaping.
(7) Performance. All PUDs shall earn at least 20 performance points.
With a PUD, Section 38.20.090.E.2.a.7 requires at least 20 performance points for the subject
property. There are 11 options provided in the UDC to meet this requirement. Points can be
met using any combination of on-site and off-site open space or other options listed in the
code. The Preliminary PUD specifies that the performance points are being met through the
provision of affordable housing in addition to the required 10%.
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 15 of 20
(8) Is the development being properly integrated into development and circulation patterns of
adjacent and nearby neighborhoods so that this development will not become an isolated
"pad" to adjoining development?
The overall property is well integrated into the arterial and collector system. Local streets
provide additional connectivity. The trail connection provides an alternate future east-west
path for trail users within the Baxter Square open spaces and park that is consistent with the
PROST plan and preserves an historic railroad berm.
b. Residential. Planned unit developments in residential areas (R-S, R-1, R-2, R-3,
R-4, RMH and R-O zoning districts) may include a variety of housing types designed to
enhance the natural environmental, conserve energy, recognize, and to the maximum
extent possible, preserve and promote the unique character of neighborhoods, with
provisions for a mix of limited commercial development. For purposes of this section,
"limited commercial development" means uses listed in the B-1 neighborhood service
district (article 10 of this chapter), within the parameters set forth below. All uses
within the PUD must be sited and designed such that the activities present will not
detrimentally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood. The permitted number of
residential dwelling units shall be determined by the provision of and proximity to
public services and subject to the following limitations:
(1) On a net acreage basis, is the average residential density in the project (calculated for
residential portion of the site only) consistent with the development densities set forth in the
land use guidelines of the city growth policy?
The property is planned for Residential and zoned as R-3. The density for the project is
approximately 18 units per acre which complies with the growth policy and indicates a
compact development pattern conducive to the efficient and cost-effective provision of urban
services and multi-modal transportation.
(2) Does the project provide for private outdoor areas (e.g., private yards, patios and
balconies, etc.) for use by the residents and employees of the project which are sufficient in
size and have adequate light, sun, ventilation, privacy and convenient access to the
household or commercial units they are intended to serve?
Private spaces are provided on each lot enhanced by fencing, weather protection and
landscaping.
(3) Does the project provide for outdoor areas for use by persons living and working in the
development for active or passive recreational activities?
Yes, private open spaces are provided. The larger open space is provided in the area of the
wetland and will incorporate a trail on an existing historic railroad berm as called for in the
PROST plan. The smaller open spaces are used for stormwater management and can be used
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 16 of 20
for recreational activities. Park land was provided with earlier phases of the adjacent
subdivision.
(4) If the project is proposing a residential density bonus as described below, does it include
a variety of housing types and styles designed to address community wide issues of
affordability and diversity of housing stock?
Not applicable.
(5) Is the overall project designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve energy and
to provide efficient public services and facilities?
Yes. The compact development is inherently energy efficient, its location adjacent to existing
residential development is conducive to the provision of efficient public services and
facilities and the townhome design was intended to mitigate impacts on the wetland areas.
(6) Residential density bonus. If the project is proposing a residential density bonus (30
percent maximum) above the residential density of the zoning district within which the
project is located and which is set forth in article 8 of this chapter, does the proposed project
exceed the established regulatory design standards (such as for setbacks, off-street parking,
open space, etc.) and ensure compatibility with adjacent neighborhood development? The
number of dwelling units obtained by the density bonus shall be determined by dividing the
lot area required for the dwelling unit type by one plus the percentage of density bonus
sought. The minimum lot area per dwelling obtained by this calculation shall be provided
within the project. Those dwellings subject to chapter 10, article 8, shall be excluded in the
base density upon which the density bonus is calculated.
No density bonus is requested.
(7) Limited commercial. If limited commercial development, as defined above, is proposed
within the project, is less than 20 percent of the gross area of the PUD designated to be used
for offices or neighborhood service activities not ordinarily allowed in the particular
residential zoning district?
No limited commercial is proposed.
(8) Does the overall PUD recognize and, to the maximum extent possible, preserve and
promote the unique character of neighborhoods in the surrounding area?
Yes, the property is surrounded by residential uses of various densities. To the east and
south, residences are single-household dwellings on small lots or townhomes. To the west is
a large rural residential County property and to the north, the current land use is rural
residential however the land is annexed and zoned R-4.
APPENDIX A –PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The subject property is zoned “R-3” (Residential
Medium Density District). The intent of the R-3 residential medium density district is to
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 17 of 20
provide for the development of one- to five-household residential structures near service
facilities within the city. It should provide for a variety of housing types to serve the varied
needs of households of different size, age and character, while reducing the adverse effect of
nonresidential uses.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman
Community Plan designates the subject property to develop as “Residential.” The
“Residential” classification designates places where the primary activity is urban density
dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low
intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density
residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate
the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use
of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for
and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential
designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal
boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development.
The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32
dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and
circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density.
Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence
of constraints and natural features, such as floodplains, may cause an area to be designated
for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All
residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent
development, natural constraints, such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion
which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation
is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area.
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
BACKGROUND
The Hoover Way Subdivision Pre-application and Preliminary Plat applications were initially
reviewed by the Development Review Committee in January and April of 2017, respectively.
At that time, wetland delineation work had not been completed to replace the expired
delineation provided at the time of the Baxter Square Subdivision Phase 4 application
proposed for the same lot as the current proposal. Upon completion of the wetland
delineation, it was revealed that the wetland area had indeed grown since the prior
subdivision review. In addition, as is noted in the application materials, a buffer of wetland
areas offsite is being enforced with this application that was not included in the prior review.
Due to the increased wetland area which would either need to be mitigated offsite or
provided with a 50-foot buffer, the applicants first proposed a Variance application seeking
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 18 of 20
to reduce the wetland buffer to 20’. At the suggestion of Development Review Committee
staff, the applicants instead committed to submitting a PUD application in order to better
leverage the 100% affordable housing subdivision in order to retain as much of the wetland
buffer as possible.
The resulting PUD and subdivision applications were able to maintain the same number of
affordable units as first proposed with the Variance application but now include added site
plan features and maintain no less than 30-foot wetland buffers.
As mentioned throughout the staff report, no additional parkland is required. The subject
parcel was created in its current configuration with the recording in 2005 of the plat of Baxter
Square Subdivision P.U.D. – Phases 1 and 2 which included the platting and dedication of
the entire Baxter Square Park. The parcel is depicted on the plat and is described in the
Baxter Square PUD materials as “Phase 4 (Future)”. Finally, the parkland remaining in the
latest and last phase of the Baxter Square Subdivision (Phase 3) meets the current parkland
dedication requirements; therefore, in accordance with Section 38.27.100.A.7., the land and
cash donation requirements for the proposed PUD and associated subdivision shall be
waived.
Noticing has been provided. Notice was provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior
to the Planning Board and City Commission public hearing.
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Owner/Applicant: Human Resources Development Council of District IX, 32 S. Tracy Ave.,
Bozeman MT 59715-4659
Representative: Intrinsik Architecture, 111 N. Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 and C&H
Engineering and Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718
Report By: Addi Jadin, Associate Planner
APPENDIX E –PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT
Sec. 38.20.010. Intent.
A. It is the intent of the city through the use of the planned unit development (PUD) concept,
to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of
development projects within the city. Specifically, with regard to the improvement and
protection of the public health, safety and general welfare, it shall be the intent of this chapter
to promote the city's pursuit of the following community objectives:
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 19 of 20
1. To ensure that future growth and development occurring within the city is in accord with the
city's adopted growth policy, its specific elements, and its goals, objectives and policies;
2. To allow opportunities for innovations in land development and redevelopment so that greater
opportunities for high quality housing, recreation, shopping and employment may extend to
all citizens of the city area;
3. To foster the safe, efficient and economic use of land and transportation and other public
facilities;
4. To ensure adequate provision of public services such as water, sewer, electricity, open space
and public parks;
5. To avoid inappropriate development of lands and to provide adequate drainage, water quality
and reduction of flood damage;
6. To encourage patterns of development which decrease automobile travel and encourage trip
consolidation, thereby reducing traffic congestion and degradation of the existing air quality;
7. To promote the use of bicycles and walking as effective modes of transportation;
8. To reduce energy consumption and demand;
9. To minimize adverse environmental impacts of development and to protect special features of
the geography;
10. To improve the design, quality and character of new development;
11. To encourage development of vacant properties within developed areas;
12. To protect existing neighborhoods from the harmful encroachment of incompatible
developments;
13. To promote logical development patterns of residential, commercial, office and industrial
uses that will mutually benefit the developer, the neighborhood and the community as a
whole;
14. To promote the efficient use of land resources, full use of urban services, mixed uses,
transportation options, and detailed and human-scale design; and
15. To meet the purposes established in section 38.01.040
FISCAL EFFECTS
Not applicable for the DRB
17546, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Hoover Way Subdivision PUD
Page 20 of 20
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Application materials