HomeMy WebLinkAbout21- Findings of Fact - Bridger Meadows PUD, App 20350 Page 1 of 28
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Preliminary Plan
Public Hearing Date: Design Review Board (DRB), June 9, 2021 at 5:30 pm via WebEx.
City Commission, July 20, 2021 at 6:00 pm via WebEx.
Project Description: A Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) to create a major
subdivision that includes 16 single family household lots on 11.87 acres. The development
also includes a 7.15 acre wildlife refuge and wetland preservation site and 1.72 acres of
open space. The property is zoned R-1. Six relaxations were requested with this
application. This project includes a Preliminary Plat and comments on that application are
affiliated with application number 20351.
Project Location: S31, T01S, R05E, C.O.S. 885 TRACT NW4SE4, 12 acres, Bozeman, Gallatin
County, Montana.
Recommendation: The application conforms to standards and is sufficient for approval
with conditions and code provisions.
Commission 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 20350 and move to approve the Bridger
Meadows Planned Unit Development with relaxations numbers 1-6, subject to conditions
and all applicable code provisions.
Report Date: August 5, 2021
Staff Contact: Sarah Rosenberg, AICP, Associate Planner
Lance Lehigh, Project Engineer
Agenda Item Type: Action (Quasi-judicial)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
There are no known unresolved issues.
Project Summary
This report is based on the application materials submitted and all public comment
received.
The property owner and applicant submitted a preliminary planned unit development
(PUD) application to create 16 residential lots and five common open space lots on
11.87 acres. The development also includes a 7.15 acre wildlife refuge and wetland
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 2 of 28
preservation site, and 1.72 acres of open space. The site is presently vacant and
surrounded by residential subdivisions to the north and east, a commercial
development to the south and Glen Rotary Park to the west. The site is accessed from
Birdie Drive to the east and emergency vehicle access from Commercial Drive to the
south.
The property is zoned R-1. Six relaxations to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC)
zoning regulations are proposed with the application:
1. 38.400.010.A.8. A relaxation from the requirement for a second means of public
access to the site.
2. 38.400.010.A.9. A relaxation to allow for a cul-de-sac.
3. 38.400.020.A.2. A relaxation from the 60’ width right of way requirement,
instead providing a 50’ width.
4. 38.400.080. A relaxation from the requirement to provide a sidewalk along both
sides of the street with only one side of the street having a sidewalk.
5. 38.410.040.B. A relaxation from the block length requirements.
6. 38.410.100.A.2. A relaxation from the requirements to reduce the watercourse
setback for lots 4 through 14, which is 50 feet.
The Design Review Board reviewed this application on June 9, 2021. Public comment
was taken at the meeting and comments in opposition to the project cited concerns
with access, wetland encroachment, and privacy between the proposed development
and the Village Green development that borders the property to the east. The DRB
cited concerns with wetland encroachment and fill, the negative impacts that the
development could have on wildlife, and the relationship between the neighboring
properties and the proposed project. Although the DRB found that the project is a
challenging site, it determined that the development met the intent and standards of a
PUD; therefore they recommended approval 5-0. Video of the meeting can be found
here:
https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/99?view_id=1&redirect=true
This application is affiliated with a Preliminary Plat application, 20351. The Planning
Board reviewed the preliminary plat application on Monday, June 21, 2021 and
recommended approval of the preliminary plat 5-1. Video of the meeting can be found
here:
https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/104?view_id=1&redirect=true
The criteria for granting a PUD are found in BMC 38.430.090. 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 as required in BMC 38.320.030.A.4. Per
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 3 of 28
38.200.010.A, the City Commission is the final review authority for a planned unit
development. The City Commission in the process of review receives non-binding
recommendations from staff and advisory boards. The City Commission “must make a
determination that the [relaxations] will produce an environment, landscape quality and
character superior to that produced by the existing standards of this chapter, and which
will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this division …”. 38.430.030.A.4.c, BMC.
Therefore, if a finding of superior outcome is not supported or made by the City
Commission the planned unit development does not meet the criteria for approval and no
relaxation will be granted.
The intent of a PUD is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in development
proposals within the City. The applicants can request relaxations from the code in exchange
for a higher quality of design. The obligation to show a superior outcome is the
responsibility of the applicant. The applicant asserts that the overall outcome of the
proposal is superior to what would be obtained from the application.
Public comment was received in both support and opposition of the project. The public
comment can be found at this link:
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=237629&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMA
N&cr=1
The City Commission held a public hearing on the application on July 20, 2021. After the
City Commission reviewed and considered the application materials, staff report, advisory
review board recommendations, public comment, and all the information presented, an
amended motion was made:
“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 20350 and move to approve the Bridger Meadows Planned Unit Development
with relaxations numbers 1-5, subject to conditions and all applicable code provisions
including a new condition that any wetland setbacks be no less than 35 feet.”
Upon further discussion of the amended motion, the City Commission made individual
findings and the motion to approve failed on a vote of 4-1. No alternate motion was offered.
Therefore the project is failed to be approved. The analysis and summary findings for this
project can be found below in this report, especially in Section 7 – Findings of Fact, Order
and Appeal Provisions. The City Commission’s alternative findings can also be found in
Section 6 – Staff Analysis and Findings, subsection 6 and 8, which identifies the relaxations
the City Commission did not approve. Without the relaxations the application fails to
comply with regulations applicable to the project. These PUD findings of fact are meant to
be incorporated into and supplement the preliminary plat application 20351 findings of
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 4 of 28
fact because the preliminary plat application is inextricably linked to and dependent on
approval of the PUD application. Video of the City Commission hearing can be found at this
link:
https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/117?view_id=1&redirect=true
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 5 of 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1
Unresolved Issues ................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. 5
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES ............................................................................................................................ 6
SECTION 2 - REQUESTED RELAXATIONS ............................................................................................ 9
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ........................................................ 9
SECTION 4 – REQUIRED CODE PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 11
SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS ..................................................... 11
SECTION 6 – STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .............................................................................. 11
Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.230.100, BMC. ............................................... 11
Planned Unit Development Review Criteria, Section 38.430.090.E, BMC. .................... 18
SECTION 7 - FINDINGS OF FACT, ORDER AND APPEAL PROVISIONS ................................... 24
APPENDIX A –PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY ................................................. 26
APPENDIX B – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ...................................................................... 26
APPENDIX C – PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 27
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ........................................... 27
APPENDIX E –PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT ........................................................... 27
ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 28
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 6 of 28
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
Figure 1: Zoning Classification
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 7 of 28
Figure 2. Site Plan
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 8 of 28
Figure 3. Illustrative Plan
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 9 of 28
SECTION 2 - REQUESTED RELAXATIONS
The PUD application included six requested relaxations. Relaxations can be granted
through a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The criteria for granting PUD relaxations are
included in BMC 38.430.030.A.4.c. Staff reviewed the criteria and found that the relaxations
meet justification for approval. The City Commission did not find relaxation 1, 2, 5, and 6 to
be justified. See analysis below on City Commission’s findings.
1. 38.400.010.A.8. A relaxation from the requirement for a second means of public
access to the site.
2. 38.400.010.A.9. A relaxation to allow for a cul-de-sac.
3. 38.400.020.A.2. A relaxation from the 60’ width right of way requirement,
instead providing a 50’ width.
4. 38.400.080. A relaxation from the requirement to provide a sidewalk along both
sides of the street with only one side of the street having a sidewalk.
5. 38.410.040.B. A relaxation from the block length requirements to allow for a
longer block length.
6. 38.410.100.A.2. A relaxation from the requirements to reduce the watercourse
setback for lots 4 through 14, which is 50 feet.
SECTION 3 STAFF 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 PUD application. Staff has considered the
impacts as identified in the staff analysis and application materials and these conditions of
approval are reasonably related and roughly proportionate to the development.
1. BMC 38.220.070. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code
provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any
way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman
Municipal Code or state law.
2. BMC 38.430.040.A. The final planned unit development plan must be submitted,
reviewed, and approved prior to the approval of any subsequent site plan.
3. BMC 38.220.120. The applicant shall submit with the application for Final PUD Plan
review and approval, a written narrative stating how they have responded to each of
these comments. This narrative shall be in sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to
the appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal.
4. BMC 38.430.040.A The requested relaxations to the following sections are granted
as proposed in the application materials and must be reflected in the final planned
unit development plan, design guidelines, and associated property owners’
association documents:
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 10 of 28
a. 38.400.010.A.8. A relaxation from the requirement for a second means of
public access to the site.
b. 38.400.010.A.9. A relaxation to allow for a cul-de-sac.
c. 38.400.020.A.2. A relaxation from the 60’ width right of way requirement,
instead providing a 50’ width.
d. 38.400.080. A relaxation from the requirement to provide a sidewalk along
both sides of the street with only one side of the street having a sidewalk.
e. 38.410.040.B. A relaxation from the block length requirements to allow for a
longer block length.
f. 38.410.100.A.2. A relaxation from the requirements to reduce the watercourse
setback for lots 4 through 14, which is 50 feet.
5. BMC 38.420.080. Trail totems shall be installed at the entrances of the trail. Final
design of the trail totem must be approved by the Parks Department.
6. BMC 38.410.060.A. Ten foot front setback utility easements must be provided for as
shown on the preliminary planned unit development plans either through individual
recordable documents or through the final plat review process prior to final planned
unit development plan approval.
7. BMC 38.430.040. The Planned Unit Development Final Plan shall be completed
and approved by the City of Bozeman before the approval of the final plat.
8. BMC 38.430.030. A notice prepared by the City shall be filed concurrently with the
final plat so that it will appear on title reports. It shall read substantially as follows:
Lots within the Bridger Meadows Subdivision Phase are subject to specific design
standards, unique building setbacks from property lines, and restrictions on use.
These standards may be found in the Bridger Meadows Design Guidelines. Lot
owners are advised that these are specific to the Bridger Meadows Subdivision and
are in place of the general development standards of the City of Bozeman Zoning. If
a development standard is not specifically established in the Bridger Meadows
approval documents the general standards of the City apply. Modification of the
special standards would require an amendment to the Bridger Meadows Planned
Unit Development. Modifications are strongly discouraged. It is the obligation of the
lot owner to be fully informed as to these standards before beginning any home or
site design process. Approval by the design review entity established in the
covenants of the development does not bind the City of Bozeman to approve a
construction plan.
9. BMC 38.430.070.D. The City of Bozeman has relied upon the overall design and
design standards required as part of the planned unit development application. The
design and design standards may not be altered without consent of the City.
10. With final PUD covenants and design manual, provide a one page exhibit of each lot
identified by legal description that includes setback requirements, watercourse
setback zones (if applicable), building area, and landscape/watercourse setback
planting requirements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 11 of 28
11. BMC 38.410.100.A. No accessory structures, patios, or recreational equipment (i.e.
swingset, trampoline, etc.) can be located within the watercourse setback. This
language must be included in the Design Manual and Covenants.
12. BMC 38.400.110. Public access easements must be provided as shown on the
preliminary planned unit development plans for all publicly accessible open space
areas prior to final planned unit development plan approval.
13. No property may be removed from the PUD or covenants without written approval of
the City of Bozeman.
SECTION 4 – REQUIRED CODE PROVISIONS
1. 38.410.100. With the final PUD, a watercourse planting plan must be prepared that
identifies the maintenance of the watercourse setback landscaping. The landscaping
identified in the watercourse planting plan must be installed or financially
guaranteed prior to final plat approval.
SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS
The DRC determined that the application was adequate for continued review and found
that application conforms to standards and is sufficient for approval with conditions and
code provisions on May 19, 2021.
Public hearing date for the Design Review Board was on June 9, 2021. The hearing was held
via WebEx. The DRB recommended approval 5-0 of the PUD.
Public hearing date for the City Commission was July 20, 2021 at 6:00 PM. The hearing was
held via WebEx.
SECTION 6 – STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application
materials, municipal codes, standards, 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 38.230.100, BMC.
The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not
specifically listed as conditions of approval, do 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
Yes. The property has a future land use designation of Urban Neighborhood. The change in
intensity is anticipated by the growth policy in areas of the city with adequate
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 12 of 28
infrastructure. The proposed use of residential units is in conformance with the City’s
adopted growth policy, the Bozeman Community Plan, including the following goals and
objectives:
Goal N-1.4: Promote the development of accessory dwelling units.
The Bridger Meadows development allows for accessory dwelling units as outlined in the
R-1 zone district allowable uses and the Design Covenants.
Goal N-1.10: Increase connectivity between parks and neighborhoods through continued trail
and sidewalk development. Prioritize closing gaps within the network.
The Bridger Meadows development provides additional pathways that connect to the City’s
existing trail network. A pedestrian network borders the northeast that connects to the
Glen Lake Rotary Park and the Story Mill Community Park.
Goal EPO-2: Work to ensure that development is responsive to natural features.
Sensitive lands exist on the site which are to be preserved into a 7.15 acre wildlife refuge
area. This area is located to the west of the developable lots. This wildlife refuge is adjacent
to the Glen Lakes Rotary park area which creates a larger ecosystem that promotes
habitation for wildlife and additional preservation of natural features.
City Commission Findings: The City Commission found that the project’s proposed
relaxation to allow development in the water course setback was not responsive to natural
features and is unacceptable. The Commission noted that the primary objective of the PUD
is to preserve sensitive natural areas, including the extensive wetland found on the
property. However, the proposal to encroach into the water course setback flies in the face
of the efforts otherwise proposed to protect the natural features. Noting that the proposed
setback was a mere “cartwheel away” from wetlands, the Commission found that a more
reasonable setback would be at least a 35 foot setback.
An application must “substantially comply” with the content of the growth policy in order
to meet this criterion. Such a standard includes both objective and subjective
determinations. The PUD application under review both advances and is in conflict with the
policies of the adopted growth policy. As the application does not provide necessary
separation from wetlands and natural features the application is not in accordance with the
growth policy. On balance, by a vote of 1-4 the City Commission found that this criterion
was not met.
Further, the application of the existing standards in the absence of relaxation 6 makes
many of the lots in the associated subdivision preliminary plat unbuildable. The lots would
need to be removed or some other alternate configuration be proposed. Such changes
would fundamentally alter the nature of the application. Therefore, due to the failure of the
application to substantially comply with the growth policy; and that the public, staff, and
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 13 of 28
Commission would not have had opportunity to review and comment on the materially
altered project design it is appropriate for the application to not be approved.
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.
City Commission Findings: The Commission found that several relaxations were too
incompatible with standards of the Unified Development Code (UDC) that protect the
health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically, the Commission cited the lack of
a second public access point to the subdivision, as well as the location of the emergency
access point being so near to the only public access, as endangering public health and
safety. If a fire, flood, or other natural disaster occurred in or near the subdivision, ingress
and egress would be severely hindered by both the lack and location of the only access
points to the neighborhood. Additionally, the cul-de-sac layout may cause challenges to
reacting to an emergency or natural disaster and reaching affected areas of the
neighborhood. Commissioners expressed concern about the precedential value of a
decision to allow relaxations contrary to public health and safety that would invite future
developments to do the same. The Commission also found that the project did not present
a superior product in exchange for the several relaxations required by the proposed design,
including block length, cul-de-sac, and no secondary public access.
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations
The proposed uses of the site are consistent with regulations. If approved, additional steps
will be required including but not limited to final payment for cash in lieu of water rights,
approval of the final planned unit development, dedication of the utility easements,
construction of infrastructure, and building permits. The Building Division of the
Department of Community Development will review the requirements of the International
Building Code for compliance at the time of building permit application. Condition of
approval 1 requires full compliance with all applicable code requirements.
City Commission Findings: The Commissioners found that cul-de-sac’s curtail traffic
circulation, contrary to the aims of the City’s “complete streets” policy.
4. Conformance with special review criteria for applicable permit type as specified
in article 2
The PUD criteria are reviewed below on page 14. The project meets the requirements and
criteria as presented.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 14 of 28
City Commission Findings: The City Commission found that the PUD criteria were not met.
See further explanation of contrary findings below.
5. Conformance with the zoning provisions of article 3, including permitted uses,
form and intensity standards and requirements, applicable supplemental use
criteria, and wireless facilities and/or affordable housing provisions if applicable
The uses are permitted in the R-1 district. Form and intensity standards are met with the
proposal. No relaxations from the R-1 form and intensity standards are requested with this
application. Future building permits will be reviewed to determine compliance with
38.350.070: Parking and garage for single to four household residential uses and
38.360.220: Single, two, three, and four household dwellings.
6. Conformance with the community design provisions of article 4, including
transportation facilities and access, community design and element provisions,
and park and recreational requirements
Access to the site is via a proposed extension of the drive off Birdie Drive through the Links
Condominium development to the east via a public access easement. A secondary
emergency access to the site comes from the south off Commercial Drive. This access is
gated at the property line that is in accordance to Fire Department requirements. This
second access is not feasible as a public entrance due to physical constraints on the
alignment and the connection to Commercial Drive. Relaxation number 1 requests there
only be one public access, which the Development Review Committee (DRC) supports,
since there are no other possible locations for public access due to the presence of critical
lands and adjacency to parks and other development.
A cul-de-sac is proposed at the end of the drive through the development with relaxation
number 2. Generally, cul-de-sacs are prohibited unless they are deemed necessary due to
topography, the presence of critical lands, lack of other options for legal access, or other
similar site constraints. Since there are site constraints and critical lands within the
development, a cul-de-sac is requested to provide access to the interior home sites. The
DRC has analyzed this proposal and found that the use of the cul-de-sac is deemed
necessary.
A relaxation for a narrower right of way width of 50 feet rather than the standard 60 feet is
requested to eliminate impacts to the existing wetlands. The street itself meets all City
standards for all local streets including curb-to-curb width, slopes, and horizontal
alignment. The DRC is in support of this relaxation.
Public pedestrian access is provided from the street directly through and into the project.
Rather than a sidewalk on both sides of the street as relaxation number 4 requests, the East
Gallatin trail along the north side of the road provides public pedestrian circulation to and
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 15 of 28
around the development. A spur trail through open space 1 and 2 adjacent to lot 1 and in
between lots 7 and 8 provide a midblock public pedestrian connection for viewing the
wildlife refuge. This also helps alleviate the long block length that the applicant is
requesting with relaxation number 5. The DRC is in support of both of these relaxations
since there is adequate pedestrian infrastructure to connect the development to adjacent
lands. All open space and trails through the development include a public pedestrian
easement so that community members can access views of the wildlife refuge.
Water and sewer is provided to each lot through mains within City owned rights of way.
The applicant will be constructing water mains to support the site. Site surface drainage
generally meets standards at this level in the design for the streets and development. Cash
in lieu of water rights is proposed and will be paid with the final site plan for site
development.
Parkland is required for the site and the applicant is requesting a cash-in-lieu of dedicated
parkland since the development is nearby the Glen Lake Rotary Park and Story Mill
Community Park. The City has not accepted the 7.15 acres of the wildlife refuge as parkland
due to environmental and natural resource constraints. This will be maintained by the
Property Owners Association. There will be no trails within the wildlife refuge to minimize
conflict with wildlife and negative impacts to the sensitive lands.
City Commission findings: The City Commission found that many elements of the
proposed project were not in conformance with the community design provisions of
article. See discussion under Criterion 2 above.
With respect to transportation facilities and access, the Commission found that the
provisions of 38.400.010.A. 2, 5, 8, and 9 were not met. The Developer’s requests for
relaxations for a second access and the use of a cul-de-sac has negative and unacceptable
public health and safety implications. Although the developer stated that a secondary
public access cannot be obtained, the Commission found that without a through connection
to Boylan Road, the convenient movement of traffic and the effective provision of
emergency services is severely impacted when only one means of public access with a
secondary emergency access in close proximity to the primary access, but far away from
homes that may need emergency services, is provided. While cul-de-sacs can be allowed
under certain conditions, the large number of homes with only a single access, narrower
than standard street cross section, and the length of the cul-de-sac collectively create a
situation contrary to the intent and purpose of the standards of 38.400.010.A. The
proposed mitigation of a secondary emergency access is unacceptable given the impacts to
public health and safety caused by the development’s diminished ability to provide
emergency services.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 16 of 28
The Commission found that the proposed site plan also fails to conform to the provisions of
38.410.010.B and C, BMC. First, although the project requested all of its PUD points for its
preservation of the sensitive natural environment on site, the proposal to encroach into the
wetlands by decreasing the required watercourse setback does not preserve the natural
terrain and may impact the drainage and existing vegetation found in the setback area.
Second, the site contains wetlands and has the potential for flooding with a significant
portion of the property located within the floodplain of the E. Gallatin River, making a
portion of the lands unsuitable for development. The hazards and excessive public burdens
are not eliminated or will not be overcome by the proposed design because the developer
merely asks for relaxations through the PUD process to avoid conforming to code
standards. The application would allow structures to be built in the watercourse setback,
on lands unsuitable for development. The public burden of providing emergency services
and adequate public access to the subdivision is not overcome by the provision of one
emergency access point that is located very near the only public access point.
The Commission also found that the project fails to conform to other provisions of article 4.
The proposed design does not conform to the requirements of 38.410.040, BMC, to ensure
a high level of multimodal connectivity or ease of traffic circulation because it provides one
very long block, which terminates in a cul-de-sac, and is accessed by only one vehicular
means of public access. The cul-de-sac is not connected to any surrounding streets besides
Birdie Road and there is no means for traffic to circulate in the area. The proposed design
does not conform to the fire protection requirements of 38.410.090 because the limited
access to the subdivision, proximity of the emergency access to the public access, proposed
block length, and termination in a cul-de-sac pose challenges to the effective and efficient
suppression of fires or provision of other emergency services in order to protect persons
and property. Finally, the development is adjacent to a watercourse and the developer has
failed to mitigate the impacts of the development on the watercourse as required by
section 38.410.100, BMC, by requesting to diminish the required setback.
7. Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5, including
compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and
adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development; design and
arrangement of the elements of the plan; landscaping; open space; lighting,
signage;
Not applicable as single household dwellings, the only proposed type of buildings in the
PUD, do not have to adhere to Article 5.
8. Conformance with environmental and open space objectives set forth in articles
4-6, including the enhancement of the natural environment, watercourse and
wetland protections and associated wildlife habitats; and if the development is
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 17 of 28
adjacent to an existing or approved public park or public open space area, have
provisions been made in the plan to avoid interfering with public access to and
use of that area
The applicant is requesting a relaxation of the requirement to extend the watercourse
setback to the edge of any delineated 100-year floodplain and connected wetlands. The
applicant proposes to place fill within the 100-year floodplain fringe (i.e., outside the
FEMA-defined 100-year floodway) on the south/west side of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12
of the proposed development. In addition, it is proposed to excavate and remove existing
soil from the 100-year floodplain fringe west of Lot 6. The fill material being removed is an
historic artificial fill, so this area is being mitigated to resemble the previous, historic
elevations prior to fill placement. According to the wetland delineation report, this
excavation and fill will assist in more flood carrying capacity to the floodplain.
The Applicant proposes to place fill within the wetlands in Lot 4 and in Lots 10, 11 and 12.
A 404 permit application is required with the final plat application. The wetlands
delineation report can be found under Appendix D of this application. In order to mitigate
for the proposed wetland buffer width reductions, there are measures proposed in the
Building Design Guidelines to reduce runoff into the sensitive lands (i.e. rain barrels and
infiltration facilities) and native grasses will be planted within and along the buffer. The
configuration of the development is also intended to create a buffer between the public
circulation areas and wildlife refuge areas. Condition of approval numbers 12 and 13
address the restrictions set on the lots so that no structures can be built within the
watercourse setback and the appropriate watercourse plantings are provided.
In total, there will be .09 acres of impacts on the wetlands and .41 acres of impacts to the
floodplain area. Since the mitigation impacts are under 1/10th of an acre, no additional
mitigation is needed.
City Commission findings: The City Commission disagreed with these staff findings and
made an alternative motion to remove relaxation number 6 and to create a new condition
that any wetland setback to be no less than 35 feet. The Commission supported the motion
by finding that the proposed development does not enhance the natural environment and
watercourse protections by seeking to substantially encroach into the watercourse setback.
The Commission found this PUD’s laudable main goal of preserving sensitive lands is not
served by reducing the watercourse setback to a minimal distance. Rather, the Commission
determined that an appropriate balance between allowing development while preserving
the natural environment would be a 35 foot watercourse setback to minimize the impact to
the wetlands.
9. Conformance with the natural resource protection provisions of article 4 and
article 6
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 18 of 28
Wetlands and the East Gallatin River and its associated floodplain are located adjacent to
and within the site. Code provision number 1 requires a watercourse planting plan with the
final PUD. The project proposes to re-plant existing wetland vegetation mats from
impacted wetlands into this area.
City Commission Findings: As noted above, the Commission found that the project fails to
conform to watercourse setbacks required for natural resource protection and proposed an
alternative, reasonable setback of 35 feet from the watercourse to allow development
while protecting nearby waters and wetlands.
10. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties
Public comment has been received both in support and opposition of the project. See
project summary above for link to all public comment.
11. 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:
a. 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
b. 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 companion subdivision (20351).
12. Phasing of development
Not applicable. The project is proposed to be constructed in one phase.
Planned Unit Development Review Criteria, Section 38.430.090.E, BMC.
The application presents the applicant’s response to these criteria. 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?
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 19 of 28
Yes. The proposed Bridger Meadows development will be connected to and be served by
City utilities. The proposed development is near the proposed public safety center (fire
station) and response time is expected to be under 2 minutes. Additionally, the developer
looks to enhance and exceed city requirements with respect to creation and dedication of
7.15 acre wildlife refuge. The streets will be designed and constructed to meet city
standards with some relaxations for right of way width and pedestrian facilities, as noted in
the relaxation request section of this application. Appropriate easements for street
construction, utilities, emergency access, and trails are provided. See list of relaxations for
additional information on trails, walks, and utility ways, as well as flood hazard areas,
streets and for sidewalk along both sides of street.
City Commission Findings: No. The Commission found that the development does not
comply with all City design standards and that the proposed relaxations from requirements
of code were unreasonable, particularly with respect to the impact to protecting homes in
the subdivision from fire and flood hazard areas.
(2) Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation?
Yes. The developer looks to enhance and exceed city requirements by preserving
approximately 7.15 acres as a wildlife refuge with woodland and wetland habitat. In
addition, the developer plans to incorporate requirements for natural, sustainable, and
local vegetation in the development design guidelines. The Design Guidelines will include a
list of recommended plant species for all trees, perennials and shrubs that are either native
to the region or adapted to our climate and growing zone. Drought tolerant plants will be
recommended for most locations on-site with the exception of wet areas where it will make
sense to have plants that tolerate wet roots. Plants will be selected for diversity of size,
canopy, color and seasonal interest for both the purposes of providing habitat and visual
interest.
City Commission Findings: No. The Commission found that, while a principal goal of the
development is to protect sensitive lands, it proposes to allow development well into the
watercourse setback and therefore fails to preserve existing natural spaces and vegetation.
(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 applicant has incorporated comments obtained from the City representatives
through various meetings held throughout the process. The modifications suggested and
discussed with City representatives including placement of the lots, roads, sidewalks,
wildlife refuge, and wetlands are incorporated. The project will provide emergency access
with Knox pad lock through an easement at Commercial Drive as recommend by the fire
department and is addressing floodplain and watercourse setbacks. The applicant states
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 20 of 28
that it has worked with adjacent property owners and the City to resolve access and
easement issues on this central infill project. One public comment indicated that there is
pending litigation regarding the access to this site. The City will require proof of a valid
easement to access the site prior to final plat approval. In addition, the applicant will
establish a maintenance agreement between the Home Owners Association and adjacent
owners along the easement to Commercial Drive to maintain the emergency access year-
round – both within and outside the property boundary. The site layout accommodates
UDC issues where applicable and requests relaxations where necessary to protect the
wetlands and wildlife habitats, provide safe and convenient access and improve the
property with respect to the Bozeman Community Plan. Relaxations are requested to
accommodate existing site conditions imposed on the site by previous development of
surrounding properties and provide additional improvements above and beyond the
Bozeman Municipal Code to create a superior environment, exceed the requirements of the
code standards, and create an excellent living environment within the Bozeman
community.
City Commission Findings: No. The Commission found the proposed cul-de-sac and only
one means of public vehicular access to the subdivision would significantly curtail traffic
circulation and was not designed to promote an efficient and functional development.
(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?
Yes. Design Regulations and Guidelines encourage sustainable design practices.
(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?
Yes. The applicant has made adjustments and modifications with respect to lots, roads and
trails to better accommodate privacy, efficiency and limit impacts to the overall site
including the wetlands. The revisions have taken into account the staff comments and
adjustments made accordingly to improve the overall design. The arrangement of the lots
and roads are consistent with recommendations and discussions with city representatives
and advisors to the project.
(6) Parkland. 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 38.420.020?
Yes. The applicant looks to dedicate over 7.15 (60.2%) of the site to a protected wildlife
refuge as well as provide open space and recreational space. This dedicated area exceeds
the city requirement per section 38.420.020 and table 38.420.020.A. The required
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 21 of 28
dedication is .3 acres based on the maximum required dedication per acre of 10 dwellings
for R-1 (10 dwellings x .03 acres). The applicant is providing 7.15 acres of wildlife refuge
habitat and .52 acres of open space which exceeds the requirements for even 16 dwellings
(16 dwellings x .03) at .48 acres. In addition, the developer will provide a play area and
gathering area accessible by trails at the southeast end of the wildlife refuge. The
dedication of this property to open space demonstrates Bridger Meadows efforts to create
a superior environment, exceed the requirements of the code standards, and create an
excellent living environment within the Bozeman community.
(7) Performance. All PUDs shall earn at least 20 performance points.
Yes. This PUD proposes to use (a) Additional Open Space to earn its 20 performance points
based on the open space provided. Between the wildlife refuge, public and non-public open
space, and wayfinding signage, a total of 69.71 points are achieved.
(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?
Yes. The development will correct the isolation imposed on this property by decisions
made over the years that resulted in very limited access and easement connections to
adjacent properties. The applicant has made exemplary efforts to incorporate comments
obtained from the City representatives through various meetings. The modifications
suggested and discussed with city representatives including placement of the lots, roads,
sidewalks, wildlife refuge, and wetlands have been incorporated. The project will provide a
swing gate with Knox padlock at the emergency access and will address flood plain and
water course setbacks as stated elsewhere in this application. The site layout
accommodates Bozeman Municipal Code issues where applicable and requests relaxations
where necessary to protect and enhance the wetlands and wildlife habitats, provide safe
and convenient access and improve the property with respect to the Bozeman Community
Plan. Relaxations are requested to accommodate existing site conditions imposed on the lot
by previous development of surrounding properties and to provide additional
improvements above and beyond the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
City Commission Findings: No. The City Commission found that the proposed
development is isolated, provides inadequate means of traffic circulation, and is not
properly integrated into surrounding neighborhoods because it has only one public
vehicular access point and terminates in a cul-de-sac.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 22 of 28
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?
Yes. The development proposes single family detached houses which is an allowed use in
the R-1 zone district. It is consistent with the development surrounding the subject
property.
City Commission Findings: The development only achieves the minimum required
residential density by requesting several relaxations from code requirements to narrow
streets, and otherwise amend code requirements to allow developable lots within the
watercourse setback.
(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?
Yes. Every lot or home has access to private outdoor space. There are common open space
lots that will provide pedestrian amenities.
(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. As discussed previously, there is ample open space in and around the development and
larger neighborhood parks nearby.
(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. Bridger Meadows is designed and intended to achieve a vibrant infill project while
creating a distinct identity and connecting to natural areas and open space.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 23 of 28
City Commission Findings: Although the Commission recognized and found laudable the
developer’s efforts to protect sensitive natural lands, the Commission found that the
project fails to enhance the natural environment because is proposes to allow development
in the watercourse setback.
(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.
Not applicable.
(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 development 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. Bridger Meadows will have its own, unique character reinforced through architecture,
site design and circulation. Visual and physical connections to adjacent neighborhoods and
shared open space transitions will promote its individuality as well as allow it to blend in
with the pattern of the larger neighborhood.
City Commission Findings: No. Bridger Meadows will not be incorporated into
neighboring development because it has no connection to any nearby neighborhoods
except the one though which its public access passes. The development is not connected to
neighborhoods to the north and east because there is no access to Boylan Road. No traffic
circulation will occur because the proposal includes only one point of access terminating in
a cul-de-sac. The pedestrian access point on the north is insufficient to provide the required
compliance with this standard.
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 24 of 28
SECTION 7 - FINDINGS OF FACT, ORDER AND APPEAL PROVISIONS
A. PURSUANT to Chapter 38, Divisions 38.230, 38.430, BMC, and other applicable sections
of Chapter 38, BMC, public notice was given, opportunity to submit comment was
provided to affected parties, and a review of the preliminary plan for the planned unit
development described in this findings of fact was conducted. The applicant presented
to the City a proposed preliminary plan for a planned unit development to allow a
residential development with relaxations to zoning regulations and City standards
which is affiliated with a preliminary plat application.
B. The purposes of the preliminary planned unit development review were to consider all
relevant evidence relating to public health, safety, welfare, and the other purposes of
Chapter 38, BMC; to evaluate the proposal against the criteria and standards of Chapter
38 BMC; and to determine whether the planned unit development should be approved,
conditionally approved, or denied.
C. The matter of the preliminary planned unit development application was considered by
the City Commission at a public hearing on July 20, 2021 at which time the Department
of Community Development Staff reviewed the project, submitted and summarized the
conditions of approval, and summarized the public comment submitted to the City prior
to the public hearing.
D. The applicant acknowledged understanding and agreement with the recommended
conditions of approval and code provisions.
E. The City Commission requested public comment at the public hearing on July 20, 2021
and 14 members of the public offered testimony on the application as submitted.
F. It appeared to the City Commission that all parties and the public wishing to examine
the proposed preliminary PUD application and offer comment were given the
opportunity to do so. After receiving the recommendation of the relevant advisory
bodies established by Article 38.210, BMC and considering all matters of record
presented with the application and during the public comment period defined by
Chapter 38, BMC, the City Commission amended the proposed motion and found that
the proposed preliminary PUD did not comply with the requirements of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. Therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come before them
regarding this application, the City Commission denied the PUD application.
G. The preliminary PUD has been found to not meet the criteria of Applicable Plan Review
Criteria outlined in Section 38.230.100, BMC and the Planned Unit Development Review
Criteria outlined in Section 38.430.090.E, BMC, and is therefore denied for the reasons
described in the analysis section and summarized below:
i. The Commission found that the relaxations requested, specifically relaxations 1, 2,
5, and 6, presented too much departure from the public health, welfare, and safety
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 25 of 28
provisions of the code and are untenable. The Commission noted that the intent of
a PUD is to promote “innovation” and advance community objectives “with regard
to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.”
See 38.430.010, BMC (emphasis added). Rather than advance an innovative
project, Bridger Meadows uses the PUD process and its relaxations from strict
requirements in code to simply make the project work. The Commission noted
further that many of the “innovations” cited by the applicant, such as wetland
preservation, are already required by code and therefore does not produce a
superior outcome or innovative project beyond the existing standards in code. The
single point of public vehicular access, proximity of the secondary emergency
access to the only point of public vehicular access, the use of a cul-de-sac, the
longer block length, and the encroachment into the wetlands do not meet the
intent of the PUD nor is it responsive to the needs of the community. The
requested relaxations would have negative impacts to public health and safety for
which no mitigation, or unacceptable mitigation, is offered.
H. Pursuant to 38.250.090, this City Commission decision may be appealed as authorized
by state law.
DATED this _______day of , 2021.
BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION:
_________________________________
CYNTHIA L. ANDRUS
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
MIKE MAAS
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
17th August
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 26 of 28
APPENDIX A –PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The intent of the R-1 residential low density district is
to provide for primarily single-household residential development and related uses within
the city at urban densities. These purposes are accomplished by: 1. Providing for a
minimum lot size in developed areas consistent with the established development patterns
while providing greater flexibility for clustering lots and housing types in newly developed
areas. 2. Providing for such community facilities and services as will serve the area's
residents while respecting the residential character and quality of the area.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman
Community Plan designates the subject property to develop as “Urban Neighborhood.”
This category primarily includes urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes,
and intensities. Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged. In limited
instances, an area may develop at a lower gross density due to site constraints and/or
natural features such as floodplains or steep slopes. Complementary uses such as parks,
home-based occupations, fire stations, churches, schools, and some neighborhood-serving
commerce provide activity centers for community gathering and services. The Urban
Neighborhood designation indicates that development is expected to occur within
municipal boundaries. This may require annexation prior to development. Applying a
zoning district to specific parcels sets the required and allowed density. Higher density
residential areas are encouraged to be, but are not required or restricted to, proximity to
commercial mixed use areas to facilitate the provision of services and employment
opportunities without requiring the use of a car.
APPENDIX B – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Notice was provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to the Planning Board and
City Commission public hearings. 38.220.420, BMC. Notice was provided by posting the
site, mailing by certified mail to adjacent property owners and by first class mail to all
other owners within 200 feet on June 6, 2021. The site was posted with a notice on June 6,
2021 and a legal advertisement was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on June 6,
June 20, and July 18, 2021. Content of the notice contained all elements required by Article
38.220., BMC.
Public comment has been received both in support and opposition of the project and can be
found at the following link:
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=237629&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMA
N&cr=1
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 27 of 28
APPENDIX C – PROJECT BACKGROUND
The subject property was annexed into the city in May 2018 with R-1 zoning.
APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Owner/Applicant/Representative: Bridger Center LLC, 3701 Tracker Trail, Suite 1B #20,
Bozeman, MT, 59718
Findings of Fact Prepared By: Sarah Rosenberg, AICP, Associate Planner
APPENDIX E –PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT
Sec. 38.430.010. 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:
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;
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7
20350, Findings of Fact for the Bridger Meadows PUD Page 28 of 28
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.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed digitally at
https://www.bozeman.net/government/planning/using-the-planning-map, select the
“Project Documents Folder” link and navigate to application #20350, as well as digitally at
the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Application materials – Available through the Laserfiche archive linked agenda materials
and the full file is linked below.
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=228054&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMA
N
This project can be viewed on the Community Development Viewer interactive map
directly with this link:
https://gisweb.bozeman.net/Html5Viewer/?viewer=planning&FILE_NUMBER=20-350
DocuSign Envelope ID: A85CC33F-BD9E-4BFC-9C48-4EEFDF7D45B7