Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-21 Planning Board Agenda & Packet MaterialsA.Call Meeting to Order B.Disclosures C.Changes to the Agenda D.Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes from 08-02-21 and 08-16-21.(Happel) E.Public Comment Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record.This is the time for THE PLANNING BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA PB AGENDA Monday, September 20, 2021 WebEx Meeting Information Via Webex: https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php? MTID=efe328235b87e23ceeac6200bb94d3e71 Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream or channel 190 • Call-in toll number (US/Canada ): 1-650-479-3208 • Access code: 2555 390 2487 Public Comment: If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda, please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net prior to 4:00pm on Wednesday, September 15th, 2021. You may also comment by visiting the City's public comment page. You can also comment by joining the Webex meeting. If you do join the Webex meeting, we ask you please be patient in helping us work through this online meeting. If you are not able to join the Webex meeting and would like to provide oral comment you may send a request to agenda@bozeman.net with your phone number, the item(s) you wish to comment on, and someone will call you during the meeting to provide an opportunity to comment. You may also send the above information via text to 406-224-3967. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the City's video page (click the Streaming Live in the drop down menu), and available in the City on cable channel 190. 1 individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee.There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item.Please limit your comments to three minutes. F.Action Items F.1 Annie Subdivision Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Application 21201 (Miller) F.2 Introduction to Form Based Codes (FBC).(Rogers) F.3 Introduction to the Unified Development Code Affordable Housing Assessment Report.(Rogers) G.FYI/Discussion H.Adjournment For more information please contact Tom Rogers at trogers@bozeman.net This board generally meets the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Planning Board FROM:Taylor Chambers - Community Development Technician II SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes from 08-02-21 and 08-16-21. MEETING DATE:September 20, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve the meeting minutes from August 2nd, 2021. I move to approve the meeting minutes from August 16th, 2021. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:None UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:1. Approve meeting minutes with corrections. 2. Do not approve meeting minutes. FISCAL EFFECTS:None Attachments: 08-02-21 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT.pdf 08-16-21 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT.pdf Report compiled on: August 17, 2021 3 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-02-21 Page 1 of 4 THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES Monday, August 2nd, 2021 WebEx Meeting Information A) 00:03:33 Call Meeting to Order Present: Henry Happel, Cathy Costakis, Gerald Pape, Mark Egge, Matthew Hausauer, Jennifer Madgic, Nicole Olmstead Absent: Richard Rudnicki, George Thompson B) Disclosures C) 00:05:03 Changes to the Agenda D) 00:05:10 Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of minutes from 07-19-21 07-19-21 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT.pdf 00:05:21 Motion D) Approval of Minutes Gerald Pape: Motion Mark Egge: 2nd 00:05:27 Vote on the Motion to approve D) Approval of Minutes. The Motion carried 7 - 0 Approve: Henry Happel Cathy Costakis Gerald Pape Mark Egge Matthew Hausauer Jennifer Madgic Nicole Olmstead 4 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-02-21 Page 2 of 4 Disapprove: None E) 00:05:49 Public Comment F) 00:09:50 Action Items F.1 00:10:36 Bozeman Gateway Phase 5 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Application 20094 20094 PB Staff Report.pdf 00:10:37 Staff Presentation City Planner Sarah Rosenberg presented the Bozeman Gateway Phase 5 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat to the Board and recommended that the application was sufficient for approval. 00:17:10 Board Questions Board members directed questions to Planner Rosenberg. 00:26:43 Applicant Presentation Jim Ullman presented on behalf of the applicant. 00:33:37 Board Questions Board members directed questions to the applicant. 00:38:31 Public Comment Opportunity Gregory Daggett commented inquiring about receiving additional information about projects presented to the Board. 00:48:33 Board Discussion 00:49:37 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 20094 and move to recommend approval of the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. Gerald Pape: Motion Matthew Hausauer: 2nd Board member Pape spoke to his motion. Board member Costakis spoke in favor of the application but expressed concerns over the parking plan portion of the project. 5 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-02-21 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Madgic echoed board member Costakis' comment 00:55:50 Vote on the Motion to approve 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 20094 and move to recommend approval of the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. The Motion carried 7 - 0 Approve: Henry Happel Cathy Costakis Gerald Pape Mark Egge Matthew Hausauer Jennifer Madgic Nicole Olmstead Disapprove: None F.2 00:56:31 Ongoing work sessions to define and refine Planning Board goals for 2020 and implementation of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. Memo to PB-210728.pdf Chairman Happel gave an overview of the memo he sent out as well as gave an update on the meeting he had with Director of Community Development, Marty Matsen. Commissioner Madgic gave an update on her meeting with the City Manager regarding community outreach. Board member Costakis gave an update on her inquiries about a regional planning summit. Board member Olmstead commented about an option for funding for the board's regional summit idea as well as offered her services in assisting board member Costakis with her project. Board member Happel gave an update on the board's efforts for provisions to the unified development code. 01:13:49 Staff Presentation City Planner Tom Rogers gave a presentation to the board regarding the Unified Development Code. 01:19:52 Board Questions Board members directed questions to Planner Rogers. 01:20:00 Board Discussion 6 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-02-21 Page 4 of 4 Chairman Happel asked board members to weigh in with their ideas for UDC amendments. Board members took turns discussing ideas and comments regarding the UDC edits. 01:57:53 Financial Report Chairman Happel gave the board a report on his inquiries regarding the board's finances. G) 02:11:11 FYI/Discussion Commissioner Madgic informed board members that the commission has been asked to weigh in on the new requirement that only one public hearing be held on a subdivision application, and that she believes that the hearing should be held by the Planning Board, not the City Commission, and that she would like to hear from the rest of the board what their opinions are regarding that matter. Board members Costakis informed the Board about the upcoming PCC meeting. H) 02:14:30 Adjournment For more information please contact Tom Rogers at trogers@bozeman.net. This board generally meets the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM 7 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-16-21 Page 1 of 6 THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES Monday, August 16th, 2021 WebEx Meeting Information A) 00:03:31 Call Meeting to Order Present: Henry Happel, Cathy Costakis, Gerald Pape, Mark Egge, George Thompson, Matthew Hausauer, Jennifer Madgic, Nicole Olmstead Absent: Richard Rudnicki Staff Liaison Rogers informed members of the public that the hearing for application 21-186 Davis Ln. & Westlake Rd. ANNX was improperly noticed and will be heard during the Zoning Commission meeting on August 23rd. C) 00:05:43 Changes to the Agenda B) 00:05:44 Disclosures D) 00:05:52 Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes from 08-02-21 08-02-21 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT.pdf Chairman Happel informed the Board that due to a glitch, the minutes should be continued to the following meeting in order to allow staff to make the appropriate changes. 00:06:17 Motion Continuation of the minutes from 08-02-21. Gerald Pape: Motion George Thompson: 2nd 00:06:28 Vote on the Motion to approve Continuation of the minutes from 08-02-21. The Motion carried 8 - 0 8 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-16-21 Page 2 of 6 Approve: Henry Happel Cathy Costakis Gerald Pape Mark Egge George Thompson Matthew Hausauer Jennifer Madgic Nicole Olmstead Disapprove: None E) 00:06:42 Public Comment No public comment at this time F) Special Presentations G) Action Items G.1 00:10:55 Ongoing work sessions to define and refine Planning Board goals for 2020 and implementation of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. Memo to PB-210812.pdf 00:11:20 Community Outreach Chairman Happel gave an update on the work done by himself and Board Member Egge regarding community outreach. 00:13:22 Executive Summary Commissioner Madgic gave an update on the work done towards the Executive Summary efforts. 00:14:07 Regional Planning Summit Board member Costakis gave an update on her work towards facilitating a regional planning summit. 00:16:11 Unified Development Code Revisions Chairman Happel mentioned the various memos that had been presented to the Board from different board members and gave an overview of the reasoning behind the Board's desire to make revisions to the UDC. 00:20:06 Board Member Presentation Board member Egge presented his ideas for UDC edits to the Board. 9 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-16-21 Page 3 of 6 00:29:18 Board Discussion Board members provided feedback to Board Member Egge's presentation. 01:00:59 Public Comment Emily Talago (416 W George St.) praised the Board on their discussion and thanked them for their work. She also stressed the affordable housing crisis in Bozeman and asked who the Board believes affordable housing is being built for. Chairman Happel responded to Ms. Talago's comment. 01:06:43 UDC Matters Board member Thompson spoke to the memo he sent out regarding UDC edits. Board member Hausauer commented that the Unified Development Code Community Platform is scheduled to review an ADU change for October 2021. 01:45:23 Financial Matters Chairman Happel informed the Board that he has spoken with the City Attorney and is still waiting to hear back with finalized information. 01:46:00 Community Plan Oversight Chairman Happel suggested that after the Board receives the annual report of the Growth Policy from the City that the Board should hold a public meeting to review the Growth Policy and to determine if any amendments should be made at that time. Board member Pape suggested that the Board obtain demographic and market data. 01:48:26 Board Discussion 01:48:41 Motion To implement Chairman Happel's suggestion Gerald Pape: Motion Cathy Costakis: 2nd 01:48:53 Friendly Amendment Chairman Happel made a friendly amendment to Board member Pape's motion, requesting that the motion state: We resolve that after receiving the required annual report from Community Development on actions taken to carry out the community plan that the Planning Board will hold a public meeting to review the plan and determine if the board would like to suggest any amendments to it. 01:50:09 Vote on the Motion to approve To implement Chairman Happel's suggestion. The Motion carried 8 - 0 10 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-16-21 Page 4 of 6 Approve: Henry Happel Cathy Costakis Gerald Pape Mark Egge George Thompson Matthew Hausauer Jennifer Madgic Nicole Olmstead Disapprove: None 01:50:20 Motion The motion provided in the memo distributed by board member Pape to the Board. Gerald Pape: Motion Mark Egge: 2nd 01:50:20 Board member Pape spoke to the motion he presented in a memo to the Board. 01:53:36 Board Discussion Chairman Happel commented that he will be supporting Board member Pape's motion and suggested some possible changes. 01:56:55 Friendly Amendment Chairman Happel suggested a friendly amendment to state: that EPS would be directed to be responsible to the Planning Board and Community Development. 01:57:10 Amendment Accepted Board member Pape accepted Chairman Happel's friendly amendment. 01:57:24 Friendly Amendment Chairman Happel suggested a friendly amendment to strike "after review by the Planning Board" from board member Pape's motion. 01:57:30 Amendment Denied Board member Pape denied Chairman Happel's friendly amendment Board member Olmstead questioned if it was allowable to elect a specific firm, as she had concerns about the process required in order to be permitted to spend public money. 01:59:12 Friendly Amendment 11 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-16-21 Page 5 of 6 Board member Egge echoed board member Olmstead's concerns and suggested a friendly amendment to replace any references to a specific consultant with "a consultant" with allowance for the Board to weigh in on the selection of the consultant. 01:59:48 Amendment Denied Board member Pape stated that it was already decided by the City that EPS would be the consultant. 02:01:17 Friendly Amendment Chairman Happel suggested a friendly amendment for the beginning of the motion, to change "that EPS would be directed" to "that EPS or any such other consultant that may be chosen." 02:02:07 Amendment Denied Board member Pape denied Chairman Happel's friendly amendment. Commissioner Madgic commented that she would support the motion with Chairman Happel's modifications. 02:04:30 Motion Board member Pape's motion with amendments. Jennifer Madgic: Motion Mark Egge: 2nd 02:06:09 Vote on the Motion to approve Board member Pape's motion with amendments. The Motion carried 6 - 2 Approve: Henry Happel Cathy Costakis Mark Egge George Thompson Matthew Hausauer Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: Gerald Pape Nicole Olmstead 02:06:34 Vote on the Motion to approve The motion provided in the memo distributed by board member Pape to the Board. The Motion carried 7 - 1 Approve: Henry Happel Cathy Costakis Gerald Pape 12 Bozeman City Commission Meeting Minutes, 08-16-21 Page 6 of 6 Mark Egge George Thompson Matthew Hausauer Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: Nicole Olmstead H) 02:07:42 FYI/Discussion Commissioner Madgic informed the Board of the Commission's decision to move forward with the Board Consolidation plan and informed the Board that the Planning Board, Zoning Commission, Impact Fees, and Design Review Board will be combined into one super board. Board member Egge informed the Board that he will be stepping down from the Planning Board and that this will be his last meeting. Staff Liaison Rogers informed the Board of the annual meeting of the Montana Association of Planners and that there are funds available for any board members that would like to attend the meeting. Secondly, he informed the Board that One Valley recently finished their report of the Regional Housing Initiative that may be helpful to the Board. Finally, he informed the Board that the next scheduled meeting is September 20th, due to the first Monday of September being a holiday. I) 02:17:21 Adjournment For more information please contact Tom Rogers at trogers@bozeman.net. This board generally meets the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM 13 Memorandum REPORT TO:Planning Board FROM:Jacob Miller, Associate Planner Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Annie Subdivision Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Application 21201 MEETING DATE:September 20, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Quasi-Judicial RECOMMENDATION: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 21201 and move to recommend approval of the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods. BACKGROUND:The Department of Community Development received a Preliminary Plat Application on June 2, 2021 requesting to subdivide 3.241 acres to create 20 townhouse lots, 2 multi-household lots, 1 single-household lot and 1 open space lots. The site had an existing single-household lot and shop that have since been demolished with proper permitting. The property will have access from the continuation of Rogers Way onto N. 25th Ave. The property is zoned R-3. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:Not applicable FISCAL EFFECTS:Not applicable Attachments: Ph4_AmendmenttotheDeclarationofCovenants_05112021.pdf CityResolution4041_LightingDistrict700_AnniePh3B_3C.pdf RoadPlanProfile_07262021.pdf Plat_Existing_Annie3B_J-481.pdf CommentsOnPreApp_04072021.pdf RoadPlanProfileALT_08012021.pdf Plat_Existing_AnniePh3A_J-343.pdf 14 CovenantsExistingAnnieSub_05072021.pdf RoadSectionDetail_05122021.pdf Plat_Existing_AnniePh3C_J-482.pdf Easement_Existing_20FtAccess_Lot1Ph3C.pdf SewerMainProfile_07262021.pdf ResponseDRCComments_07262021.pdf EmailReDurstonSID_02112021.pdf WaterMainProfile_07262021.pdf RevisionandCorrectionRC_07262021.pdf Exhibit_AdjacentSubdivisionOverview_01042021.pdf RRFB_Tapco_Detail_05162021.PDF Exhibit_NoxiousWeeds_04122021.pdf ServiceEmailCenturyLink_04162021.pdf Exhibit_USGSQuadrangleMap_01042021.pdf ServiceRequest_BozemanPublicSchools_04142021.pdf Exhibit_WetlandDelineation_04122021.pdf SewerDesignReport_07262021.pdf Exhibit_ZoningMap_05162021.pdf SitePhotos_01042021.pdf FindingsofFact_AnniePh3C_03062006.pdf StormwaterDesignReport_07262021.pdf FireFlowTestingEmail_03052021.pdf TestPitMonitorWellLocations_05122021.pdf GeotechnicalSummary_03232021.pdf TitleReport_04132021.pdf GeotechTestPitLocations_03232021.pdf TrafficImpactStudy_AnniePh3_2000.pdf GroundwaterCrossSection_05122021.pdf TrafficImpactStudy_AnnieSub_1985.pdf GroundwaterMonitoringData_05122021.pdf TrafficStudyWaiverEmail_04172021.pdf LightingAnalysisDurston_05072021.pdf VarianceRequest_RoadGrade_07262021.pdf MassGradingExampleSection_07262021.pdf VarianceRequest_StormwaterPipe_07262021.pdf MFE_Form_04202021.pdf WaiverofSIDs_Draft_07262021.pdf N1Checklist_05132021.pdf WaterDesignReport_07262021.pdf Narrative_Resubmittal_07262021.pdf WaterRights_107611_Irrigation.pdf NarrativeAdditionalPPSupplementals_05162021.pdf WaterRights_30030324Domestic.pdf NarrativeResponsetoPreApplicationComments_05162021.pdf WeedManagementPlan_04152021.pdf NorthwesternEnergyConstrAppEmail_03182021.pdf WellLog_VanDyken_1999.pdf NRCSSoilsData23Pgs_05162021.pdf 15 WetlandDelineationMemo_043021.pdf NWE_ServiceLetter_05192021.pdf AdjoiningPropertyOwnersList_05132021.pdf L1.0LandscapePlan_05072021.pdf AdjoiningPropertyOwnersMap_04212021.pdf L1.1LandscapeCloseUp_05072021.pdf ArcadiaGardensSitePlan_01031995.pdf L1.2LandscapeDetails_05072021.pdf 21201 Annie Subdivision Ph. 4 PP PB SR.pdf AsBuilts_AnniePh1_2002.pdf PlatSheet1of3_07262021.pdf A1_AnnieSubdivisionPhase4_PP_05122021.pdf AsBuilts_AnniePh3C_2007.pdf PlatSheet2of3_07262021.pdf Ph4_AmendDeclarationSignaturePage_04292021.pdf CILWR_CityEmail_12152020.pdf PlatSheet3of3_07262021.pdf Report compiled on: September 16, 2021 16 After Recording, Please Return to: [INSERT INFORMATION] AMENDMENT TO THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE III WHEREAS, Annie Subdivision Phase III A is an existing subdivision in Gallatin County, Montana, legally described as follows: Annie Subdivision Phase IIIA, a tract of land being a portion of Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-343. (Hereinafter referred to as Phase IIIA) WHEREAS, Annie Subdivision Phase III B is an existing subdivision in Gallatin County, Montana, legally described as follows: Annie Subdivision Phase IIIB, a tract of land being a portion of Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-481. (Hereinafter referred to as (Phase IIIB) WHEREAS, Annie Subdivision Phase IIIC is an existing subdivision in Gallatin County, Montana, legally described as follows: Annie Subdivision Phase IIIC a tract of land being a portion of Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-482. (Hereinafter referred to as Phase IIIC) 17 WHEREAS, Phases IIIA, IIIB and IIIC were all added into the same Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Annie Subdivision, Phase III, so that all Phases are part of the Annie Subdivision Phase III Association (Hereinafter referred to as “Association”), by the following documents filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office: Document Name Filing Date Doc. No Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Annie Subdivision, Phase III 9/12/2002 2080912 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Annie Subdivision, Phase IIIB and IIIC 11/07/2007 2283832 WHEREAS, Lot 1 in Phase IIIC may be further subdivided and developed (Hereinafter referred to as “Phase IIIC, Lot 1”) WHEREAS, because of the nature of Phase IIIC, Lot 1, the zoning for the Phase IIIC, Lot 1 and other considerations, the owner of Phase IIIC, Lot 1 and the members of the Association agree that Phase IIIC, Lot 1 should be governed by a different Association, with its own set of covenants. WHEREAS, according to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Annie Subdivision, recorded as Document No. 2080912 on September 12, 2002 with the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Gallatin County, Montana (Hereinafter referred to as “Declaration”), Article XI, Section 6; the Declaration may be amended by “an instrument signed by the Owners of not less than sixty percent (60%) of the Lots, each Lot being entitled to one (1) vote. WHEREAS, the Amendment shall be effective on the date the same is recorded in the office of the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder; NOW THEREFORE, THE DECLARATION IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: Amendment 1, Article I Definitions, Section 1, shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows: Section 1. “Association 1 shall mean and refer to Annie Subdivision Phase III Association. Association 1 shall include the following real property: All of Annie Subdivision Phase IIIA, a tract of land being a portion of Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-343. All of Annie Subdivision Phase IIIB, a tract of land being a portion of Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 18 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-481. All of Annie Subdivision Phase IIIC a tract of land being a portion of Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-482 except for Lot 1. Association 2 shall mean and refer to Annie Subdivision Phase IV Owner’s Association. Association 2 shall include the following real property: Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase IIIC a tract of land being a portion of Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-482 Going forward, each Association shall have the rights, responsibilities and duties under this Declaration as two separate associations, with separate voting right, separate responsibilities and separate powers, including the separate power to amend this Declaration as the Declaration now runs with each portions of the real property separately. This means that the Owners of Association 1 can amend these Covenants without the vote of Association 2 and vice versa. Amendment 2: All references to Association within the Declarations shall be amended as follows: All references “Association” shall be amended to “Association 1 and Association 2.” 1. This Amendment amends and supplements the Declaration and shall be incorporated into and a part of the Declaration. Except as specifically amended or supplemented herein, all terms of the Declaration shall remain in full force and effect. In the event the terms of this Amendment and the Declaration conflict or are inconsistent, the terms of this Amendment shall control. Unless specifically defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the definition given in the Declaration. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, which taken together shall constitute one and the same document. Signatures on the following pages: 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I agree to amend the Declaration as set forth above. a. I own the following Lot(s) __________________ (Insert Lot Number(s)). ___________________________________ (Owner Name(s), or if titled in an LLC, Corporation or trust, name of the LLC or trust.) ___________________________________ Signatures (if two owners, both sign) STATE OF MONTANA ) ) County of Gallatin ) Subscribed and sworn to before me on this _____ day of _____________________ , 20_____ , by ___________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ (if owned by the trust, corporation or LLC, please insert that they are signing on behalf of the entity.), _________________________________________ Notary Public for the State of Montana Printed Name ______________________________ (SEAL) Residing at ________________________________ My Commission expires: _____________________ (Use four digits) 20 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4041 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, RELATING TO LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 700 (ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 3B & 3C); CREATING THE DIS'J'RICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSING THE COSTS FOR INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND ENERGY THEREFOR TO BENEFITIEil PRoPERTY BY THE LEVY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission (the "Commission';) 'of the City of Bozeman, Montana (the "City"), as follows: Section I. Passage of Resolution of Intention. This Commission, on June 25, 2007, adopted Resolution No. 4036 (the "Resolution of Intention"), pursuant to which this Commission declared its intention to create a special lighting district, designated as Special Lighting District No. 700 (Annie Subdivision, Phase 3B & 3C) ofthe City (the "District"), under Montana Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 12, Part 43, as amended (the "Act"), for the purpose of financing costs of certain local improvements described generally therein (the "Improvements") and paying costs incidental thereto, including costs associated with the creation and administration of the District. Section 2. Notice and Public Hearinu. Notice of passage ofthe Resolution ofIntention was duly published, posted and mailed in all respects in accordance with law, and on June 25, 2007, this Commission conducted a public hearing on the creation ofthe District and the making ofthe Improvements. The meeting of this Commission at which this resolution was adopted is the first regular meeting of the Commission following the expiration of the period ended 15 days after the first date of publication of the notice of passage ofthe Resolution of Intention (the "Protest Period"). Section 3. Protests. Within the Protest Period, no protests were filed with the City Clerk. Section 4. Creation ofthe District; Insufficiency of Protests. The District is hereby created on the terms and conditions set forth in and otherwise in accordance with, the Resolution ofIntention. The findings and determinations made in the Resolution of Intention are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 5. Preparation and Levvinu of Assessments. It shall be the duty of the City Clerk to prepare all necessary schedules and resolutions for the levying of assessments in the District necessary to finance the Improvements and present such resolution to this Commission for adoption in conformance with Section 7-12-4328, M.C.A., on or before the first Monday in October. The City Clerk is authorized to provide notice of the resolution of assessment and schedule a public hearing therefore in conformance with Sections 7-12-4329 and 7-12-4330, M.C.A., and upon final passage of such resolution deliver it to the City Treasurer. Section 6. Liuhtinu District Fund Established. There is hereby created a fund to be known as the Special Lighting District No. 700 Fund (the "Fund"). All money derived from the collection of the assessments as provided in Section 5 herein and the Act shall be deposited in the Fund and used to pay costs of the Improvements. 21 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission ofthe City of Bozeman, Montana, this 16th day of July 2007. J .. ,. r , , r I"~ ATTEST: Acting City Clerk JE r SS y- APPROVED AS TO FORM: 22 CERTIFICATE AS TO RESOLUTION AND ADOPTING VOTE I, thc undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting recording officer ofthe City of Bozeman, Montana (the "City"), hereby certify that the attached resolution is a true copy of Resolution No. 4041, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, RELATING TO LIGHTING DISTRICT 700 (ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 3B & 3C); CREATING THE DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSING THE COSTS FOR INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND ENERGY THEREFOR TO BENEFITTED PROPERTY BY THE LEVY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. 4041 (the "Resolution"), on file in the original records ofthe City in my legal custody; that the Resolution was duly adopted by the City Commission ofthe City at a meeting on July 16, 2007 and that the meeting was duly held by the City Commission and was attended throughout by a quorum, pursuant to call and notice of such meeting given as required by law; and that the Resolution has not as of the date hereof been amended or repealed. I further certify that, upon vote being taken on the Resolution at said meeting, the following Commissioners voted in favor thereof: Crs. Kirchhoff, Jacobson, Rupp, and Mayor Krauss; voted against the same: Cr. Becker; abstained from voting thereon: none; or were absent: none. WITNESS my hand officially this July 16,2007. c~ Acting City Clerk 23 i ~ --~~~~~~:- ~ ~-:~~~-:: :::;. ~': ",- ~\ C-' I ,...} I 1,\. \ 7 I., ---I \ I ' ,I, L \ 4::::::::,,:: ::.:~ :::_~ ~ - -~~. \ I D E [;l rfl T\ 1\ I LJ>',., I"~ \\J,' , .\\ f; I I I ,- I I I r-- I r' I'~' s.."L l..___ D R - \/4- \\ 7,::: ~;: ::~I=' '" ~\ I 1 I tll 1 , I I i l., , I J J,: w ~..!f::= ~a~:;.% = J;~ A. V E : )''<<1'' l i 0= -=:'5 ;::';"~~;':::;' :":~ ?~,,"'..-...i::i1/ J 1 11 f i 'h Tl--:;\'-:-'~-: -, ~ i:=:\((':::~:~-- ""-=A I '-~ ~ '\ ~ ',~ ......../ ...... t ...i../ , I I;:-~. rl r:,.c""~;;;-",,,?,,;,~'t;.;;..;;'i -.....-~ ""- ..-~ f i I' I ,I'1 I ,1 I I .,1, I I I "I I J I r ~c""'!~"'-".~-,,~;_~: ""'-""'::- - "'-;' ~-:pi, c- I . I I 1..-- ,Jr ' J'.,~. \ 'I-l-~ f~:;~.,~ii:...~_.~:~..:~~.<:::';o,..~"":e:~ ~""._~.~,"-... -=:"""'Ff L_i__'_ i i Ii t I:-i>l. (~~~,~ "IIr- I I I I I III I AI\~JESTREET-1 \ I -"""",; -"'~,,1 IIiII _ __ _ _'_ ...._ ';- _ __....: ~'~~~ 1 .- ,..,--- 'i- ~'~.-- I . ~ I \ \ I I i:~- - I I ' ::. I'U_..'h__ " ,i L -- -_. ..:!..___. L......-:;;:;..-..z~...., " I{6GE-:-----....~~.~ '., /' r-------n-----E:slVAY-___., '" ',1:-::.-'.:>", ,/ I ,..,.... +.. _ _ ", 'oJ- ::I. .' .', f~'-'h,~'h--n_'~r""i. --'<' " '\ ., /I i I {"~:;I ,: (I~ --c::).. / ..~..... ...... \ \~ " I I' (~/ ... '" ~ \ ",~ /', I: ; . ;). / -:i~ ~\ \ ':y/i-_...L J ,/ ":::,.::.-::--,:;~\ \ \ '-0,,-~ i i: .. f;- ..~ -- -, ~?.(:'~:";'^I';/ I : f N-::~.. I II :) 't " \ L; I I I I '_ ...."" t: :r~ I 1__-, ....'_-,.' ",\..--;~ I I I I: . I ,., - y., '-" , I I I I' /-, i~_~." '-.-. -- 1...- : I ' . 1'- - -.-----;r- ,I f: -'-r--. II __ r = : I I ,--~/,..,:. I r#H-">'_ :' I ( Ir, ~-~___.'J I L'-1---1f:'\ .. '" '-;':'" :-1- : 1>-, C-"'-~'1{, '.._- .",.,,: I I I I i:'.:;i - -C" . ___\ ~.~ : h C" ;I;I-,,~;.. .:< . -" I, I: 0';1;(... 7 , '_,/ : I.. I: 111='- ,~,-.- .' I, -- ,I ';:( --4.-__ III' ;' ... I ,j I CI I: h-_n-..:1':' "I I ~ I: rr---~~--~~--~:~~~~=====~~~-~=~j f(~" r- h'--,- n__,-';-::-'-: ~ i'-:=---:-f' - - - - -- 1 - j'.. i f OJ- CJ Time: 03/07/07 14:40:24 Session: J:\COMMON-l\GTVIEW~ 1 \BOZEMA-l.GTS NorthWestern Energy Map E.xtract This information isproprietary and confidential dc/{(I ofNorth Western Energy Center: (15675780. 528220.6) Zoom: 118.5 4IRl i I, \ r '\ 5:,;:;, 24 WGMGROUPOFWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSTREET PLAN AND PROFILE ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 202112NPRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/22/217/22/2125 26 MEMORANDUM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: JACOB MILLER, ASSISTANT PLANNER KARL JOHNSON, ENGINEER I RE: ANNIE SUBDIVISION PH. 4 PRE-APPLICATION, 21-003 DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2020 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: A Subdivision Pre-Application to create a Major Subdivision of 20 lots for future residential development in the R-3 zoning district on 3.241 acres. Project Location: Annie Subdivision Phase 3C, Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Lot 1, City of Bozeman, MT The Department of Community Development received your application on January 13, 2021. Staff has reviewed the application in accordance with the submittal checklists and Article 38.220 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) and the application is not adequate for continued review per BMC 38.240.110.A.3. The application is incomplete for processing. Planning Division, Jacob Miller, jamiller@bozeman.net, 406-582-2261 1. Requested Waivers: a. Sec. 38.220.060.3. – Groundwater i. Staff does not grant a waiver for the groundwater supplement, see stormwater comments. b. Sec. 38.220.060.6. – Wildlife i. Staff grants a waiver for the wildlife supplement. c. Sec. 38.220.060.7. – Historical Features i. Staff grants a waiver for the historical features supplement. d. Sec. 38.220.060.8. – Agriculture i. Staff grants a waiver for the agriculture supplement. e. Sec. 38.220.060.12.f – Traffic Generation i. Staff requests additional information, see engineering comments. f. Sec. 38.220.060.17. – Neighborhood center plan i. Staff grants a waiver for the neighborhood plan supplement. 2. The preliminary plat shall conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the Uniform Standards for Subdivision Plats (Uniform Standards for Certificates of Survey (COS) and Subdivision Plats (24.183.1104 ARM). 3. Sec. 38.220.060. - Additional subdivision preliminary plat supplements. a. Please provide all additional preliminary plat supplements meeting the requirements detailed in this section that were not included in the waiver requests. The waiver requests 27 will be reviewed with this PA Application. All information, exhibits, answers to questions must be provided for each supplement. 4. Sec. 38.410.080. - Grading and drainage. a. Stormwater facilities must be provided to accommodate stormwater runoff from the public streets. If the open space lot is to be used as a stormwater facility it must be maintained by the POA and noted in the preliminary plat supplements and the conditions of approval sheet on the plat. Additional requirements for landscape design are described in Sec. 38.410.080.H. 5. Sec. 38.410.060. - Easements. a. 10’ front setback utility easements must be provided along all street frontages. b. Provide a public access easement for the common open space lot. 6. Sec. 38.410.100. - Watercourse setback. a. A plan must be submitted with the preliminary plat describing how this development will mitigate the impacts of development on the watercourse. Show both zones of the watercourse in the plat. b. A setback planting plan must be prepared by a qualified landscape professional and included with the preliminary plat submittal. This plan must include descriptions of schedule, plantings, maintenance and irrigation. 7. Sec. 38.410.030. - Lot. a. Due to the existing configuration of the street grid this development will be allowed to create double frontage lots in between Durston and the new road. Certain design considerations will be required to be included in the POA covenants and design guidelines to mitigate this situation, for example the primary façades of the townhome lots with adjacency to Durston must face Durston and will require a fence height restriction. b. It appears the townhouse lot with the 20’ front property line could present encroachment issues into the required side setback of the property to the east, because of the narrow front width. Please demonstrate that this will not be an issue, or readjust the lots to allow for a wider frontage. 8. Sec. 38.420.020. - Park area requirements. a. There is a pedestrian midblock crossing north of the property that does not connect to the Westside Trail. Improvements-in-lieu will be accepted in the form of constructing the connection. Please contact Addi Jadin with the parks department for details. 9. Sec. 38.550.070. - Landscaping of public lands. a. All perimeter street boulevard, street trees and landscaping must be installed within one year of final plat approval. Landscape plans for these areas must be submitted with the preliminary plat application. Durston is considered a perimeter street and must be maintained by the POA. The curb cuts must be removed and street trees planted. Engineering Division, Karl Johnson, kajohnson@bozeman.net, 406-582-2281 REQUESTED WAIVERS 1. BMC 38.220.060.3 Ground water: Denied, see Stormwater comments for additional details. 28 2. BMC 38.220.060.12.f Traffic Generation: Additional information is required to determine is a waiver can be granted. The applicant must provide trip generations from the site to determine if a Traffic Impact Study is required. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Easements 1. BMC 38.410.060 (B.2) Easements - The applicant must provide a ten foot utility easement (power, gas, communication, etc.) along the developments property frontage. The easement may either be dedicated via the plat or separate easement but the easement must be shown on the plat and include the City’s standard language. The applicant may contact the Engineering Department to receive a copy of a utility easement template. Water Rights 1. Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) 38.410.130 - The applicant must contact Griffin Nielsen with the City Engineering Department to obtain a determination of cash-in-lieu of water rights (CILWR). CILWR must be paid prior to final plat approval. Paybacks 1. The subject property is included in the payback district identified as SID 684 Durston N 19th to Fowler Road Improvements. The proportionate share of the payback must be paid prior to final plat approval. Stormwater 1. To utilize the existing Annie Subdivision detention facility the applicant must demonstrate the existing stormwater detention pond is functioning as designed, is accessible and maintainable, and is adequately designed to handle the additional runoff from the proposed development. 2. The stormwater conveyance to the Annie detention pond has a drainage easement with a house, fence, and shed built on it. This conveyance must not be utilized for additional flows until these structures are removed. 3. DSSP Section (A) (4) Water Quality - The applicant must include a drainage plan prior to plat adequacy with post-construction storm water management controls that are designed to infiltrate, evapotranspire, and/or capture for reuse the post-construction runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. For projects that cannot meet 100% of the runoff reduction requirement, the remainder of the runoff from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall must be either: a. Treated onsite using post-construction storm water management control(s) expected to remove 80 percent total suspended solids (TSS); b. Managed offsite within the same sub-watershed using post- construction storm water management control(s) that are designed to infiltrate, evapotranspire, and/or capture for reuse; or c. Treated offsite within the same subwatershed using post construction storm water management control(s) expected to remove 80 percent TSS. 4. DSSP Section (C) Water Quantity - The applicant must provide detention prior to approval with release rates limited to predevelopment runoff rates. Retention ponds must be sized based on a 10-year, 2-hour storm intensity. 29 5. The seasonal high groundwater elevation must be determined prior to plat adequacy. The engineer responsible for the design drainage must certify that the drainage infrastructure can meet or exceed the City’s drainage requirements during the seasonal high. Water 1. DSSP Section (V.D.1) Alignment, Depth, and Easements – The alignment of water and sewer services must be arranged so there is a minimum of ten (10) feet of horizontal separation between each other. Wastewater 1. Applicant is advised water and sewer services must run perpendicular to respective mains through the utility easement line. Transportation 1. The 2017 Transportation Master Plan Pedestrian Recommendation, 36 identifies the need to add a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon to the existing crossing at the east side of N 25th Ave and Durston Rd intersection. The beacon must be installed upon future development. Lighting 1. The applicant must demonstrate the existing lighting on Durston Rd meets the lighting design criteria identified in section XII of the DSSP along the property’s frontage to Durston Rd. If the standards are not met additional lighting may be required. NWE Project Engineer Erica Chaney Erika.Chaney@northwestern.com 1. Has an application to Northwestern Energy (NWE) been submitted? 2. With the demolition of the existing structures the applicant needs to, weeks in advance of the scheduled demolition, contact NorthWestern Energy for a disconnect of the electric and gas services. 3. Transformer Location. For larger apartment buildings a 3-phase transformer may be needed therefore, a 3-phase transformer pad site should be planned. Typical 3-phase pad is going to be a 7’x7’ pad. For all transformer locations, single phase and three phase transformers, clearance requirements to any buildings is 2-feet for non-combustible walls and surfaces, void of openings such as doors, windows, air intake, and fire escapes routes, and meets current NEC or NFPA requirements for non-combustible material. For any combustible surface, not meeting current NEC or NFPA requirements for non-combustible material, a minimum of a 10-foot clearance is required between the building or any combustible surface and the transformer. For all single phase and three phase transformers, regardless of size, requires a 10-foot unobstructed clearance space in front of the pad where the transformer doors are located. Note, all distances are referenced to the edge of the pad. Due to COVID-19 there has been an impact on receiving larger three phase and single phase transformers and a longer timeline may be needed to receive the needed equipment for these services. It is important to submit an application to NWE and provide the calculated loads as soon as possible to avoid any delays. 4. NWE will need to review building elevation plans for the proposed buildings for the meter locations as well as final grading plans for all utility installation locations. With the extension of Rogers Way a civil plan with final top back of curb grade elevations will be needed to establish proper bury depths of all underground utilities. 30 5. Service & Meter Location. The electric meter & or CT cabinet will need to be installed in the same general location within 10-feet of the gas meter. NorthWestern Energy reserves the right to specify the location of our meters. All meters are to be located outdoors on the corner or in a location on the building closest to the transformer or secondary junction can serving the building unit. On new construction, electric meter locations must be within 10 feet of the gas meter if NorthWestern Energy will be providing both electric and gas service. Meter locations will need to be approved by NWE. NWE policy is to maintain a minimum 30-inches wide by 3- feet clear zone between the front of the meter and landscape screening or wall screening for self-contained meter bases and 48-inches for installations requiring cabinets. Location of the meter(s) shall allow easy access to the meters for operation and maintenance. This can be determined through the design process after an application is submitted through NWE and the area project engineer will work through allowable shrubs and plants for screening and to determine adequate clearances for access to our meters. 6. The following applies to the gas regulator. The gas regulator cannot be placed under a window or within 3’ of the operable portion of the window. It can be placed under a window/deck on the second story, provided the “open/operable” portion has at least 6’ of clearance from the regulator. Ensure that there is 10’ of separation from any mechanical air intake, including air conditioning units. The regulator will need to be 3’ from the closest corner of any portion of the electric meter base. Submitting an application to NWE will get the NWE engineer involved and can help with this process. 7. Apartment or townhomes are proposed there will be a need to install multiple meters within the same location. With multiple meters, adequate wall space will be needed to install the number of electric and gas meters, and electric gear. For gas meters, NWE will only stack gas meters 2 high and therefore the needed wall space for gas meters will require a longer wall space. The two areas for gas and electric meters will need to occupy the same wall space, unless otherwise approved by a NWE project engineer, with the needed separation between gas and electric meters. 8. When there are multiple units with multiple meters NWE requires that the meters have a permanent placard for each meter. For multiple metering each location or premise must have its address and unit numbers permanently attached by means of a placard to the meter bases and the individual apartment /unit breaker boxes before the meter is set. These identifying placards must match the unit information as displayed on the unit’s entry door. 9. Utility easements. Any extension of gas main or electric primary will need to be installed within an easement. Normally a 10-foot easement is required. To establish the needed utility easement locations the NWE project engineer and/or Northwestern Energy’s real estate representative will help to establish these locations as well as the needed documentation. Negotiations and costs between other landowners for easements is entirely the applicant’s responsibility. 10. NWE will need to review landscape plans for proposed landscaping within the proposed development with location to utility easements and equipment. 11. For landscaping. No large deep rooted trees or bushes will be allowed within the 10-foot utility easement. No large trees reaching heights of 15-feet or taller will be allowed under any 31 overhead distribution lines. All other approved landscaping will be placed so as not to damage or prevent or hinder operation and maintenance of NWE utilities. 12. For landscaping, planting of bushes or shrubs a Minimum Working Space for a Pad-Mounted Transformer is, 4-feet on the sides and back portion of the concrete pad and 10-feet of clearance on the front side of the pad where the transformer doors are located. Note, all distances are referenced to the edge of the pad. 13. Submit an application online to have the NWE project engineer work with the applicant. Go to www.northwesternenergy.com/construction to apply online Montana Construction Application, and access Montana New Service Guide to provide information on electric and gas service requirements. Community Housing Program, Tanya Andreason, tandreason@bozeman.net, 406-582-2953 1. The cash in lieu calculation will be based upon 10% of the townhomes and single detached home, meaning that the payment will be calculated using 1.7 units (.10 x 17 homes = 1.7 units). 2. The Affordable Housing Plan online form has a Cash-in-lieu rate table on page 2 for the applicant’s use. This table is updated annually, and the required payment amount should be calculated using the City’s published rate. The AH Plan form is required as part of the Preliminary Plat submittal, and will be recorded with the Final Plat. CIL payment is due before Final Plat is recorded. Parks and Recreation; Addi Jadin, ajadin@bozeman.net, 406-582-2908 1. Parks recommends cash-in-lieu of parkland for this project and does not recommend acceptance of the open space area at the east of the property as parkland because it would not be an uninterrupted linear park and would create uncertainty of ownership. Staff requests that applicants address the feasibility/costs of applying CILP for off-site improvements-in-lieu to construct a bridge that connects sidewalk spur to the Westside Trail at the terminus of Rose Ct. Note: The comments and advice contained in this DRC memorandum are intended to assist the applicant in preparing the subdivision preliminary plat application. However, further comments and/or recommendations on matters not discussed during the informal view may arise based on the information and supplemental data provided with the formal applications and applicable comments provided by local and state agencies. These divisions did not provide comments, contact reviewers directly with questions. 1. Building Division; Bob Risk brisk@bozeman.net, 406-582-2377 32 2. Fire Department; Scott Mueller, smueller@bozeman.net, 406-582-2353 3. Sustainability Division; Natalie Meyer, nmeyer@bozeman.net, 406-582-2317 4. Water Conservation; Jessica Ahlstrom, jahlstrom@bozeman.net, 406-582-2265 5. Stormwater Division; Kayla Mehrens, jkmehrens@bozeman.net, 406-582-2270 6. Water and Sewer Division; John Alston, jalston@bozeman.net, 406-582-3200 33 WGMGROUPOFWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSTREET PLAN AND PROFILE ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 202112NPRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:8/1/217/26/2134 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 TYPICAL STREET SECTIONWGMGROUPOFWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSTREET DETAILS ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAMAY 202122PRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:5/11/215/11/2153 54 55 56 57 WGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSANTIARY SEWER MAIN PLAN AND PROFILE ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 2021SW1PRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/22/217/20/21N58 109 E Main Street, Ste B, Bozeman, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com July 26, 2021 Jacob Miller City of Bozeman Planning Department 20 East Olive Street Bozeman, MT 59718 RE: Response to DRC Comments for Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Preliminary Plat Comments Dated July 7, 2021. Application #21201. Dear Mr. Miller: This letter is to provide a narrative response to the DRC dated July 7, 2021 for the above referenced project. Comments have been addressed individually in bold. Please feel free to call with questions and let us know if you need more information. Section 2 - 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 development. 1. 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. Acknowledged 2. The applicant must confirm whether the existing household on the subject property has a sewer septic system. If one exists it must properly abandoned prior to final plat approval. Please refer to our response to Engineering comments below, regarding this item. 3. The applicant must provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID’s) or special districts for the following, if not already filed: a. Street improvements to West Oak Street form Hunters Way to North 19th Avenue including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. b. Intersection improvements at North 19th Avenue and Durston Road including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. c. Intersection improvements at North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. The document filed must specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these 59 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 2 of 11 improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or a combination thereof. The applicant must provide a copy of the filed SID waiver prior to Final Plat approval. Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of the above SID’s will be filed with the County Clerk and Recorder. A draft copy of the SID waiver has been provided with this response to preliminary plat comments. Section 3 – REQUIRED CODE PROVISIONS All references are to the Bozeman Municipal Code. Planning Division, Jacob Miller, jamiller@bozeman.net, 582-2261 1. Sec. 38.220.070. - Final plat. a. The final plat must conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the Uniform Standards for Monumentation, Certificates of Survey, and Final Subdivision Plats (24.183.1101 ARM, 24.183.1104 ARM, 24.183.1107 ARM) and must be accompanied by all required documents, including certification from the City Engineer that record drawings for public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and corrected certificates. Acknowledged b. A letter from the city engineer certifying that the following documents have been received: i. As-built drawings, i.e., copies of final plans, profiles, grades and specifications for public improvements, including a complete grading and drainage plan. Acknowledged c. Noxious weed MOU. Prior to final plat approval, a memorandum of understanding must be entered into by the weed control district and the developer. The memorandum of understanding must be signed by the district and the developer prior to final plat approval, and a copy of the signed document must be submitted to the community development department with the application for final plat approval. Acknowledged. The weed management plan has already been approved by the Weed Control District, as previously submitted with the preliminary plat application. The MOU will be entered into by the weed control district prior to final plat. d. Irrigation system as-builts. The developer must provide irrigation system as- builts, for all irrigation installed in public rights-of-way and/or land used to meet parkland dedication requirements, once the irrigation system is installed. The as- builts must include the exact locations and type of lines, including accurate depth, water source, heads, electric valves, quick couplers, drains and control box. 60 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 3 of 11 Acknowledged. Irrigation system as-builts will be provided for all irrigation installed, including within the open space lot and along Durston in right-of-way. e. A conditions of approval sheet addressing the criteria listed in this section must be provided with the final plat as set forth in 24.183.1107 ARM and must: i. Be entitled "Conditions of Approval of [insert name of subdivision]" with a title block including the quarter-section, section, township, range, principal meridian, county, and, if applicable, city or town in which the subdivision is located. A draft conditions of approval Sheet 3 of 3 has been provided. This sheet provides the text to meet the following requirements. ii. Contain any text and/or graphic representations of requirements by the governing body for final plat approval including, but not limited to, setbacks from streams or riparian areas, floodplain boundaries, no-build areas, building envelopes, or the use of particular parcels. iii. Include a certification statement by the landowner that the text and/or graphics shown on the conditions of approval sheet(s) represent(s) requirements by the governing body for final plat approval and that all conditions of subdivision application have been satisfied. iv. Include a notation stating that the information shown is current as of the date of the certification, and that changes to any land-use restrictions or encumbrances may be made by amendments to covenants, zoning regulations, easements, or other documents as allowed by law or by local regulations. v. Include a notation stating that buyers of property should ensure that they have obtained and reviewed all sheets of the plat and all documents recorded and filed in conjunction with the plat, and that buyers of property are strongly encouraged to contact the local community development department and become informed of any limitations on the use of the property prior to closing. vi. List all associated recorded documents and recorded document numbers. vii. List easements, including easements for agricultural water user facilities. The above information has been included on the draft conditions of approval Sheet 3 of 3. 2. Sec. 38.220.310. - Property owners' association. a. The responsibility of maintenance for the stormwater facilities, and street frontage landscaping for the perimeter streets must be that of the property owners’ association. Maintenance responsibility must include, all vegetative ground cover, boulevard trees and irrigation systems in the public right-of-way boulevard strips along all external perimeter development streets. The property owners’ association must be responsible 61 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 4 of 11 for levying annual assessments to provide for the maintenance, repair, and upkeep of all perimeter street frontage landscaping and stormwater facilities and all open space landscaping. Per the newly provided draft conditions of approval Sheet 3 of 3, this information is provided in the General Notes and the Certificate of Transfer of Ownership & Completion of Non-Public Improvements. b. All public access areas to be owned and maintained by the property owners association. Per the newly provided draft conditions of approval Sheet 3 of 3, this information is provided. The final plat must contain the above listed notations on the Conditions of Approval sheet 3. See above notes, and the draft conditions of approval sheet 3 that has been provided. Sec. 38.410.060. - Easements. a. All dedicated public easements must be recorded the City’s standard template easement documents separate from the plat and the recorded document number must be listed on the final plat. A table has been provided on the draft conditions of approval Sheet 3 for recorded document numbers for easements. All dedicated public easements will be recorded with the City’s standard template easement document separate from the plat. b. The final plat must provide all necessary utility easements and they must be described, dimensioned and shown on each subdivision block of the final plat in their true and correct location. Utility easements are provided on the preliminary plat and are described and dimensioned. Easements will be shown on the final plat in their true and correct location. Engineering Division Karl Johnson, kajohnson@bozeman.net, 406-582-2281 The following comments are provided in four sections; code correction required prior to preliminary plat approval, code corrections required prior to final plat approval, recommended conditions of approval required prior to final plat approval, and advisory comments required with future applications. Engineering Code Corrections: The following comments must be address prior to preliminary plat approval: 62 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 5 of 11 Stormwater 1. DSSP II.C.3 - Basin Location: Basins serving multiple lots shall be located in common open space owned by a Homeowners or Property Owners Association. Locating a basin within an easement on a lot will not be permitted unless approved by the governing body. a. As proposed, the stormwater basins will not be allowed to be located within the public right of way. See Utilities comment #1 for more detail. The applicant must relocate the stormwater basins to reside in a common space open lot. The stormwater design has been updated to address DSSP II.C.3. The design now includes one basin (instead of two), and all stormwater is directed to the stormwater pond within the open space lot on the east side of the property. Stormwater basins are no longer proposed within public right of way. Please refer to the stormwater design report for additional information. The new stormwater design corresponds to a proposed road straight-grade profile between the west tie-in (on Daffodil) and the northeast tie in (on Roger’s Way). This new road vertical profile corresponds to a couple feet of cut within the center of the property, near the existing house (the existing house had been built on a couple feet of fill probably to accommodate its basement). Proposed water and sewer main alignments and bury depths have been checked against this new road design, and can meet standards for adequate bury depth and design. The stormwater detention pond is located in common open space owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association as described in the draft conditions of approval Sheet 3 that has been provided. 2. BMC 40.04.700 (A.5) - All drainage system reports, peak flow rates and runoff volume calculations, safety requirements, and grading plans shall be certified by a licensed professional authorized by the state to perform such functions. The stormwater report has been certified by a professional engineer authorized by the state of Montana. Utilities 1. DSSP V.D.5.c – No permanent structures shall be placed within a utility easement. Trees or other significant landscape features shall not be placed within ten feet of any utility main or services lines. a. The proposed stormwater retention systems in front of lots 1 through 3 and 17 through 19 will not be allowed over the service lines. The stormwater design has been updated to eliminate the stormwater retention systems in front of lots 1 through 3 and 17 through 19. No permanent structures are placed within the utility easements. Trees or other significant landscape features will not be placed within ten feet of any utility main or service lines. 63 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 6 of 11 2. DSSP V.A and B - A design report prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Montana demonstrating compliance with these requirements shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bozeman a. The sewer and water design reports must be certified by a professional engineer. The sewer and water design reports have been resubmitted, as certified to by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Montana. These reports have been updated with adjustments to the water and sewer main depths based on the new road alignment. Engineering Code Corrections: The following comments must be address prior to final plat approval: General 1. BMC 38.220.070.6 Conditions of Approval – The following notes must be included in the conditions of approval sheet on the final plat: a. Due to the known high groundwater conditions in the area no basements will be permitted with future development of the site. No crawl spaces will be permitted with future development of the site, unless a professional engineer registered in the State of Montana certifies that the lowest point of any proposed structure is located above the seasonal high groundwater level and provide supporting groundwater data prior to the release of building permit. In addition, sump pumps are not allowed to be connected to the sanitary sewer system or the drainage system unless capacity is designed into the drainage system to accept the pumped water. Water from sump pumps may not be discharged onto streets, such as into the curb and gutters where they may create a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. This note has been included in the general notes on the draft conditions of approval Sheet 3 that has been provided and will be included on the final plat. Please refer to Sheet 3. Groundwater monitoring across the site has continued to show no signs of groundwater in the monitoring wells (about 9 feet below the ground surface). The existing well located near the existing home has shown groundwater to come up to a minimum depth of about 15 feet. It is understood that this season has been relatively dry and groundwater likely becomes shallower during wetter years. Nevertheless, this note and information have been provided on the plat. b. The responsibility of maintenance for the stormwater facilities, stormwater open space lots, pedestrian open space lots and street frontage landscaping for the perimeter streets must be that of the property owners’ association. Maintenance responsibility must include, all vegetative ground cover, boulevard trees and irrigation systems in the public right-of-way boulevard strips along all external perimeter development streets. The property owners’ association must be responsible for levying annual assessments to provide for the maintenance, repair, and upkeep of all perimeter street 64 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 7 of 11 frontage landscaping and stormwater facilities and all open space landscaping. The responsibility of maintenance of stormwater facilities, etc., as discussed above, will be clearly outlined in the covenants and property owners’ association documents. This text has also been added to the draft conditions of approval Sheet 3 that has been provided. Easements 1. BMC 38.410.060 - All Easements indicated below must be provided on city standard easements templates. Drafts must be prepared for review and approval by the city. Signed hard copies of the easements must be submitted to the City prior final plat approval. The applicant may contact the review engineer to receive standard templates. a. The applicant must provide a ten foot utility easement (power, gas, communication, etc.) along the developments property frontage. A 10-foot utility easement is provided along the property frontage for the proposed road (Roger’s Way) on both sides of the road. A 15-foot utility easement is provided along Durston Road, consistent with the existing 15-foot wide utility easement provided for the existing Annie Subdivision Phase 3C. b. The proposed 20 foot wide storm drainage easement. i. The proposed detention facility must also be included in the storm drainage easement. The proposed stormwater pond (detention facility) located in the open space lot on the east side of the site has been shown within a storm drainage easement per the updated plat drawing, Sheet 2. Water Rights 1. BMC 38.410.130 Water Adequacy - Subject to subsections B and C, prior to final approval by the review authority of development occurring under this chapter or chapter 10, the applicant must offset the entire estimated increase in annual municipal water demand attributable to the development pursuant to subsection D. a. Payment-in-lieu of water rights must be made for the townhouse lots prior to final plat approval. Acknowledged. Payment-in-lieu of water rights will be made prior to final plat approval. A preliminary determination for the development was provided by the City on June 28, 2021 for an estimated $23,868. Landscape irrigation demand and written communication from the DNRC that the existing well can be utilized to meet demand will be provided to the City to finalize the payment determination. 2. BMC 38.410.130.C.2 Water Adequacy - Compliance with this section is deferred for the following developments until the occurrence of future development if the applicant records a notice of restriction on future development in a form acceptable to the review authority 65 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 8 of 11 with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder: Individual lots of a subdivision final plat planned for future multiple-household development. a. A note must be included in the conditions of approval sheet indicating lots which will require future payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights upon future development. A note will be included in the conditions of approval sheet if deferral of the payment for multi-household lots is proposed, on the final plat. Transportation 1. DSSP City of Bozeman Street Naming and Addressing Policy - A new street shall assume the name of the street on which it aligns unless the street does not and cannot in the future connect to an existing street segment along the alignment. a. The street through the subject property shall be wholly named Rogers Way. The new street will be named Rogers Way. This note has been added to the preliminary plat Sheet 2. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The following comments must be address prior to final plat approval: 1. The applicant must confirm whether the existing household on the subject property has a sewer septic system. If one exists it must properly abandoned prior to final plat approval. It is our understanding that the house was served by Gallatin County septic permit #776, dated 1971, which was for a small drainfield north of the home. Gallatin County also has records of a small septic drainfield west of the shop per permit #8387 dated 1994. Gallatin County Environmental Health has verified that these are the permits they have on file for the property. It is unclear as to whether these systems were properly abandoned previously. These septic systems will be properly abandoned prior to final plat approval. 2. The applicant must provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID’s) or special districts for the following, if not already filed: Street improvements to West Oak Street form Hunters Way to North 19th Avenue including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. Intersection improvements at North 19th Avenue and Durston Road including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. Intersection improvements at North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. The document filed must specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by 66 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 9 of 11 square footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or a combination thereof. The applicant must provide a copy of the filed SID waiver prior to Final Plat approval. A draft Waiver of Right to Protest creation of the above SID’s has been provided and will be filed prior to final plat approval. ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMENTS: The following comments must be addressed with future applications: 1. The applicant is advised that due to the known high groundwater and soil conditions within the proposed area of development an increased rate of corrosion has been observed with ductile iron water mains, thus decreasing the longevity of publicly owned and maintained infrastructure. The applicant must provide corrosion protection for all future water mains within the development and identify how the mains will be protected with future infrastructure submittal. Acceptable protection methods include zinc coated ductile iron or v-bio enhanced polyethylene encasement of the main. Corrosion protection for all future water mains is anticipated. These details will be provided on the final infrastructure plans, to be submitted to and approved by the City of Bozeman Engineering Department, prior to construction. Corrosion protection can be waved, if the applicant can demonstrate that corrosion protection is not applicable for the proposed development. Typically, in order for a waiver to be granted, the applicant must consult the latest American Water Works Association and Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) documentation for testing\evaluation procedures and provide an analysis demonstrating that corrosion protection is not needed throughout the entire development. If a wavier is pursued, the waiver must be requested and approved prior to infrastructure approval. It is anticipated that corrosion protection will be provided. 2. DSSP Plans and Specification Review Policy – Plans, specifications, and submittals for public infrastructure improvements (water main, sewer main, and roadway) must be submitted to the City Engineering Department (engsubmittals@bozeman.net) for infrastructure review. Infrastructure plans will be submitted to the City Engineering Department for review. These plans will address all applicable details for water, sewer, roadway, and stormwater design for the development. 3. DSSP Fire Service Line Standard – Plans for all fire service lines must be submitted to the City Engineering Department (engsubmittals@bozeman.net) for review. No fire service lines are proposed for the development. Future Impact Fees - Please note that future building permit applications will require payment of the required transportation, water, sewer and fire impact fees according to the City of Bozeman adopted impact fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. If you desire an estimate of the 67 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 10 of 11 required impact fees according to current rates please contact the Department of Community Development and/or visit. Acknowledged Note: During preparation of the staff report for future applications, additional conditions of approval may be recommended based on comments and recommendations provided by other applicable review agencies involved with the review of the project. Acknowledged Sincerely, WGM Group, Inc. Gary Fox PROJECT ENGINEER Encl. cc: 68 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 11 of 11 W:\Projects\201016\Docs\Subdivision Submittal\Preliminary Plat Submittal\Response to DRC Comments - July 2021\Response to DRC Comments_7.8.21.docx 69 1 Gary Fox From:Katherine Maines <KMaines@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:38 PM To:Gary Fox Subject:2305 Durston [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. Hi Gary. I took a look at the property and reached out to our Finance office to confirm what I found. This property was in  City limits at the time that the Durston Road SID was put in place so they contributed to the original SID. In 2011, the  property owner paid off the remaining amount that was owed. The payback only applies to properties that were in the  County at the time that the SID was created because they weren’t required to participate in the original SID. So, long  story short, 2305 Durston Road is not actually a part of the Durston Road payback district.     Katherine Maines | Operations Manager City of Bozeman | 20 E. Olive St. | Bozeman, MT 59715 P: 406.582.2273 www.bozeman.net   City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may  be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender  and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record  retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be  protected from disclosure under law. 70 WGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMWATER MAIN PLAN AND PROFILE ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 2021WT1PRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/22/215/11/21N71 72 © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS WGMGROUPOFWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSUBDIVISION OVERVIEW DURSTON RESIDENTIAL (2305 DURSTON RD) BOZMAN, MONTANADECEMBER 18, 202011NPRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:12/18/2012/18/20PROJECT SITELOT 1, ANNIESUB PH. 3CANNIE SUB. PH. 3CPLAT J-482ANNIE SUB. PH. 1PLAT J-135DURSTONMEADOWSPH. 2, PLAT J-258DURSTONMEADOWSPH. 1, PLAT J-238C.O.S.1817KABLESUB.PLATF-23-BWESTPARK MANOR4TH ADD.PLAT J-184ANNIE SUB.PH. 3APLAT J-343DURSTON RDN 25TH A V E 19TH AVEWILLOWBROOKCONDOSCOS 185573 42.00 84.00 6.53 12V/55W SOLAR PANEL 30" W11-2 STATIC SIGN RRFB LIGHT BAR 24"X12" W16-7PL STATIC SIGN RADIO ANTENNA ALUMINUM CONTROL CABINET (MUST BE MOUNTED SO ANTENNA SIGNAL IS NOT OBSTRUCTED, FOR PROPER RADIO RECEPTION) YELLOW PUSH BUTTON KIT 4-1/2"O.D. ALUMINUM POLE PACKAGE (NOT INCLUDED IN SYSTEM 62.00 NOTES: 1. ORIENT SOLAR PANEL TOWARDS SOUTHERN SKY FOR MAXIMUM SOLAR EXPOSURE 2. CONTROL CABINET HEIGHT MAY VARY. 3. SNAP LOCKS ARE PROVIDED, STANDARD 3/4" S/S BANDING IS RECOMMENDED 4. J-BOLTS NOT SHOWN 5. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 6.STATIC SIGNS NOT INCLUDED IN SYSTEM REVISIONS REV.DESCRIPTION DATE ECN #AUTHOR/APPROVED A INITIAL RELEASE 5/7/2018 N/A A.K./J.P. D C B A B C D 12345678 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A LAUREN.ROTHPROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OFTAPCO. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF TAPCO IS PROHIBITED. SCALE: 1:28 SHEET 1 OF 1 S:\+ENGINEERING\SPECIFICATIONS\600167\ ANGULAR 0.5 REFERENCE: TAPCO WEIGHT: LAUREN.ROTH 5/7/2018 600167DESIGNED BY: TOLERANCE UNLESSOTHERWISE SPECIFIED HOLE .003DEC. INCHX 0.030XX 0.015XXX 0.005 INTERPRET GEOMETRICTOLERANCING PER:ASME Y14.5-2009MATERIAL FINISH DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SIZEB DWG. NO.REV TITLE:RRFB, SOLAR 55/48, RADIO, SOP, SS, AMBER, PB, H POLE X2 A. KAVANAUGH A 74 75 1 Gary Fox From:Jones, Jana (Network) <Jana.Harmon@CenturyLink.com> Sent:Friday, April 16, 2021 12:01 PM To:Gary Fox Cc:Hunter Morrical Subject:RE: Service Request for Subdivision 2305 Durston Rd. - Bozeman [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. Hello Gary, Lumen (formerly CenturyLink) has the capability of providing service to this subdivision, however, a developer contribution may be required to extend the facilities. Thank you Jana Jones Network Implementation Engineer II 1021 Chestnut St, Helena, MT, 59602 jana.harmon@lumen.com From: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:26 AM To: Jones, Jana (Network) <Jana.Harmon@CenturyLink.com> Cc: Hunter Morrical <hmorrical@wgmgroup.com> Subject: Service Request for Subdivision 2305 Durston Rd. - Bozeman Jana, Thank you for the call today to discuss this project at 2305 Durston Rd in Bozeman. The preliminary lot layout is attached. We are working to submit for preliminary plat to the City of Bozeman. I have also attached photos of the existing utility line in question, located east of the existing home. As part of the new project, we would like to coordinate moving or abandoning this line. The green box that the line apparently connects with (3rd photo) is located off the subject property. Please let me know if you need more information or would like to discuss. Thank you, Gary Fox, P.E. Project Engineer M: 406-598-1201 O: 406-728-4611 109 East Main Street, Suite B 76 2 Bozeman, Montana 59715 www.wgmgroup.com This communication is the property of Lumen Technologies and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. 77 78 109 E Main Street, Ste B, Bozeman, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com April 14, 2021 Bozeman Public Schools Attn: Todd Swinehart, PE, Director of Facilities P.O. Box 520 Bozeman, MT 597771-0520 Re: Subdivision of 2305 Durston Road (Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Ph. 3C) Annie Subdivision Phase 4, Bozeman, MT (#21003) Dear Mr. Swinehart, Enclosed please find a copy of the preliminary subdivision layout for Phase 4 of Annie Subdivision. The project proposes to subdivide one existing approximately 3.24 acre parcel to create 17 townhome lots, 1 single family home lot, and 2 multi-family home lots. The subject property is located east of the intersection of N 25th Ave. and Durston Road and currently consists of one residential home. An open space lot will also be created as part of the development. This project is intended to be consistent with the neighborhood use and character while providing medium density housing. The subdivision connects Daffodil Street and Rogers Way, two roads which currently dead-end at the subject property. These roads will access the new lots. It is notable that the City is requiring the addition of a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon at the existing crossing at the intersection of N. 25th and Durston Road. The property is currently zoned R-3 (Residential Medium Density). We are currently assembling a Preliminary Plat Application to the City of Bozeman and would like to address any comments you may have about this development. Please provide written comments on the effects this project may have on the community in relation to the services you provide to the area. The State of Montana Subdivision Regulations require written comments on services that will be affected by new developments of this nature. Please reach out to the undersigned if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, WGM Group, Inc. Gary Fox, PE Project Engineer Enc. Preliminary Plat Drawing for Annie Subdivision Ph. 4 W:\Projects\200512\Docs\Misc\Wastewater\Cover Letter.docx 79 80 Sanitary Sewer System Design Report Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Bozeman, MT 109 E. MAIN STREET, BOZEMAN, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com 81 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Sanitary Sewer System Design Report REPORT DATE: May, 2021 AUTHOR: Mathias Hanssen, E.I. STAFF ENGINEER Gary Fox, P.E. PROJECT ENGINEER WGM Group, Inc. 82 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Sanitary Sewer System Design Report CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................. 1 2.0 FLOW DATA AND DESIGN ........................................................... 1-2 3.0 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES .................... 2-3 APPENDICES A – VICINITY MAP 83 1 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Sanitary Sewer System Design Report 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development will be comprised of approximately 19 residential lots, and an open space/park lot, water and sewer extensions, and a stormwater management system. For sewer service, the development proposes to extend existing City of Bozeman mains at Rogers Way and Daffodil Street that terminate at the northern and western boundaries of this tract, respectively. Four (4) inch sewer services will connect each lot to these proposed main extensions. 2.0 FLOW DATA AND DESIGN The new wastewater generation for the project was based upon the total population to be served by the new main and services. The following assumptions and calculations were made per City of Bozeman Design Standard and Specifications Policy. 18 √ 4 √ ℎ: ℎ TABLE 1 – Peaking Factor based on Harmon’s Formula Peaking Factor Calculation # of Dwelling Units 25 DU # of People per Dwelling 2.11 people/DU* Population 53 people Peaking Factor 2.24 *Based on City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy ! " # $ %&’( % ) !)& " 18 √ 4 √ 84 2 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Sanitary Sewer System Design Report TABLE 2 – Wastewater Demand Calculation Based on TABLE 1 Peaking Factor The minimum eight (8) inch piping will be used with this development. Laid at a minimum slope of 0.4%, eight (8) inch piping with a Manning’s coefficient of 0.013 at 75% full, has a capacity of 0.65 cfs, or 291 gpm. Therefore, the proposed pipe size is more than adequate to convey the anticipated 8.07 gpm of peak wastewater flow rate. 3.0 IMPACT ON EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES The existing eight (8) inch SDR 35 PVC sewer main in Daffodil is sloped at 1%. At 75% full, its maximum capacity is 1.03 cfs, or 463 gpm. To the North, the existing eight (8) inch SDR 35 PVC sewer main is sloped at 1.2%. With a maximum capacity of 75% full, it can accommodate 1.125 cfs, or 506 gpm. Referencing the City of Bozeman Wastewater Capacity viewer, both mains are less than 50% obligated. If the worst-case scenario were assumed and both mains are at 50% capacity, the Roger Main would have a peak flow of 303 gpm and the Daffodil Main would have a peak flow of 277 gpm. This liberally assumes that the “less than 50% obligated” is referring to the entire pipe diameter, not the 75% maximum set by the City of Bozeman Design and Specifications Policy. If the “less than 50% obligated” is referring to the 75% pipe full maximum, there would be more capacity in the pipe than what WGM Group has assumed. Wastewater Demand Calculation Lot Area 3.24 acres Assumed Infiltration Rate* 150 gallons/acre/day Infiltration Rate 486 gpd Wastewater Generation Rate* 89 gallons/day/person Average Wastewater Flow Rate 3.60 gpm Average Wastewater Flow Rate 216 gallons/hour Peak Wastewater Flow Rate 8.07 gpm Peak Wastewater Flow Rate 484 gallons/hour *Based on City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy 85 4 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Sanitary Sewer System Design Report APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP 86 © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 Maxar ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS WGMGROUPOFWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSUBDIVISION OVERVIEW DURSTON RESIDENTIAL (2305 DURSTON RD) BOZMAN, MONTANADECEMBER 18, 202011NPRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:12/18/2012/18/20PROJECT SITELOT 1, ANNIESUB PH. 3CANNIE SUB. PH. 3CPLAT J-482ANNIE SUB. PH. 1PLAT J-135DURSTONMEADOWSPH. 2, PLAT J-258DURSTONMEADOWSPH. 1, PLAT J-238C.O.S.1817KABLESUB.PLATF-23-BWESTPARK MANOR4TH ADD.PLAT J-184ANNIE SUB.PH. 3APLAT J-343DURSTON RDN 25TH A V E 19TH AVEWILLOWBROOKCONDOSCOS 185587 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 IAnnieIIICFindingsofFactandOrder P-05076 BEFORE THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ROGER FINDINGS AND ROSALIND SMITH, REPRESENTED BY OF FACT GASTON ENGINEERING SURVEYING, FOR AND ORDER PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ANNIE IIIC MINOR SUBDIVISION. This matter came before the Bozeman City Commission on March 6, 2006, for review and decision pursuant to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, Section 76~3-101 through 76-3-(j25, Montana Codes Annotated, and the City of Bozen"lan Subdivision Regulations, City of Bozeman Crowth Policy, and City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The applicants presented to the Commission a proposed Preliminary Subdivision Plat for a 4-lot Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record, as submitted in its original form on December 20,2005, P-05076. fhe Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat and considered all relevant evidence relating to the public health, safety, and welfare, including the recotnmcndation of the Bozeman Planning Board, to detennine whether the plat should be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved. It appeared to the Commission that all parties wishing to appear and comment were given the opportunity to do so, and therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come before it regarding this application, the Commission makes the following Pindings of Pact, as required: tJJ~l)INGS 01" 1'1\CT 1. On December 20, 2005, Roger and Rosalind Smith, represented by (~aston I ':ngineering & Surveying, submitted an application for approval to create a Second or Subselluent Minor SubdivislOH 96 Annie IIIC Findings of Fact and Order JP~05076 from a Tract of Record for 3.991 acres. The subject properties are legally described as a portion of Lot 1, Annie Subdivision, Phase II, in the SE% of Section 2, T2S, R5E, PMM, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The subject property is zoned "R-3" (Residential Meclium Density District). II. The comments of the Development Review Committee, along with those of Planning & Community Development Staff, were incorporated into a staff report with suggested conditions of approval, which was provided to the City of Bozeman Planning Board. TTT. Public notice waS provided via publication ofa legal notice in the newspaper, posting the subject property, certified mailing of notices to adjacent property owners, and first class mailing of notices to other property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. fhe City of Bozeman Planning Board hcld a public hearing on Febmary 22, 2006. The Planning Board found that the application was properly submitted and reviewed under the procedures of the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. Staff reviewed the staff report and the evidence which justified the imposition of conditions. The Planning Board then opened the public heating for public comment and no public comment was provided. The City of Bozeman Planning Boai'll then moved to recommend conditional approval of the subdivision with conditions as recommended by Staff and passed on a vote of 7-0. 2- 97 Annie IlIe Findings of Fact and Order JP-05076 IV. The application was considered by the Bozeman City Cornmission at its regular meeting on March 6,2006, at which time the rccommendation of the Planning Board and information compiled by City staff was rcviewed. V. A. Primary Review Criteria 1. Effects on Agriculture The property has been master planned for Residential development. The area has been platted and developed for many years and does not support agricultural uses. 2. Effects on Agricultural Water User Facilities No effects on agricultural water user facilities were identified. 3. Effects on Local Services Water/Sewer. Therc is an existing 8-inch water main in N 251h St and a new water main will be installed in the extension of Daffodil St to service the new lots. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in N 25th St and a new sewer main will be installed in the extension of Daffodil St to service the new lots. Per code, the water ancJ sewer improvements must be installed or financially guaranteed prior to fmal plat approval, and must be installed prior to issuance of building permits. The location of existing water and sewer mains will need to be properly depicted, with the proposed main extensions noted as such. The applicant must submit plans, specifications and a detailed design report for the water and sewer main extensions to the City Engineer and the Montana Department of I ':nvironmental Quality for review and approvaL In addition, the applicant needs to resubmit previously approved infrastructure plans for the Annie Phase III Subdivision for review and approvaL The City needs to acquire water rights to keep up with the growing clemand for municipal water service. Therefore, water rights or cash--in-lieu thereof must he obtained with this development unless already paid. Finally, the subject property is located within the Far West SID #621 sewer and the HRDC \Vater payback districts. Paybacks shall be made prior to filing the final plat. 3- 98 M'N'~W'~_.~.~.~__~ JAnnieIIICFindingsofFactandOrder P-05076 Poliee/I'ire. The property is well within the City's Police and I'ire emergency response area. The subdivider must obtain an address for the new lot from the City Engineering Division prior to filing of the final plat to facilitate fIre and police response to the site. Streets. The subdivider will need to remove the existing City standard sidewalk along N 25th St to extend Daffodil St to the east. The extension of Daffodil St will be a standard City street, with curb, gutter and sidewalk, within a 60-foot right-of-way. To prevent access directly to proposed Lot 4 from Durston Rd and N 2yh St, a one-foot no access strip will be requifed along tlwse frontages. The applicant must submit plans, specifications and a detailed design report for public streets to the City Engineer for review and approval. In addition, the applicant needs to resubmit previously approved infrastructure plans for the Annie Phase HI Subdivision for review and approval. The street improvemcnts must be installed Of financially guaranteed prior to final plat approval, and must be installed prior to issuance of building permits. llowever, sidewalks must be installed prior to occupancy of any structure on the property, or by 30 days after the third anniversary of the recordation of the final plat if construction has not yet occurred. To minimize wear and tear on existing City streets, and to reduce traffic conflicts, the applicant will need to provide a construction route map and make provisions for the routine cleaning/sweeping of adjacent streets in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance. Finally, Durston Rd is an important access for the subject property. Therefore, building permits will not be issued for the new lots until the Durston Rd special improvement district (SID) project contract has been let. J01"tlDYi1!cr. There is a history of tlooding on thcse lots frotn the culvert that crosses Durston Road near 25th. Measures shall be taken to route stonnwater around the proposed lots prior to issuance of a building permit unless the problem is already cort"ected with the construction of Durston Rd. Parks. ;\ park dedication histot)' has bccn provided to the Planning Department. Although there is no parkland dcdication requirement for minor subdivisions, thc residential units constructed in this subdivision will be included in the park dedication history. The park dedications for the Annie Subdivisions comprise Rose Park. Utilities. There are existing power, cable and phone utilities in other phases of the Annie Subdivision to the north and in Durston Meadows to the west. The applicants are proposing the standard 15-foot public utility ease.mcnts in thc fronts of all four lots for the provision of utilities. 4- 99 1- Annie 1~~..~~~..~~~~,~Of Fact and Order P-05076 I 4. Effects on thc Natural Environment A Memorandum ofUndcrstanding must be entered into with the County Weed Board prior to submittal of the final plat. fypically the 50-foot watercourse setback may not be located within private lots as it shown on I,ot 1. However, because this lot is already developed, the plat as shown is acceptable. The applicant is on notice that if and when Lot 1 is further subdivided, the 50-foot watercourse setback shall be designated as common open space, with a public acccss easemcnt, for ownership and maintenance by the homeowners association. This will provide a buffer for the watercourse. 5. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat There should be no impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Thc lot has bcen developed with a single-household residence for many years. 6. Effects on Public Health and Safety The intent of the regulations in the Unified Developrnent Ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The subdivision has been reviewed and determined to be in general compliance with the title. Any other conditions deemed necessary to ensure compliance have been noted throughout this staff report. B. Compliance with the survey requircmcnts provided for in Part 4 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. The property in lluestion has been surveyed and platted in conformance with the Montana Subdivision and Platting )\ct and filed as a preliminary plat in accordance with the state statute and the Bozeman Municipal Code. C. Compliancc with the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinanee. The following requirements are standards of the Unified Development Ordinance and shall be addressed with the final plat submittal: 1- Tn accordance with Section 1 H. 7HJJ70, a Memorandum of Understanding shall be entered into with the Weed Control District prior to submitting the final plat. A copy of the MOl) shall be submitted with the final plat application. 2. Pursuant to Section 18.42.150, subdivision lighting shall be provided. With the final plat, provide documentation regarding how the new street light will be operated and maintained, if not through the creation of a sn .I) or annexation to an existing SILD. 3. A final copy of thc covenants, restrictions, and articles of incorporation, with language that indicates that these lots are included in the homeowner's association, shall be submitted with the final plat application for review and approval by the Planning 5- 100 Annie IIIC Findings of Fact and Order P-05076 Department and shall contain, but not be limited to, provlSlOns for assessment, maintenance, repair and upkeep of common open space areas, public parkland/open space corridors, stonnwater facilities, public trails, snow removal, and other areas common to thc association pursuant to Chapter 18.72 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. 4. Pursuant to Scction 18.5(1090, executed waivers of right to protest creation of special improvement districts (SI Ds) for a park maintenance district shall be filed and of record with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder prior to fmal plat approval. A copy of the filed documents shall be submitted with the final plat. 5. Plans and specifications and a detailed design report for water and sewer main extensions, storm sewer and the public street, prepared by a Professional Engineer, shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The Applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for constnlction inspection, post-construction certification, and prcparation of mylar record drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been approved and a pre- construction confercnce has been conducted. No building permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of the required infrastructure improvements. 6. All infrastructure improvemcnts including 1) water and sewer main extensions, and 2) public streets, curb / guttcr, sidcwalks fronting parks, open space, rear yard frontages or other non-lot frontages, and related storm drainage infrastructure improvements shall be financially guaranteed or constructed prior to final plat approvaL City standard residential sidewalks shall be constructed on all public street frontages of a property prior to occupancy of any stmcture on the property. Upon the third anniversary of thc plat recordation of any phase of the subdivision, any lot owner who has not constructed said sidewalk shall, without further notice, construct within 30 days said sidewalk for their lot(s), regardless ofwhether other improvements have been made upon the lot. ThiS condition shall bc included on the final plat for the subdivision. 7_ The location of existing water and sewer mains shall be properly depicted. Proposed main extensions shall be noted as proposed. 8. The developer shall make arrangements with the City Engineer's office to provide addresses for all individual lots in the subdivision prior to filing of the final plat. The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with Section 18.74.020.1\.1. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site developments, or with the infrasttuctutT plans for subdivisions. I t shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes. 6- 101 nnie IlIe Findings of Fact a_nd Order P-05076 I Hl All construction activities shall comply with Section 18.74.020.A.2. This shall include routine cleaning/ sweeping of material that is draggcd to adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the constnIction to cnsure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes necessary for the City to correct any problems that arc identified. 11. The final plat shall conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance and the Uniform Standards for Final Subclivision Plats and shall be accompanied by all required documents, including certification from the City Engineer that as built drawings for public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and correct certificates. The final plat application shall include four (4) signed reproducible copies on a 3 mil or heavier stable base polyester film (or equivalent); two (2) digital copies on a double-sided, high density 3-1/2" floppy disk; and five (5) paper prints. 12. Pursuant to Section 18.06.040.D.6, conditional approval of the preliminary plat shall be in force for not more than one calendar year. Prior to that expiration date, the developer may submit a letter of request for the extension of the period to the Planning Director for the City Commission's consideration. The City Commission may, at the written request of the developer, extend its approval for no more than one calendar year, except that the City Commission may extend its approval for a period of mote than one year if that approval period is included as a specific condition of a written subdivision improvements agreement between the City Commission and the developer, provided for in Section 18.74.060. n. Pursuant to Section 18.74JnO.B, if it is the developer's intent to file the plat prior to installation, certification, and acceptance of all required improvements by the City of Bozeman, an Improvcments Agreement shall be entered into with the City of Bozeman guaranteeing the completion of all improvements in accordance with the Preliminary Plat submittal information and conditions of approval. I f the final plat is filed prior to the installation of all improvements, the developer shall supply the City of Bozeman with an acceptable method of security ellual to 150 percent of the cost of the remaining improvernents. 14. Pursuant to Section 18.06.060, the applicant shall submit with the application for final plat review and approval, a written narrative stating how each of thc conditions of preliminary plat approval has been satisfactorily addressed, and specifically (tab, page, paragraph, etc.) where this information can be found. D. Compliance with the required subdivision review process. subdivision preapplication was submitted on September 20, 2005. The preapplication was reviewed by the DRC on October 12, 19 and 26, 2005, and the final preapplication letter was mailed on October 27,2005. 'rhc applicant had until October 27,2006 to submit a preliminary plat application. 1- 102 I-Annie III~ Findings of Fact and Order P~05076 i\ preliminary plat application was submitted on December 20, 2005 and the required completeness letter was sent on December 22,2005. The preliminary plat was reviewed by the DRC on January 4 and 11, 2006, and the required adequacy letter was mailed on January 11, 2006. On the second and final week of l)RC review, a favorable recommendation was forwarded for consideration by the Planning Board and City Commission. Public notice for this application was placed in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on Sunday, February 5 and 12, 2006. The site was posted with a public notice on February 3,2006. Finally, notice was sent to adjacent property owners via certified mail, and to property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property via first class mail, on February 1, 2006. On February 13, 2006 the subdivision staff report was drafted and fOlwarded with a recommendation of conditional approval to the Planning Board for consideration at its Pebruary 22,2006 public hearing. The City Commission will make a final decision at an March 6, 2006 public hearing. Pinal decision for a Second or Subsequent Minor Subdivision from a Tract of Record Preliminary Plat must be made within 60 working days of the date it was deemed complete or in this case by March 13, 2006. If the application is approved on March 6, 2006 then it will have taken 55 working days. E. Provision of easements for the loeation and installation of any planned utilities. The applicants are proposing the standard required IS-foot public utility easements in the fronts of all four lots for the provision of utilities. F. Provision of legal and physical access to each parcel. Proposed Lots 2--4 will gain access from Daffodil St. Proposed Lot I is already developed and will continue to gain access directly frorn Durston Rd. If and when Lot 1 is further divided, access will bc available from Daffodil St and Roger's Way. ORDI,:IZ After considering all matters of record presented at the public hearing, the Bozeman City Commission found that the proposed subdivision would comply with the City of Bozeman Crowth Policy and the requirements of the City ofBozernan Unified Development Ordinance and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, if certain conditions were imposed. The evidence, as stated or referenced in the Pindings of Fact, justifies the imposition of the conditions ordered herein to ensure that the final plat complies with all applicable regulations and all relluired criteria. 8- 103 IAnnieIlleFindingsofFactandOrder P-05076 THEREFORI~:, IT IS IIEREBY ORDERED that the Preliminary Subclivision Plat of the Annie I IIC Minor Subdivision for the property owners Roger and Rosalind Smith, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. T'he final plat shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Unified Development Ordinance. The applicant is advised that 1ll1met code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver ot other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 2. Unless the applicant can show that water rights or cash-in-lieu thereof was provided with annexation, water rights or cash-in-lieu thereof, as calculated by the Director of Public Service, is due with the final plat. 1. There is a history of flooding on these lots from the culvert that crosses Durston Road near 25th. Measures shall be taken to route stormwatet around thc proposed lots prior to issuance of a building permit unless the problem is already corrected with the construction of Durston. 4. No building permits shall be issued until the construction contract for the Durston Road SID project has been let. 5. The previously approved infrastructure plans for this phase shall be resubmitted for review and approval. 6. A no access strip shall be shown on the final plat along the Durston frontage oflot 4, and along the entire 25th Street frontage of the subdivision. 7. The subject property is located within the hn West SID #621 sewer and the lIRDC water payback districts. Paybacks shall be made prior to filing the final plat. This City Commission order may be appealed by bringing an action in the Eighteenth District Court of Callatin County, within 30 days after the adoption of these Findings by the City Commission, by following the procedures of Section 76-3-625, M.C.i\. The preliminary approval of this subdivision shall be effective for one year ftom the date of adoption of these Pindings by the City Commission. At the end of this pcriod the City Cornmission may, at thc written relluest of the subdivider, extend its approval as provided for in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. 9- 104 I Annie IIICFindings of FactondOrder #P-05076 I DATED this 1 st_day of May, 2006. BOZEMAN CITY COf'vIMISSION f:;f~({ !~ Arn--<Sf: APPROV~:l)j\S TO FORM: f)-/fltL---.~/ /{(~(fb(/J Devin M. Harbour Pauk{ Luwe C ,/1,-",/ \.. Acting Clerk of the Commission City ^ ttorney // 10- 105 Stormwater Drainage Design Report Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Bozeman, MT 109 E. Main St. Suite B, Bozeman, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com JULY 22, 2021 106 REPORT DATE: July, 2021 AUTHOR: Hunter Morrical, PE Project Engineer WGM Group, Inc. 107 1 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan CONTENTS 1.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................. 2 1.1 LOCATION ................................................................................ 2 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ............................................... 3 1.3 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................... 3 1.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ................................................. 3 2.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE ............................................. 4 2.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS .......................................... 4 3.0 STORMWATER DESIGN CRITERIA ........................ 4 3.1 REGULATIONS ......................................................................... 4 3.2 HYDROLOGY............................................................................ 5 3.4 SOILS INFORMATION .............................................................. 5 4.0 PROPOSED DESIGN ............................................... 6 4.1 PRE-DEVELOPED RUNOFF RATES ....................................... 6 4.2 POST DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF RATES ................................ 6 4.3 POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASINS…………………...7 4.4 DRAINAGE BASIN DESIGN ..................................................... 7 4.5 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT .............................................. 8 4.6 HYDRAULIC DESIGN………………………..…………………….9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 9 6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................... 9 APPENDICES A – STORAGE CALCULATIONS B – CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS & ANALYSIS C – STORMWATER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN D – STORM PLANS & DETAILS 108 2 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan 1.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 LOCATION Lot 1 of the Annie Subdivision Phase 3C site is located at 2305 Durston Road, approximately 0.25 miles west of the Durston and North 19th Avenue intersection. The site is located in Section 2, Township 2S, Range 5E. The development will be comprised of 16 townhome lots, 1 single family lot, 2 four-plex lots, and an open space/park lot. FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP Project Site 109 3 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property is 3.24-acres in total size and is zoned to be R-3. An existing stream is located along the east edge of the property. Existing conditions on the site are as shown in the aerial photo in Figure 2. Existing development includes a home, storage building, driveway, garden, and a vehicle maintenance parking area. 1.3 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The development will be comprised of approximately 19 residential lots, and an open space/park lot, water and sewer extensions, and a stormwater management system. The stormwater management system is comprised of dispersed treatment-conveyance-infiltration features including cobble infiltration galleries along with standard closed storm drain conduits, inlets, and a storm pond. 1.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Project construction is anticipated to begin in the Fall of 2021. 110 4 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan 2.0 EXISTING DRAINAGE 2.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS The site is located on a relatively flat area adjacent to The West Fork of Catron Creek. The majority of the site is gently sloped toward the north. A small portion of the property drains to the west towards the adjacent townhomes on the west side of the property. Currently because of the site being bounded by Durston, North 25th, and the creek, there is no evidence that stormwater runs on to the property. Appendix D contains an exhibit showing pre-development drainage basins. There are two major existing sub-basins for the site, and most drainage currently flows north and east on slopes that are typically less than 5%. 3.0 STORMWATER DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 REGULATIONS AND PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA The stormwater drainage plan for this project has been developed to exceed stormwater drainage design criteria required by the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy (City Standards), dated March 2004. Minimum design criteria per the design standards included: · Stormwater runoff from the development site shall be limited to the pre-development runoff rates. Adequate on-site stormwater detention shall be provided for design storm runoff exceeding the pre-development rate. · Stormwater storage and treatment facilities shall be designed to remove pollutants. · Storm sewer facilities shall be designed to handle a 25-year storm event. · The drainage plan shall include, to the greatest extent feasible, low impact development practices that infiltrate, evapotranspire, or capture for reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. The Design Standards reference a modified Rational Method to calculate detention storage for the 10-year, 2-hour storm event and the standard Rational Method to calculate peak runoff of the 25-year storm event. 111 5 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan 3.2 HYDROLOGY The design storms investigated for this site include the 10-year and 25-year recurrence intervals to document that post-development runoff rates do not exceed that of pre- development conditions per COB standards. The Modified Rational Method was used for evaluating storage, infiltration, and discharge rates per COB design standards. Time of concentration values were obtained using MDEQ Circular-8 methodology which outlines type of flow, slope, and terrain the stormwater crosses on its drainage path. The COB IDF data was used to calculate the estimated runoff amounts for the 10-year and 25- year storm events. Minimum detention values were obtained using the same methodology as the Sizing Detention Basins Sample Problem in the COB Design Standards Appendix. Two drainage basins have been combined into one drainage basin as part of the post development plan. The basin delineation is shown in Appendix D along with existing discharge points and basin size. 3.4 SOILS INFORMATION Soil test pits were dug on March 19th, 2021 by Allied Engineering Services and documented in the attachments to the Preliminary Plat application. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits, however test pit #7 was “wet” at 9.3’ below the ground surface. Monitor wells were installed as to monitor groundwater through the typical high groundwater season. Test pits generally identified a Silty Clay soil layer in the 0- to 3-feet below ground surface range, and a sandy Gravel in the 3-10-foot soil range. Soil infiltration values were obtained per Circular DEQ-8, Appendix C (see Table 3) and are known to be conservative. A Ksat value 2.6 inches per hour (in/hr) is assumed for cobble/gravel infiltration galleries based on the elevation of the bottom of the galleries in relation to the soil profiles. TABLE 3. DESIGN INFILTRATION RATES PER DEQ-8 112 6 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan 4.0 PROPOSED DESIGN 4.1 PRE-DEVELOPED RUNOFF RATES Stormwater runoff from the development site is required to be limited to the pre-development runoff rates. Pre-development condition is defined by the Low to Medium Density Residential Runoff Coefficient in the COB Design Standards (0.35) – as the site currently has a dwelling unit along with a barn. As shown in the plan set in Appendix D, there are two existing sub- basins for the site, and most drainage currently flows northward and eastward towards the adjacent developments. The project’s design objective to encourage infiltration will reliably contribute to the overall development retaining stormwater during normal storm events. Pre- developed runoff rates were calculated using existing Time of Concentration drainage paths. Runoff coefficients and Time of Concentration’s for each drainage basin are shown below: Drainage Basin 1 – C Factor = 0.35 Drainage Basin 2 – C Factor = 0.35 Drainage Basin 1 – Time of Concentration in Minutes = 31.48 Drainage Basin 2 – Time of Concentration in Minutes = 29.9 The calculations for existing Time of Concentrations for each drainage basin are included in Appendix A. Pre-developed runoff rate calculations are included in Appendix A and show the use of the Modified Rational method as outlined in the City of Bozeman Design Standards detention basin sizing example. Runoff rates were determined by multiplying the drainage basin size by the basin C factor, and then multiplying by the intensity at the time of concentration value for each drainage basin – as outlined by the modified rational method. TABLE 4. PRE-DEVELOPED HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY DRAINAGE ID DRAINAGE BASIN SIZE (ACRES) STORM FREQUENCY PRE-DEVELOPED FLOW (cfs) DB-1 0.978 10YR 0.35 DB-2 2.261 10YR 0.80 4.2 POST DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF RATES Post development runoff rates were calculated using the Modified Rational Method as outlined by the COB design standards. The 10-year and 25-year event were evaluated for detention system sizing and pipe & gutter capacity. Runoff coefficients and Time of Concentrations for each drainage basin are shown below and calculations are included in Appendix A. Drainage Basin 2A – Weighted C Factor = 0.50 113 7 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan Drainage Basin 2A – Time of Concentration in Minutes = 8.24 Post development time of concentrations were conservatively assumed to occur when no landscaping vegetation is installed, as to represent a storm occurring during construction before landscaping and turf has been installed. Post development runoff rates are to be limited to pre-development rates that are shown in table 4 above for the 10-year storm. 4.3 POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASINS A single drainage basin has been delineated that will route the stormwater to the site stormwater pond – this drainage basin is listed as DB-2A throughout the remainder of this report. The drainage basin is 3.24 acres in size. The single basin is defined by the main development road (Daffodil Street), which will route stormwater from the west side of the development all the way to the pond on the east side of the development. Final driveways and general lot slope will be towards this road, as to collect the majority of stormwater runoff in the development. 4.4 DRAINAGE BASIN DETENTION/RETENTION DESIGN UTILIZING LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) City Standards specify that “the drainage plan shall include, to the greatest extent feasible, low impact development practices that infiltrate, evapotranspire, or capture for reuse the runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation.” To accommodate this practice, the proposed development has included storage designs that utilize infiltration to the greatest extent as to limit the amount of stormwater being discharged from the site. This infiltration design also helps treated stormwater recharge the underlying groundwater aquifer as would occur in a natural setting. To optimize stormwater infiltration and associated environmental benefits, the site grading, drainage and landscape plan was comprehensively designed to capture and/or infiltrate runoff by means of a detention pond. A summary of each feature’s design and performance is provided below. DB-2A – Proposed Detention Pond Drainage Basin 2A after development is a total of 3.24 acres as shown on the post- development site plan in Appendix D. Proposed measures include retaining the first 0.5 in of stormwater from a 24-hour storm and to also detain stormwater from the 10-year event while releasing a volume equal to the pre-development runoff – after the treatment water volume has been retained. Retention and detention volumes are shown below and calculations that outline the volume of stormwater to be detained for the 10-year storm in Drainage Basin 2A are included in Appendix A. Volume to Retain/Infiltrate from first 0.5” of Rain = 2,556 Cubic Feet Volume to Detain for 10-year, 2-hour Storm = 2,562 Cubic Feet 114 8 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan Stormwater in Drainage Basin 2A will be conveyed along the internal road corridor using standard curb and gutter. Capacity calculations for the curb and gutter show that the entire 25- year flow in DB-2A could almost be conveyed with a single gutter line, so two curb lines will easily convey the 25-year event. The curb will convey the runoff to two standard inlets as shown on the attached post-development storm plan in Appendix D. Curb inlets will be placed on grade, however final grading will place these inlets at a slight depression so they act as an inlet in a sag, thus ensuring all stormwater will be conveyed through these inlets for the 25- year event. These will be standard City storm inlets. Proposed 18” dia. pipe will convey the stormwater to the proposed detention pond shown on the plans. Calculations in Appendix B show that the 18” dia. Pipe has enough capacity to convey the 25-year storm event from DB- 2A. The pond serving DB-2A was designed per COB standards, being that the maximum water depth is to be 1.5-ft, the side slopes of the pond are to be 1V:4H, and the maximum pond depth is 2.5-ft. Pond sizing calculations are shown in Appendix A. The bottom of the pond gallery will be approximately 2-ft below the current ground surface, thus high water is not anticipated to reduce capacity of the pond based on current groundwater monitoring data. Additionally, the outlet of the pond will be positioned at an elevation so that the creek does not backwater the pond during normal flows. The pond outlet will be positioned so that the first 0.5” of stormwater is completely retained to be infiltrated – as required by COB guidelines. The outlet will be above the creek elevation, and at an elevation that does not cause the storm pipe to back up into Daffodil Road during a storm event where the pond outlet is activated. The total storage capacity of the pond is as follows: Capacity of the Pond (1.5’ depth) = 2,748 cubic feet Total Storage Capacity (before pond overtops) = 5,783 cubic feet This storage volume will ensure that the first 0.5” of stormwater is captured and retained/infiltrated, and the maximum volume from the 10-year storm event is detained. When the pond reaches a full volume depth of 1.4-ft, the outlet structure will then overflow using a designed weir to release 0.80 cfs of stormwater as limited by the pre-development runoff rate. It will take approximately 20 minutes for the pond to reach a maximum level before spilling out of the pond for the 10-year storm event; during that first 20 minutes, it can be expected that some water will infiltrate through the bottom of the pond, thus the pond and storm drain system likely will have more capacity to handle an event larger than the 10-year. 4.5 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT The first 0.5” of stormwater is to be retained and infiltrated through the use of a detention pond in Drainage Basin 2A. This will enhance stormwater management and allow it to be treated through means of ground filtration before reaching the water table. Evapotranspiration was not evaluated as a mean for stormwater loss, as this design promotes underground infiltration to promote a healthy aquifer recharge to mimic native and undeveloped alluvial conditions. 115 9 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan 4.6 HYDRAULIC DESIGN Inlets and storm drain pipes are sized to handle the 25-year storm as calculated using the Rational Method per City Standards. Conveyance calculations conservatively assume that no peak flow attenuation is provided by upgradient landscaping features that the home developments will likely have. Hydraulic calculations are included in Appendix B. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS All infrastructure is adequately sized to convey the runoff from the 25-year storm event and detain or retain the volume from the 10-year storm event. Runoff release rates from the project site during proposed conditions do not exceed pre-developed rates in receiving conveyances for the 10-year storm event. Excess stormwater from an event larger than the 10-year will be conveyed by the storm infrastructure so that home sites are not affected by the stormwater. The constructed project will improve site drainage through runoff reduction, implementation of a designed stormwater management system, and treatment for pollutant removal. The proposed site improvements are detailed in the preliminary storm plan sheets developed for this site. To the best of our knowledge the Storm Drainage Plan has been assembled per the requirements defined within the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. 6.0 REFERENCES City of Bozeman, 2004. Design Standards and Specifications Policy. City Engineering Department. March 2004. Adopted April 5, 2004, Ordinance 1611. Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2017. Montana Standards for Subdivision Storm Water Drainage, Circular DEQ-8. 116 10 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan APPENDIX A – STORAGE CALCULATIONS 117 Time (min).Time (hrs)Intensity 2 yrIntensity 5 yrIntensity 10 yrIntensity 25 yrIntensity 50 yrIntensity 100yr00.0000n/an/an/an/an/an/a50.08331.598862.550823.218463.826234.742945.33793100.16671.054861.636892.051062.455343.001703.35492150.25000.827061.262761.575861.894142.296932.55683200.33330.695951.050421.307101.575621.899712.10859250.41670.608740.910621.130621.365931.639561.81578300.50000.545660.810331.004271.215501.453681.60698350.58330.497450.734200.908521.101311.313051.44930400.66670.459150.674060.832991.011101.202291.32526450.75000.427820.625120.771600.937681.112371.22470500.83330.401620.584360.720520.876541.037641.14123550.91670.379290.549780.677240.824670.974381.07063601.00000.360000.520000.640000.780000.920001.01000651.08330.343120.494030.607550.741050.872660.95726701.16670.328200.471150.578980.706720.831000.91089751.25000.314890.450800.553590.676200.794010.86974801.33330.302930.432560.530850.648830.760900.83294851.41670.292110.416090.510340.624140.731060.79978901.50000.282260.401150.491720.601720.703990.76973951.58330.273250.387500.474740.581260.679310.742351001.66670.264970.374990.459180.562490.656700.717271051.75000.257320.363460.444840.545190.635890.694201101.83330.250240.352800.431590.529200.616660.672901151.91670.243650.342900.419300.514360.598830.653151202.00000.237510.333690.407860.500540.582250.63479City of Bozeman IDF Curve Table Values118 Drainage Basin 1 (TOC in Min.) Pre-Development (from DEQ IDF Spreadsheet) Drainage Basin 1 (TOC in Min.) Post-Development (from DEQ IDF Spreadsheet) 31.48 N/A Drainage Basin 2 (TOC in Min.) Pre-Development (from DEQ IDF Spreadsheet) Drainage Basin 2A (TOC in Min.) Post-Development (from DEQ IDF Spreadsheet) 29.9 8.24 Time of Concentration Summary (From DEQ-8 Spreadsheet) 119 Drainage Basin 1 Pre-Development - Time of Concentration Calculations 120 Drainage Basin 2 Pre-Development and 2A Post-Development - Time of Concentration Calculations Drainage Basin 2 Pre-Development Drainage Basin 2A Post-Development 121 Land Use:Low to Med. Density ResidentialMin Duration (min)Intensity (in/hr)Future Runoff Rate (Q=CiA) (cfs)Runoff Volume (cf)Release Volume (cf)Required Storage (cf)Area (acres):2.26103.2185.260.000.000.00C:0.3553.2185.261577.110.001577.11TOC (min):29.9102.0513.352010.120.002010.12Design Storm Frequency:10 year151.5762.572316.620.002316.62Intensity at Tc:1.01201.3072.142562.020.002562.02Peak Runoff Rate (cfs):0.80251.1311.852770.14239.802530.34301.0041.642952.67479.612473.07350.8331.362857.27719.412137.86Land Use:Med. Density Residential 400.8331.363265.45959.212306.24Area (acres):3.24450.7721.263402.881199.022203.87C:0.50500.7211.183530.711438.822091.89TOC (min):8.24550.6771.113650.481678.621971.86Design Storm Frequency:10 year600.6401.053763.361918.421844.93Design Release Rate (cfs):0.80650.6080.993870.282158.231712.05Impervous Area Estimate (sf):61,336700.5540.903797.792398.031399.76Initial Rainfall to Retain (in)0.5750.5540.904069.062637.831431.23Volume to Retain/infiltrate (cf):2555.67Pre Development DB-2Minimum Volume TablePost Development DB-2Lot 1 of Annie Phase 3C - Drainage Basin 2A Runoff Calculations122 Pond Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Monday, 07 / 19 / 2021 Pond No. 1 - Storm Pond Pond Data Trapezoid -Bottom L x W = 85.0 x 14.0 ft, Side slope = 4.00:1, Bottom elev. = 4778.00 ft, Depth = 2.50 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft) 0.00 4778.00 1,190 0 0 0.25 4778.25 1,392 323 323 0.50 4778.50 1,602 374 697 0.75 4778.75 1,820 428 1,124 1.00 4779.00 2,046 483 1,607 1.25 4779.25 2,280 541 2,148 1.50 4779.50 2,522 600 2,748 1.75 4779.75 2,772 662 3,410 2.00 4780.00 3,030 725 4,135 2.25 4780.25 3,296 791 4,925 2.50 4780.50 3,570 858 5,783 Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span (in)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 0 0 0 0 Invert El. (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slope (%)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 n/a N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Multi-Stage = n/a No No No Crest Len (ft)= 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft)= 4779.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 Weir Type = Rect --- --- --- Multi-Stage = No No No No Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Contour) TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00 Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s). Stage / Storage / Discharge Table Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total ft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 0.00 0 4778.00 --- --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 0.25 323 4778.25 --- --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 0.50 697 4778.50 --- --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 0.75 1,124 4778.75 --- --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 1.00 1,607 4779.00 --- --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 1.25 2,148 4779.25 --- --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 1.50 2,748 4779.50 --- --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000 1.75 3,410 4779.75 --- --- --- --- 0.83 --- --- --- --- --- 0.832 2.00 4,135 4780.00 --- --- --- --- 2.35 --- --- --- --- --- 2.355 2.25 4,925 4780.25 --- --- --- --- 4.33 --- --- --- --- --- 4.326 2.50 5,783 4780.50 --- --- --- --- 6.66 --- --- --- --- --- 6.660 123 11 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan APPENDIX B – CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS & ANALYSIS 124 Area (Acres)C Impervious 1.41 0.90 Pervious 1.83 0.20 Total 3.24 0.50 0.50 8.24 0.50 2.78 3.24 4.54 Intensity for 25 Year Storm ( I= 0.78Tc^-.64 (in/hr)) = Area (acres) = Q = Required Gutter Capacity (cfs) = Drainage Basin 2A - Required Gutter Capacity Weighted C Factor Calculation Weighted C Factor = Calculate Flow from the Rational Formula ( Q=CIA) Time of Concentration (tc In minutes) for DB-1 = Weighted C Factor (from above) = 125 n (mannings coefficient) = 0.013 A (Area ft2) =1.24 (0.15" below TOC) P (Wetted Perimeter ft) = 9.23 (0.15" below TOC) R (Hydraulic Radius ft) = 0.13 (0.15" below TOC) S (Slope ft/ft) = 0.005 Q (Actual Gutter Capacity) = 2.57 Actual Gutter Capacity - Drainage Basin 2A Gutter Capacity - 0.15' below Top of Curb 126 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc.Tuesday, Jul 20 2021 Annie - DB2 Transport Pipe Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 4778.16 Pipe Length (ft) = 152.63 Slope (%) = 0.41 Invert Elev Up (ft) = 4778.78 Rise (in) = 18.0 Shape = Circular Span (in) = 18.0 No. Barrels = 1 n-Value = 0.012 Culvert Type = Circular Corrugate Metal Pipe Culvert Entrance = Headwall Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0078, 2, 0.0379, 0.69, 0.5 Embankment Top Elevation (ft) = 4783.00 Top Width (ft) = 100.00 Crest Width (ft) = 100.00 Calculations Qmin (cfs) = 3.00 Qmax (cfs) = 10.00 Tailwater Elev (ft) = 4779.5 Highlighted Qtotal (cfs) = 5.00 Qpipe (cfs) = 5.00 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 3.00 Veloc Up (ft/s) = 4.77 HGL Dn (ft) = 4779.50 HGL Up (ft) = 4779.64 Hw Elev (ft) = 4780.05 Hw/D (ft) = 0.85 Flow Regime = Inlet Control 127 12 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan APPENDIX C – OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN 128 Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Bozeman, MT 109 E. Main St. Suite B, Bozeman, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com 129 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PH. 4 STORMWATER Operation and Maintenance Manual STORMWATER OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN LOCATION The project site is Lot 1 of the Annie Subdivision Phase 3C which is located at 2305 Durston Road, approximately 0.25 miles west of the Durston and North 19th Avenue intersection. The site is located in Section 2, Township 2S, Range 5E. The development will be comprised of townhome lots, a single family lot, and multi-family lots, and an open space lot. PURPOSE Stormwater runoff is a significant source of water pollution in urbanizing areas. In addition, increasing impervious area causes increased runoff flow rates and runoff volumes discharged to receiving drainageways. The proposed stormwater facilities help mitigate negative effects by providing treatment for pollutant removal as well as storage and infiltration functions to help control release rates downstream. Properly maintained stormwater facilities are effective at removing certain pollutants and providing necessary management of stormwater volumes during larger storm events. Improperly maintained facilities can increase the discharge of pollutants downstream, increase the risk of flooding downstream, increase the instability of downstream channels, and lead to aesthetic and nuisance problems. STORMWATER SYSTEM OVERVIEW The stormwater features used at this site are: a detention pond located in the open space on the east side of the site, pipes and inlets utilized to divert runoff from the curb to the detention pond, and cobble infiltration galleries on the west side of the site. In combination with each other, the site’s stormwater facilities have the following general objectives: · Efficient internal conveyance of stormwater runoff to final infiltration and treatment facilities. · Treatment and infiltration of runoff to improve water quality. · Protection of the downstream (i.e. offsite) drainage system through reduction of runoff peak flow rates and volumes via storage and infiltration. RESPOSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN Designation of a responsible party is important to assure proper operation of your stormwater detention and control features. In this instance it is a responsibility of the property owner for the correct operation and proper maintenance of the facilities. The owner shall designate a qualified professional entity or individual to perform all monitoring and maintenance. The City of Bozeman Public Works Department is not responsible for the maintenance of the facilities located outside of the right-of-way including the water quality devices, flow control structures, and outlet pipes. Additionally, the City of Bozeman is not responsible for maintenance of the infiltration galleries within the right-of- way. However, the City of Bozeman Public Works Department does have the authority to inspect and review maintenance activities to ensure the viability of your facilities. The owner’s representative shall be required to keep a log of all required inspections and maintenance required. The log shall be made available to the City of Bozeman Public Works Department for review as requested. 130 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PH. 4 STORMWATER Operation and Maintenance Manual INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE The onsite stormwater facilities have unique requirements for maintenance activities and intervals. The facility size, type and characteristics of the tributary area, and facility locations will all influence maintenance requirements. This section outlines maintenance activities, intervals, and procedures for the stormwater system. The site’s maintenance program should be adjusted as necessary to keep the stormwater system functioning properly. · Regular maintenance activities should focus on the care of upstream pre-treatment facilities (i.e. catch basins and rain gardens) to protect the viability of larger downstream treatment features. This maintenance includes seasonal removal of any trash, debris, and sediment that accumulates within pipes, catch basins, curb and gutters, drywells, and infiltration galleries. Excessive accumulations of trash, debris, and sediment may cause clogging in the system and result in reduced lifespan of infiltration facilities, overflow and flooding, and damage risk to nearby structures. · Inlet grates should remain free of obstructions to flow from debris. Clogged inlets can lead to flooding risk and damage to onsite and offsite structures. Inlet grates are particularly prone to clogging from leaf litter in the fall and from road sanding/de-icing material in the spring. Inlets should be inspected four times per year and following large storm events and sumps should be cleaned annually or whenever basin sumps become filled with sediment to half of the depth. DO NOT ENTER confined spaces such as manholes and underground infiltration facilities for inspections. These facilities should be inspected from the surface. · Keeping underground infiltration facilities and drywells clear of accumulating sediment and debris is critical for their proper function and lifespan. If the underlying gravel pack and soils become clogged with fine sediments, the cobble galleries and drywells will not function as designed and may require complete replacement. Drywells should be inspected frequently and cleaned as necessary via hydraulic vacuum truck. · All piping should be inspected annually and following large storm events. Pipe should be cleaned and flushed as determined in the field. · The stormwater pond should be inspected every three (3) months and following large storm events. Accumulated trash should be removed. Sediment removal should be performed frequently with hand tools to reduce or eliminate the need for sediment removal via larger equipment. · All paved areas shall be swept twice a year, scheduled in the spring and fall. Routine Maintenance (seasonally to bi-annually): 1) Vegetation Management: When mowing, collect grass clippings and all other clippings/trimmings and take offsite for disposal or dispose in trash on site. Do not leave clippings in an area that will clog catch basin inlet grates, ponds, or pipes. Limit the use of fertilizers and pesticides around channels and rain gardens to minimize entry into subsequent downstream waters. 131 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PH. 4 STORMWATER Operation and Maintenance Manual 2) Snow Storage Management: Snow shall be stockpiled in locations where accumulations won’t limit or restrict the ability of the infiltration facilities and storm structures to convey runoff. 3) Trash, Debris and Litter Removal: Removal of any trash, etc. causing any obstructions to the stormwater facilities during periodic inspections and especially after every significant runoff event. In general, pick up trash, etc. in and around the facilities during all inspections. Inspect all catch basins and drywell structures and clean floating debris as necessary. 4) Structural Component Check: Perform structural inspection of catch basins, drywells, inlets, grates, pipes, and culverts on a regular basis. Structural Repair/Replacement: Eventually structural components may need to be repaired or replaced to ensure proper function. Monitor metal structures for excessive rust and corrosion. Monitor concrete structures for large cracking and/or spalling. Repair and replace as necessary. 132 13 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Stormwater Drainage Plan APPENDIX D – STORM PLANS & DETAILS 133 NPRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/20/217/20/212308 DURSTON ROADPARCEL B COS 1817603 EMILY DR.LOT 1 - 3, PT OF TRACT 1APLAT J-135WILLOWBROOK CONDOTRACT 1 COS 1855WILLOWBROOK CONDOTRACT 1 COS 1855WEST PARK MANOR SUB.PLAT J-184LOT 4 ANNIE SUB. PH 3CLOTS 2 & 3ANNIE SUB. PH 3CLOT 17 ANNIE SUB PH 3ALOTS 1 - 6 ANNIESUB. PH 3ACOMMON OPENSPACE, ANNIESUB PH. 3APOST DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE BASIN 2A3.59 ACRESWGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMPRE & POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE BASINS ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 2021STM1PRE-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE BASIN 10.978 ACRESPRE-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE BASIN 22.261 ACRESPRE-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE BASIN 10.978 ACRESPRE-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE BASIN 22.261 ACRESPOST DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGE BASIN 2A3.59 ACRESTIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR DB-2TERMINATES AT STORM INLET TOREMAIN CONSERVATIVEPRE-DEVELOPMENT DB-2 TIMEOF CONCENTRATIONFLOWPATHPRE-DEVELOPMENT DB-1 TIMEOF CONCENTRATIONFLOWPATHPRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGEBASIN DELINEATION BOUNDARYPOST DEVELOPMENT DB-2 TIMEOF CONCENTRATIONFLOWPATH134 LEGEND-PROPOSEDNPRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/20/217/20/21WGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSTORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 2021STM2135 NPRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/20/217/20/21WGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSTORM CONVEYANCE PLAN & PROFILE ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 2021STM3136 PRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/20/217/20/21WGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSTORM PLAN DETAILS ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 2021STM4137 PRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/20/217/20/21WGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSTORM PLAN DETAILS ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 2021STM5138 1 Gary Fox From:Erin Shane <Eshane@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 4:32 PM To:Gary Fox Subject:Subdivision Water Design - #21003 - 2305 Durston Rd. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. Gary,     The results of the fire flow test you requested are as follows: Static – 144, Residual – 138, Pitot – 120 flowing 1840 GPM  on a 2.5” nozzle. The test was performed at N. 25th / Daffodil on 3/5/2021. If you have questions or need further  information feel free to email. Have a great weekend!            From: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:49 PM  To: Nick Pericich <NPericich@BOZEMAN.NET>  Cc: Mathias Hanssen <mhanssen@wgmgroup.onmicrosoft.com>; Erin Shane <Eshane@BOZEMAN.NET>  Subject: [SENDER UNVERIFIED]RE: Subdivision Water Design ‐ #21003 ‐ 2305 Durston Rd.    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Thank you for the response and info!  I definitely think a physical flow test would be worth it for this project.    Erin, let us know the best way to authorize that and get it scheduled.  The hydrants next to the site are exposed but it is  still rather snowy and frozen.    Thank you for your help!      Gary Fox Project Engineer     From: Nick Pericich <NPericich@BOZEMAN.NET>   Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:39 PM  To: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com>  139 2 Cc: Mathias Hanssen <mhanssen@wgmgroup.onmicrosoft.com>; Erin Shane <Eshane@BOZEMAN.NET>  Subject: RE: Subdivision Water Design ‐ #21003 ‐ 2305 Durston Rd.    [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. Thanks Gary,     The closest most recent flow test we have done was in Oct 2020 at the two hydrants highlighted below.  Erin Shane,  cced in this email, can either get you that data or schedule to flow test a specific pair of hydrants.  A physical flow test  will cost you $100 minimum (for the first hour) then $50 each additional half an hour thereafter and any water usage  that takes place will cost $5.15 per 1000 gallons.  A physical flow test may need to wait until the cold weather and street  conditions won’t lend to a hazardous condition or flooding.  Let us know which route you prefer and Erin will line this up  to be complete.  If you just need static pressures, we may have other data available but the flow test of the two  hydrants highlighted below showed a pressure of 148 psi before they started flowing.      140 3 From: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:02 PM  To: Nick Pericich <NPericich@BOZEMAN.NET>  Cc: Mathias Hanssen <mhanssen@wgmgroup.onmicrosoft.com>  Subject: [SENDER UNVERIFIED]Subdivision Water Design ‐ #21003 ‐ 2305 Durston Rd.    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Nick,    We are working on a subdivision of 2305 Durston Road (Lot 1 Ph. 3C of Annie Subdivision).  This is City project #21003.    For our design report, we think that we have to verify fire flows and pressures at the site.  Is there a map showing the  system working pressures or hydrant data nearby that we can use?    The current plan is to loop together the currently dead‐end mains on Rogers Way and Daffodil (something like the  attached layout).  An image from the City GIS is also attached.    Any guidance would be helpful or a call to discuss.    Thank you,      — Gary Fox, PE Project Engineer OFFICE: 406-728-4611 CELL: 406-598-1201 EMAIL: gfox@wgmgroup.com ADDRESS: 109 E. Main Ste B, Bozeman MT 59715     City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may  be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender  and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record  retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be  protected from disclosure under law. City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may  be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender  and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record  retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be  protected from disclosure under law. 141 NWGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMTEST PIT & MONITOR WELL MAP ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAMAY 2021EX-TP142 1 Gary Fox From:Lee Evans <levans@alliedengineering.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:15 PM To:Gary Fox Cc:Erik Schnaderbeck Subject:Lot 1, Annie Sub. - Geotech Summary Attachments:Lot 1, Annie Sub. - Test Pit Locations - Google Earth - 03.19.21.jpg [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. Good morning Gary –     Just wanted to give you a quick update on the geotech work on Lot 1, Annie Sub. (2305 Durston Rd).  Erik S. had a good  day in the field on Friday (3/19).  He dug 7 test pits across the site with a mini‐exc. provided by Townsend Backhoe (aka  Action Excavation).  All TPs are backfilled with 10‐foot long, 4” PVC monitoring wells.  The wells are capped and labeled  to match the TP designation.        See the attached TP location map showing the approx.. locations of the pits/monitoring wells.     The soil conditions are as expected based on on‐site well log and knowledge of NW side Bozeman conditions.  No  issues…  Shallow gravels and pretty deep groundwater.    Here is a summary of the soil and GW info from each pit:    • TP‐1  (NW Corner)    o 0.0’ – 1.0’:           Native Topsoil  o 1.0’ – 3.5’:           Silt/Clay  o 3.5’ – 9.5’:           Sandy Gravel  o Dry at 9.5’:          (No Groundwater)  o Well casing stickup is 1.5’ to 2.0’.      • TP‐2  (SW Corner)    o 0.0’ – 1.3’:           Native Topsoil  o 1.3’ – 4.0’:           Silt/Clay  o 4.0’ – 9.0’:           Sandy Gravel  o Dry at 9.0’:          (No Groundwater)  o Well casing stickup is 1.5’ to 2.0’.    • TP‐3  (South‐Central Area ‐ SW)    o 0.0’ – 0.8’:           Native Topsoil  o 0.8’ – 2.8’:           Silt/Clay  o 2.8’ – 9.0’:           Sandy Gravel  o Dry at 9.0’:          (No Groundwater)  o Well casing stickup is about 1.5’.    143 2 • TP‐4  (North‐Central Area ‐ NW)    o 0.0’ – 1.0’:           Native Topsoil  o 1.0’ – 2.3’:           Silt/Clay  o 2.3’ – 9.3’:           Sandy Gravel  o Dry at 9.3’:          (No Groundwater)  o Well casing stickup is 1.0’ to 1.5’.    • TP‐5  (North‐Central Area ‐ NE)    o 0.0’ – 1.3’:           Native Topsoil  o 1.3’ – 2.5’:           Silt/Clay  o 2.5’ – 9.3’:           Sandy Gravel  o Dry at 9.3’:          (No Groundwater)  o Well casing stickup is about 1.25’.    • TP‐6  (SE Corner)    o 0.0’ – 2.5’:           Random Fill  (Silt/Clay w/ some gravels and concrete chunks)  o 2.5’ – 3.5’:           Native Topsoil (Buried)  o 3.5’ – 9.3’:           Sandy Gravel  o Dry at 9.3’:          (No Groundwater)  o Well casing stickup is about 1.0’.    • TP‐7  (NE Corner)    o 0.0’ – 3.0’:           Random Fill  (Clayey Gravel w/ abundant 1”‐minus gravels and occasional  cobbles/boulders)  o 3.0’ – 4.3’:           Native Topsoil (Buried)  o 4.3’ – 9.3’:           Sandy Gravel  o Groundwater @ 9.3’  (Wet)  o Well casing stickup is 1.0’ to 1.5’.    In summary –     • About 1.0 to 1.5 feet of topsoil.  • Some random surface fill on east side (2.5’ – 3.0’ thick overlying buried topsoil).  • Native sandy gravels begin at depths of 2.5’ to 4.0’ in most areas.  • Groundwater on 3/19 was @ 9.3’ or deeper.  • Monitoring wells are installed in all 7 TPs.    Geotechnical Issues:    • No issues (due to shallow gravels and deep groundwater)  • Due to possible moister/softer road subgrade in some areas, we will likely recommend a Mirafi RS580i  geosynthetic for subgrade separation (available @ Core & Main).    Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations:    • Crawl spaces will be OK due to deeper groundwater.    • We recommend WGM monitor the GW wells during the spring/early summer to verify high GW levels.  • Native sandy gravel @ 2.5’ to 4.0’ is the “target” bearing material for all foundations.  144 3 • All building footings to bear on native gravel or on granular structural fill supported on “target” gravel.  • For crawl space foundations, we recommend mass exc. down to “target” gravel and placement of bldg. pad  structural fill section up to perimeter footing grade (as needed).  • Water and sewer main trench backfill will largely be native sandy gravel.  • The preliminary street section is as follows:  o 3” asphalt  o 6” base course  o 15” sub‐base course  o Mirafi RS580i geosynthetic   o Compacted subgrade       Hopefully, this keeps you going on your subdivision planning and design.    I’ll work on the geotechnical report over the coming weeks.    At some point, I would like to see your weekly GW monitoring data so I can incorporate it into the final geotech. report.    Please call or email with questions.    Thx, Lee    Lee S. Evans, PE  Civil/Geotechnical Engineer   Allied Engineering Services, Inc.  32 Discovery Dr., Bozeman, MT  59718 | Tel: 406.582.0221 | Fax: 406.582.5770  Cell:  406.599.9599  |  Email:  levans@alliedengineering.com  |  Web: www.alliedengineering.com    145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 ----PLOTTED:SAVED:5/12/215/12/21GROUNDWATER CROSS SECTION ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 1CITY OF BOZEMANMAY 12, 2021431 1ST AVENUE WESTKALISPELL, MT 59901TEL: 406-756-4848WGMGROUPOFWWW.WGMGROUP.COMSITE GROUDNWATER - PROFILE VIEW(V SCALE: 1" = 5', H SCALE: 1" = 1" = 30'')N1207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 Date Time Measured By MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 House Well 4/2/2021 11:00 AM HTM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA No Data 4/7/2021 9:00 AM SLH NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.23 No Data 4/15/2021 6:00PM HTM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA No Data 5/5/2021 1:15 PM SLH NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.21 No Data 5/12/2021 1:15pm HTM NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.23 17.1 Depth to Groundwater from Ground Surface (feet) Groundwater Monitoring Results: SUMMARY WGM Group Refer to Geotechnical Report Project:Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Project Number:201016 Location:Refer to Test Pit Location Map Date Installed: Monitored By: 244 1 Gary Fox From:Karl A. Johnson <kajohnson@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 2:37 PM To:Gary Fox Cc:Anita Mathews Subject:RE: #21003 Annie Subdivision Ph. 4 - Traffic Impact Study [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. A traffic Impact Study is not required for this project. Please include this correspondence with future applications as a  waiver.    Thanks    Karl Johnson    From: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com>   Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:42 PM  To: Karl A. Johnson <kajohnson@BOZEMAN.NET>  Cc: Anita Mathews <amathews@wgmgroup.com>  Subject: [SENDER UNVERIFIED]#21003 Annie Subdivision Ph. 4 ‐ Traffic Impact Study    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Karl,    We are working on the Annie Subdivision Ph. 4 project (#21003), which is the existing Lot 1 of Ph. 3C of Annie Sub.  We  received comments on the Pre‐Application (attached Word document).    One comment was regarding our Waiver Request for a detailed traffic report.  The City comment was as follows:    REQUESTED WAIVERS BMC 38.220.060.12.f Traffic Generation: Additional information is required to determine is a  waiver can be granted. The applicant must provide trip generations from the site to determine if  a Traffic Impact Study is required.    Per the comment, we have calculated anticipated Trip Generations for the project as follows:    Land Use Size  ITE Land  Use Code  Average Daily  Traffic (ADT)  AM Peak‐Hour Trips PM Peak‐Hour Trips  Entering Exiting Entering Exiting  Townhomes 16 210 151 3 9 10 6  Apartments 8 220 59 1 3 2 2    We would like to get your guidance on further traffic analysis for the project.  If possible/needed, we would like to set up  meeting to discuss?  245 2   Please let me know the City’s requirements and if/when you are available to discuss!    Thank you,    — Gary Fox, PE Project Engineer OFFICE: 406-728-4611 CELL: 406-598-1201 EMAIL: gfox@wgmgroup.com ADDRESS: 109 E. Main Ste B, Bozeman MT 59715     City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may  be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender  and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record  retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be  protected from disclosure under law. 246 Annie SubdivisionExisting Luminaire Lighting AnalysisDurston Road frontage of Phase 4Designer WGM Group Date 4/25/2021 Scale Not to Scale Drawing No. Summary 1 of 1 DURSTON ROAD NORTH 25THAVENUEANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 DAFFODIL STREET Note: This lighting analysis was approximated based on City of Bozeman (CoB) Project No. 0417.035 Record Drawing, and a conservative estimation of existing wattage and lumens. Existing luminaire data not included in analysis as it was not available. 247 109 E Main Street, Ste B, Bozeman, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com July 26, 2021 City of Bozeman Engineering Department 20 East Olive Street Bozeman, MT 59718 RE: Variance Request – City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy Section IV. E.1. Permissible Roadway Grades Dear City of Bozeman: The above referenced section of the City of Bozeman DSSP states: The minimum allowable grade for any roadway or alley is one-half (0.5 percent). The maximum allowable grade for any roadway is shown in Table IV-2 of this Policy. The maximum grade for an alley is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant is requesting a variance to this standard as it related to the creation of Roger’s Way in Annie Subdivision Phase 4. The applicant is requesting that the road grade of the new road connecting Rogers Way and Daffodil Street be 0.43%. This grade accommodates a constant (i.e. straight-grade) for the new road section, sloping from the Daffodil tie-in location to the Rogers Way tie-in location. The constant road grade creates a smooth driving experience and allows stormwater to be routed to one location. This road alignment is shown on the RoadPlanProfile exhibit. The variance will not be contrary to and will serve the public interest. The design accommodates a smooth, natural driving experience between the two existing roadways. The design also accommodates a natural, efficient stormwater design. One alternative, which was proposed previously, is to slope a small portion of the new roadway to the west (to Daffodil) and a portion of the road to the north (to Rogers Way). A vertical curve would separate two drainage basins. The portion of the road which slopes to the west (to Daffodil) would be small (around 100 lineal feet of roadway). This area would require stormwater facilities (i.e. a detention pond) located in common open space. Therefore, a common open space lot would be required on the west side of the project site. This common open space lot would eliminate 1 or more of the proposed residential units, thus lowering the amount of residential housing available from this development. This alternative would also require two stormwater manhole structures located within the right-of-way to direct water to the pond. Therefore, the granting of this variance would avoid an unnecessary hardship to the project. In summary, this variance (0.43% road grade compared to 0.5% minimum per the DSSP) is sensible from a planning and engineering perspective and does not negatively impact the development. 248 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, WGM Group, Inc. Gary Fox PROJECT ENGINEER W:\Projects\201016\Docs\Subdivision Submittal\Preliminary Plat Submittal\Response to DRC Comments - July 2021\VarianceRequest_RoadGrade_07262021.docx 249 WGMGROUPOFWWW.WGMGROUP.COMMASS GRADING PROFILE ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MONTANAJULY 2021XXNPRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:7/26/217/22/21250 109 E Main Street, Ste B, Bozeman, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com July 26, 2021 City of Bozeman Engineering Department 20 East Olive Street Bozeman, MT 59718 RE: Variance Request – City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy Section V.D.4.b – Storm Sewer Mains Dear City of Bozeman: The above referenced section of the City of Bozeman DSSP states: Storm sewer mains shall have a minimum depth of cover of two (2) feet below final grade, provided that the pipe material shall withstand the design load. The applicant is requesting a variance to this standard as it related to the creation of Rogers Way in Annie Subdivision Phase 4. The applicant is requesting that storm drain pipe which crosses the proposed road (Roger’s Way) near the north-center portion of the site be allowed to be buried to a minimum 12 inches deep. This bury depth helps accommodate stormwater design and pipe installation between the road and the open space lot and detention pond, to keep the detention pond elevation high enough that the pipe and pond are safely elevated above potential flooding or backwater associated with the adjacent stream/ditch. Keeping the storm drain pipe relatively high in elevation also helps ensures that backwater does not come back into the pipe, thus having the chance to freeze or have other maintenance issues. The proposed pipe crossing the road is 18-inch diameter RCP sloped at 0.4%. The pipe is shown on the storm pipe profile on plan sheet STM3 in the stormwater design report. The pipe would be buried about 12-inches (minimum) along the edges of the road, and deeper in the middle of the crowned road. The RCP pipe will be capable of withstanding the design traffic loads. The RCP will also be capable of replacing the bottom portion of the design road section, per approval from the geotechnical engineer. This variance would not be contrary to and will serve the public interest, in that it makes the stormwater facilities more efficient, functional, and have less future maintenance. The buried pipe also will not adversely impact the road or other utilities. This design is necessary due to the unique property conditions, including the road horizontal layout, which is the most sensible and efficient layout, and due to the road vertical profile, which is also the natural and sensible profile for traffic and pedestrian use, and due to the future site finished grading, which will include smooth, even terrain mildly sloping toward the new road. 251 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, WGM Group, Inc. Gary Fox PROJECT ENGINEER W:\Projects\201016\Docs\Subdivision Submittal\Preliminary Plat Submittal\Response to DRC Comments - July 2021\VarianceRequest_StormwaterPipe_07262021.docx 252 253 254 255 RETURN RECORDED DOCUMENT TO: Bozeman City Clerk PO Box 1231 Bozeman, MT 59771-1231 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO PROTEST CREATION OF SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS FOR: Annie Subdivision Ph. 4 Preliminary Plat (2305 Durston Road) I, the undersigned Owner of the real property situated in the County of Gallatin, State of Montana, and more particularly described as follows: The tract of land described in Plat J-482, being Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase 3C, Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. IN CONSIDERATION of receiving preliminary plat approval from the City of Bozeman for the Annie Subdivision Ph. 4, along with accompanying rights and privileges and for other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in recognition of the impacts to City transportation and infrastructure systems that will be generated by the development of the above-described property, do hereby for ourselves, our heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, waive the right to protest the creation of one or more special improvement districts (SID’s) for the following: 1. Street improvements to West Oak Street from Hunters Way to North 19th Avenue including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. 2. Intersection improvements at North 19th Avenue and Durston Road including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. 3. Intersection improvements at North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage. 256 Acceptance of a deed for a lot within this subdivision shall constitute the assent of the owners to any future SID, based on benefit, for upgrading the road within the Annie Subdivision, including but not limited to paving, curbs and gutters, non-motorized facilities, street widening and drainage facilities, and may be used in lieu of their signatures on an SID petition. In the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or a combination thereof. This waiver shall be a covenant running with the land and shall not expire with the dissolution of the limited liability company, provided however this waiver shall apply to the lands herein described. The terms, covenants and provisions of this waiver shall extend to, and be binding upon the successors-in-interest and assigns of the Landowner. DATED this _____ day of ___________________, 20_____. PROPERTY OWNER: Russel Hosner, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company _________________________________________ By: _____________________ Its: _____________________ STATE OF ____________________ ) )ss. County of _____________________) 257 This instrument was signed or acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________________, 20 ____, by ________________, as _______________ of Russel Hosner, LCC, an Oregon limited liability company. (SEAL) Notary Public for the State of _________ Printed Name:_____________________ Residing at _______________________ My Commission Expires ___/___/20____ 258 259 Water Design Report Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Bozeman, Mt 109 E. MAIN STREET, BOZEMAN, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com 260 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Engineer’s Water Design Report REPORT DATE: May 2021 AUTHOR: Mathias Hanssen, E.I. Staff Engineer WGM Group, Inc. Hunter Morrical, P.E. Project Engineer WGM Group, Inc. 261 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Engineer’s Water Design Report CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................ 1 2.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SIZING ........................................ 2 3.0 HYRAULIC ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 3 APPENDICES A – WATERCAD MODEL DATA B – WATERCAD MODEL MAP 262 1 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Water Design Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project type is a major subdivision consisting of twenty (20) lots in total. Sixteen (16) are planned to be townhouse lots, two (2) are planned to be four-plex lots, and one (1) is planned to be a single-family home lot. The remaining lot will be common open space. This design report summarizes the projected average, maximum day, and peak water demands for the residential development. Annie Subdivision Phase 4 will involve connecting two existing dead-end, 8-inch diameter ductile iron pipe (DIP) water mains, one dead-end which exists at the western property boundary within Daffodil Street and one dead-end which exists at the northern property boundary within Roger’s Way. Existing fire hydrants are located to the west side of the project site (hydrant #2145), adjacent to the east side of the site (hydrant #1015), and multiple along Durston Road. Infrastructure as-builts for Annie Subdivision Phase 3C dated May 2007 were also evaluated as part of the project. The following image shows existing City infrastructure per the City of Bozeman’s GIS website. Figure 1 - City of Bozeman GIS This project is located within the City of Bozeman’s South pressure zone. An eight-inch water main is proposed to extend through the project site and connect the existing water mains in Daffodil Street and Rogers Way. The proposed layout of new water infrastructure is shown on drawings attached with the preliminary plat application. The water main installed will be class 51 ductile iron as required by City 263 2 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Water Design Report design standards. This project will accomplish city objectives by creating a looped water main between Daffodil Street and Rogers Way. Water services to the proposed townhome and single-family home lots are to be 3/4” water lines. The services to the proposed four-plex lots will be 1” water lines. 2.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SIZING An average daily demand of 170 gallons per capita per day unit has been used per City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. Water main sizing has been in accordance with the City of Bozeman Design Standards. Design Parameters: Average daily use: 170 gallons/capita/day Average Population Density: 2.11 persons/dwelling unit Minimum Fire Hydrant Flow: 1,500 gpm Residual Pressure Required: 20 psi for Fire Flow Average Day Demand: Peaking Factor = 1.0 Maximum Day Demand: Peaking Factor = 2.3 Maximum Hour Demand: Peaking Factor = 3.0 This proposed development will include 25 units. The residential usages of the proposed development are as follows: Average daily use: (170 gpcpd x 25 units x 2.11 persons/DU) = 8,968 gpd = 6.2 gpm Maximum daily use: (6.2 gpm x 2.3) = 14.3 gpm Peak hourly use: (6.2 gpm x 3.0) = 18.6 gpm Demand Summary Average Day Demand = 6.2 gpm or 8,968 gpd Maximum Day Demand = 14.3 gpm or 26,784 gpd 264 3 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Water Design Report Peak Hour Demand = 18.6 gpm As part of the proposed development, WGM reached out to the City’s Water/Sewer District regarding system pressure and hydrant flow testing. On March 5, 2021, the City conducted a fire hydrant flow test on Daffodil Street, east of North 25th Ave., adjacent to the project site (hydrant #2145). The flow data from the hydrant flow test is summarized as follows: Static Pressure: 144 psi Residual Pressure: 138 psi Pitot (2.5” nozzle): 120 psi Flow Rate: 1840 gpm A WaterCad model is enclosed with this report that shows an 8-inch water main has the capacity to serve the flows calculated above. The model was built using City of Bozeman Water department information from the hydrant flow test. 3.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS The method used to model the connection was by using a reservoir and fictitious pump with a 3-point characteristic pump curve based on the COB hydrant flow data. The following equation based on the Hazen Williams equation was used to create a pump curve for system modeling: Qr = Qf * [(Hr / Hf) ^ 0.54] Where: Qr = Flow available at the desired fire flow residual pressure Qf = Flow during the test Hr = Static Pressure minus the chosen Design Pressure Hf = Static Pressure minus the residual pressure during the flow test All pipes in the system were modeled as ductile iron class 51 with a roughness coefficient of 130. A hydrant was placed at the end of the line in the proposed model to analyze the impacts of available pressures and flows during a peak hour demand event that coincides with the hydrant in Roger’s Way 265 4 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Water Design Report being used for fire flows. Since the system will create a loop between Daffodil Street and Rogers Way, this was a conservative method to analyze flows for the loop. A minimum of 1,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi was used for the hydrant in the scenario. The results of the attached model show that the proposed 8-inch ductile iron pipe connection at Daffodil Street provides adequate capacity to serve the development under the peak hour demand. The static pressures shown are relatively high based on the existing hydrant test, thus the home builders may consider installing individual pressure reducing valves so to protect home appliances from pressure deterioration. This is a conservative model, as the development will also tie into the water main within Roger’s Way, making capacity likely greater than what has been estimated in this exercise. 266 5 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Water Design Report APPENDIX A WATERCAD MODEL DATA 267 Scenario Summary ReportScenario: Automated Fire Flow AnalysisScenario Summary46IDAutomated Fire Flow AnalysisLabelNotesBase Active TopologyActive TopologyBase PhysicalPhysicalBase DemandDemandBase Initial SettingsInitial SettingsBase OperationalOperationalBase AgeAgeBase ConstituentConstituentBase TraceTraceBase Fire FlowFire FlowBase Energy CostEnergy CostBase TransientTransientBase Pressure Dependent DemandPressure Dependent DemandBase Failure HistoryFailure HistoryBase SCADASCADABase User Data ExtensionsUser Data ExtensionsFire FlowSteady State/EPS Solver Calculation OptionsBase Calculation OptionsTransient Solver Calculation OptionsHydraulic SummarySteady StateTime Analysis TypeTrueUse simple controls during steady state?Hazen-WilliamsFriction MethodFalseIs EPS Snapshot?0.001Accuracy12:00:00 AMStart Time40TrialsFire FlowCalculation TypePage 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16664/23/2021WaterCAD[10.02.03.06]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAnnie Water Model.wtg268 Pump Definition Detailed Report: Daffodil HydrantElement Details40IDNotesDaffodil HydrantLabelPump Definition TypeStandard (3 Point)Pump Definition Typeft325.71Design Headgpm0Shutoff Flowgpm1,840Maximum Operating Flowft332.64Shutoff Headft318.78Maximum Operating Headgpm1,265Design FlowPump Efficiency TypeBest Efficiency PointPump Efficiency Type%100.0Motor Efficiency%100.0BEP EfficiencyFalseIs Variable Speed Drive?gpm0BEP FlowTransient (Physical)lb·ft²0.000Inertia (Pump and Motor)SI=25, US=1280Specific Speedrpm0Speed (Full)TrueReverse Spin Allowed?Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16664/23/2021WaterCAD[10.02.03.06]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAnnie Water Model.wtg269 Pump Definition Detailed Report: Daffodil HydrantGraphHead (ft)350.00300.00250.00200.00150.00100.0050.000.00Pump Efficiency (%)120.0100.080.060.040.020.00.0Flow (gpm)10,0008,7507,5006,2505,0003,7502,5001,2500Page 2 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16664/23/2021WaterCAD[10.02.03.06]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAnnie Water Model.wtg270 FlexTable: Pipe TableLength (User Defined)(ft)Headloss Gradient(ft/ft)Velocity(ft/s)Flow(gpm)Hazen-Williams CMaterialDiameter(in)LabelID50.0000.1219130.0Ductile Iron8.0P-23650.0000.1219130.0Ductile Iron8.0P-3374000.0000.1219130.0Ductile Iron8.0P-43890.0000.000130.0Ductile Iron6.0P-543Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16664/23/2021WaterCAD[10.02.03.06]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAnnie Water Model.wtg271 Fire Flow Node FlexTable: Fire Flow ReportJunction w/ Minimum Pressure (Zone)Pressure (Calculated Zone Lower Limit)(psi)Pressure (Calculated Residual)(psi)Pressure (Residual Lower Limit)(psi)Flow (Total Available)(gpm)Flow (Total Needed)(gpm)Fire Flow (Needed)(gpm)ZoneLabelJ-39188203,5001,5001,500Zone - 1H-1H-1123123203,5001,5001,500Zone - 1J-2H-19191203,5191,5191,500Zone - 1J-3Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16664/23/2021WaterCAD[10.02.03.06]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAnnie Water Model.wtg272 FlexTable: Junction TablePressure(psi)Hydraulic Grade(ft)Demand(gpm)Demand CollectionZoneElevation(ft)LabelID144333.640<Collection: 0 items>Zone - 11.00J-234144333.6319<Collection: 1 items>Zone - 11.00J-335Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16664/23/2021WaterCAD[10.02.03.06]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAnnie Water Model.wtg273 6 ANNIE SUBDIVISION PHASE 4 Water Design Report APPENDIX B WATERCAD MODEL MAP 274 Scenario: Automated Fire Flow AnalysisP-4P-3P-2J-3J-2PMP-1R-1H-1Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16664/23/2021WaterCAD[10.02.03.06]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterAnnie Water Model.wtgP-5J-3Annie Phase 4 WaterCad Model MapPump modeled fromHydrant No. 2145 datain Daffodil StreetHydrant insertedto model Hydrantin Rogers Way275 109 E Main Street, Ste B, Bozeman, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com July 26, 2021 City of Bozeman Engineering Department 20 East Olive Street Bozeman, MT 59718 RE: Itemized Summary of Re-Submittal and Description of Changes Preliminary Plat Application #21201 – Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Dear City of Bozeman: The following is an itemized summary of updates to the preliminary plat application. These updates address DRC comments on the initial PP application, per the City of Bozeman letter dated July 7, 2021. Please feel free to call with questions or if you need additional information. ➢ The RC Revision and Corrections form has been provided. ➢ Updated files have the more current, updated date assigned to the file name. File that have not been updated have earlier dates (May of 2021). ➢ The stormwater design has been updated. The entire road is now sloped to the east, to the Roger’s Way tie-in, and to a single stormwater basin, which consists of a proposed stormwater pond located in the open space lot on the east side of the site. The road is now straight- graded (constant grade) from the Daffodil tie-in to the Roger’s Way tie-in. The stormwater design report has been updated accordingly. ➢ A deviation request has been submitted for a road grade of 0.43%, less than the City standard of 0.5%. ➢ A deviation request has been submitted for an RCP storm pipe to be buried approximately 12 inches (minimum), less than the City standard of 24”. ➢ The road plan and profile sheet has been updated. ➢ The water design report has been stamped and certified. ➢ The sewer design report has been stamped and certified. ➢ A draft waiver of right to protest SIDs has been provided. ➢ The plat drawings have been updated. ➢ A draft page 3 of the plat (conditions of approval) has been provided. This page includes a conditions of approval section, a certificate of transfer of ownership and completion of non- public improvements, general notes including reference to groundwater, and a table with recorded document numbers, all to be completed and updated prior to final plat. ➢ The preliminary water and sewer main profile sheets have been updated and provided with the new road profile. ➢ A preliminary mass site grading drawing has been provided. This drawing has been created and provided for multiple reasons including 1) the owner/developer intents to build on the lots so plans to begin mass grading earthwork before individual structures and built, and 2) the new road vertical profile is in cut, so this grading exhibit helps check/verify that earthwork can be properly and efficiently completed at the site. ➢ The stormwater pond located on the open space lot has been designated within easement per DRC comments. ➢ A response to DRC comments narrative has been provided, separate from this letter. 276 City of Bozeman Planning Department July 26, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, WGM Group, Inc. Gary Fox PROJECT ENGINEER W:\Projects\201016\Docs\Subdivision Submittal\Preliminary Plat Submittal\Response to DRC Comments - July 2021\Narrative_PPResubmittal_07232021.docx 277 December 15, 2020 Page 1 of 1 41H 107611-00 GROUND WATER CERTIFICATEWater Right Number: Place of Use: Place of Use: ID ID Govt Lot Govt Lot Qtr Sec Qtr Sec Sec Sec Twp Twp Rge Rge County County Acres Acres 2 2 1.00 2S 2S 5E 5E GALLATIN GALLATIN SESWSE SESWSE 1 1 Priority Date:JULY 7, 1999 at 02:23 P.M. Maximum Flow Rate: Maximum Acres:1.00 Owners:ROSALIND I SMITH ROGER H SMITH 2305 DURSTON 2305 DURSTON RD BOZEMAN, MT 59718 BOZEMAN, MT 59718-2615 STATE OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION 1424 9TH AVENUE P.O.BOX 201601 HELENA, MONTANA 59620-1601 GENERAL ABSTRACT Total: 1.00 Version:1 -- ORIGINAL RIGHT 41H 107611-00 General Abstract 25.00 GPM 4.50 AC-FTMaximum Volume: GROUNDWATERSource Type: Source Name:GROUNDWATER ID Govt Lot Qtr Sec Sec Twp Rge County Point of Diversion and Means of Diversion: WELLDiversion Means: Pump Size:2.00 HP Casing Diameter: 6.00 INCHES Well Depth:63.00 FEET Period of Diversion:JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31 1 2 5E2SSESWSE GALLATIN Purpose (use):MULTIPLE DOMESTIC LAWN AND GARDEN Households:2 Volume: Volume: 2.00 AC-FT 2.50 AC-FT Purpose (Use): Purpose (Use): MULTIPLE DOMESTIC LAWN AND GARDEN Period of Use: Period of Use: JANUARY 1 to DECEMBER 31 APRIL 15 to OCTOBER 15 Geocodes/Valid: 06-0798-02-4-17-18-0000 - Y Enforceable Priority Date: JULY 7, 1999 at 02:23 P.M. Version Status:ACTIVE 278 Preliminary Plat Supplements Annie Subdivision Phase 4 (2305 Durston Road) City of Bozeman, MT May 2021 Russell Hosner LLC 7003 Jackson Creek Road Bozeman, Montana 59715 109 E. MAIN STREET, BOZEMAN, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com 279 CONTENTS 1.0 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................ 2 2.0 FLOODPLAIN .................................................................................... 2 3.0 GROUNDWATER .............................................................................. 3 4.0 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SLOPE ...................................................... 4 5.0 VEGETATION .................................................................................... 4 6.0 WILDLIFE .......................................................................................... 5 7.0 HISTORICAL FEATURES ................................................................. 5 8.0 AGRICULTURE ................................................................................. 5 9.0 AGRICULTURE WATER USER FACILITIES .................................... 6 10.0 WATER AND SEWER ..................................................................... 6 11.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT .................................................... 8 12.0 STREETS, ROADS AND ALLEYS .................................................. 9 13.0 UTILITIES ........................................................................................ 9 14.0 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ......................................................... 11 15.0 LAND USE ..................................................................................... 11 16.0 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ..................................... 11 17.0 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PLANS ............................................. 12 18.0 LIGHTING PLAN ........................................................................... 12 19.0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ............................................................. 12 20.0 MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................ 13 280 2 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application 1. SURFACE WATER An existing stream runs near the east boundary of the subject property. It is our understanding that this stream is the West Fork of Catron Creek. The approximate location of this stream is shown on the preliminary plat documents. This stream will be protected from development with a 50-foot wide watercourse setback as shown on the preliminary plat. The stream is fed by two concrete culverts extending under Durston Road. A wetland delineation along this watercourse was completed as part of the project. The wetland boundary is shown on the preliminary plat. The 50-foot watercourse setback extends from the west edge of the surveyed wetlands. The Phase 3C plat (J-482) shows a 35-foot wide setback from the stream. The Phase 3C plat also shows a 100-foot floodplain line located inside of the 35-foot wide setback. Per email correspondence with the City, additional evaluation of the floodplain is not required with this project. Alteration to the stream or stream corridor will not occur with the project. The entire 50-foot watercourse setback area will be encompassed by the proposed Open Space lot. Landscaping details specific to the watercourse setback and open space have been provided as part of the landscape plan drawings. It is also notable that the adjacent site plan to the east (Arcadia Gardens dated 1995) labels this stream an “irrigation ditch” flowing from east to west paralleling Durston Road, then north adjacent to the project site. 2. FLOODPLAIN Per email correspondence with the City of Bozeman, a flood hazard evaluation for the project is not required. There is no regulated floodplain associated with the stream on the east side of the site. The Phase 3C plat identifies a 100-year floodplain, the west extents of which are located inside the 35-foot wide stream setback. Phase 4 will utilize a 50-foot watercourse setback which provides additional clearance from this floodplain shown on the Phase 3C plat. The Open Space lot will include the 281 3 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application entirety of the 50-foot watercourse setback. Therefore, there will be no construction within or near the floodplain shown on the Phase 3C plat. 3. GROUNDWATER In March 2021 a geotechnical site evaluation was completed by Allied Engineering. During this site evaluation, seven (7) test pits were excavated and groundwater monitoring wells were installed within all of the test pits. Groundwater monitoring of the wells has been conducted approximately weekly and this data has been provided with the preliminary plat application. Per the data, the majority of the test pits have remained dry (i.e. no groundwater encountered) except on the northeast side of the site (MW- 7) where groundwater appears to be located near the bottom of the test pit. The geotechnical summary notes that there are no issues due to deep groundwater. The test pit locations map shows the locations of the test pits and corresponding monitor wells. The ground surface elevation near MW-7 is approximately 4 feet higher in elevation than the stream bottom. The well casing sticks up about 1.17 feet above the ground surface. Therefore, the measured depth to groundwater in MW-7 is about 7.2 feet, which is about 3.2 feet lower than the adjacent stream bottom elevation. These elevations indicate that the stream is “losing” and groundwater may become lower moving further away from the stream. Stormwater infrastructure including the detention pond located in the Open Space lot, near MW-7, was designed while considering the potential for high groundwater. The proposed bottom of the stormwater detention pond is located about 2 to 3 feet below the existing ground surface. The adjacent stream bottom is deeper, about 4 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, the detention pond will not become inundated by stream water, and has adequate separation between the pond bottom and shallow groundwater. It is notable that the Gallatin Valley had a relatively dry winter/spring and therefore groundwater elevations and fluctuations this year may not be indicative of potential “high” groundwater during a wet year. That said, based on the elevation of the adjacent stream (shown on the site groundwater cross section), the understanding that the stream is “losing”, and the fact that the existing home had a full basement, it appears as though groundwater does not come close to the ground surface even during wetter years. It is understood that basements will not be allowed with future development. However, 282 4 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application crawl spaces appear acceptable based on the data, and the geotechnical engineer’s comments that crawl spaces are acceptable due to relatively deep groundwater. Crawl spaces are proposed to be allowed for the development, with the understanding that minimum structure elevations may be required to be listed on the final plat, along with recommendations for lot-specific geotechnical investigations prior to development of individual lots. The well log for the on-site well does not list a static water level. Groundwater was measured in the two existing wells on May 12, 2021. The results are as follows: · Existing Well Near the House (S of house) o Groundwater measured at 17.1 feet below the ground surface · Existing Irrigation Well (SE side of lot) o Groundwater measured at 13.0 feet below the ground surface This data supports the “losing” stream designation, and indicates that groundwater is significantly lower within the central part of the lot as compared to the east portion of the lot adjacent to the stream. 4. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SLOPE A geotechnical investigation was completed by Allied Engineering for the property. The geotechnical summary report has been provided with this application. The report summarizes the on-site soils, which are typical of the Gallatin Valley. The report provides recommendations for the design road section (3” asphalt, 6” base course, 15” sub-base course, Mirafi RS580i geosynthetic, compacted subgrade). The report also notes there are no geotechnical issues due to shallow gravels and deep groundwater. The report also notes that crawl spaces will be ok due to deeper groundwater. This observation is in line with groundwater monitoring data for the site. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed within the test pits as part of the geotechnical field work. There are no unusual soil features at the site. The site slopes mildly to the north. NRCS soils information has been provided with this application. This includes an NRCS soils map. Cuts and fills of three or more feet are not anticipated. The road will be designed to minimize cuts and fills and attempt to match the natural ground surface to the extent practical. Natural vegetative buffers will be used during construction to protect the site against erosion and stormwater discharge, per the future SWPPP. 283 5 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application 5. VEGETATION A wetland evaluation was completed for the stream corridor as part of this project. The evaluation was completed by Sarah Howell, a wetland biologist with WGM Group. Results of the evaluation have been provided with the application. Weeds at the site were also mapped as part of the project, per the weed map included in the wetland report. The Noxious Weed Management and Revegetation Plan submitted to Gallatin County was approved for the project. The site includes multiple rows of mature trees including rows along the north property line, and two rows of trees east of the existing home. Consideration was given to keeping some of these trees through construction. However, due to potential conflicts with construction access, staging, etc., these trees are planned to be removed as part of the project. If, during vertical construction, trees can be salvaged, the developer may request approval from the City. However, at this time salvaging trees is not anticipated. The existing trees along the stream on the east side of the site, and along Durston on the south side of the site, are planned to remain, as they will not be impacted by construction. 6. WILDLIFE A waiver for wildlife was granted by the City during the Pre-Application review for the project. 7. HISTORICAL FEATURES A waiver for historical features was granted by the City during the Pre-Application review for the project. 8. AGRICULTURE A waiver for agriculture was granted by the City during the Pre-Application review for the project. 284 6 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application 9. AGRICULTURE WATER USER FACILITIES There are no active agricultural water user facilities located within this proposed development. 10. WATER AND SEWER As Constructed drawings for Annie Subdivision Phase 1 dated March, 2002 and for Phase 3A & 3C dated May 2007 were reviewed as part of the water and sewer design. These as-builts provide information regarding the infrastructure adjacent to the project site. An existing 48-inch diameter sanitary sewer manhole (MH#12) marks the dead-end at Rogers Way with a bury depth of 6.17 feet and invert in elevation of 4755.62. A 48-inch diameter manhole (MH#14) with 9.56-foot bury depth marks the dead-end on Daffodil. An existing 8-inch diameter plug and 2-inch diameter blow off assembly, with thrust blocking, marks the dead-end water main at Rogers Way with a bury depth of approximately 7 feet. The Daffodil dead-end consists of an 8-inch diameter plug with thrust blocking buried at 6.5-foot minimum cover. Water Supply Water for domestic use and fire protection will be provided by connections to the City of Bozeman water system. Existing water mains currently dead-end at both the west side of the site (Daffodil Street) and north side (Roger’s Way) and will be extended and connected (looped) as part of the project. The dead end along Roger’s Way includes a blow-off hydrant as shown on the image below. Please see the Water Design Report for additional information. 285 7 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application Figure 1 - Hydrant on Roger's Way (north of project site) The existing domestic well (located just south of the house) is planned to be properly abandoned. The existing irrigation well located near the southeast part of the site is planned to remain, within the open space lot, and used for irrigation of the open space lot and the Durston boulevard. The attached email correspondence provides City estimated increase in annual municipal water demand attributable to the development. This will be offset by the owner through transfer of water rights into City ownership appurtenant to the development. We anticipate that the unit cost for cash-in- lieu of water rights may be updated based on the current established cost. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer service will be provided via connection to the City of Bozeman’s existing sanitary sewer collection system. Existing sewer mains dead-end at both the west side of the site (Daffodil Street) and the north side (Roger’s Way) and will be extended into the development to serve the new lots. As builts for Annie Subdivision Phase 3C and Phase 1 show existing sewer manholes at each of the dead-ends. It is assumed that these manholes exist, buried by debris and dirt, located outside of the pavement (as shown on the as-builts), although the exact locations of these manholes have not been verified to this point. Please see the Sewer Design Report for additional information. 286 8 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application The project is pursuing an exemption from MDEQ for water and sewer review. The project is pursuing an MDEQ Municipal Facilities Exclusion (MFE). This form has been provided with the application. This form was previously sent to the City of Bozeman specific to the project via email. 11. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Currently, stormwater runoff from the site enters the existing adjacent City roads (Daffodil and Roger’s Way) or directly enters the existing stream on the east side of the site. With the proposed development, additional impervious area will be created, contributing additional stormwater runoff, and therefore requiring adequate stormwater management. Stormwater is planned to be managed on-site within the Phase 4 development area. Two drainage basins are proposed, one which drains to the west and the other to the northeast. Two basins are utilized due to a high-point in the proposed road profile located which separates the basins. Creation of one drainage basin which drained the entire site to the northeast was desired, but straight grading the new road from the Daffodil Street connection to the Roger’s Way connection resulted in a road grade lower than City standards. Stormwater design and details are provided in the Stormwater Design Report. The proposed stormwater design includes a detention pond located on the Open Space lot which handles stormwater from the east (larger) drainage basin. Stormwater gets to this pond via curb flow and an underground pipe located within a stormwater drainage easement between Lots 9 and 10. This drainage easement is shown offset to the property line (5 feet on to Lot 9 and 15 feet on to Lot 10). For the west (smaller) basin, a low-impact stormwater design is proposed using cobble infiltration galleries adjacent to the lots. Initial planning evaluated the possibility of utilizing the existing Annie Subdivision stormwater pond located north of the subject property between Roger’s Way and Annie St. However, since this existing pond appears to not be sized to accommodate stormwater from the subject property (per the original design report), and due to conflicts/uncertainties with the existing stormwater infrastructure (i.e. a shed built over the piping as noted in comments on the Pre-Application), it was determined that connection to the existing Annie Subdivision stormwater infrastructure is impractical for the project. Therefore, on-site management of stormwater is utilized. 287 9 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application 12. STREETS, ROADS AND ALLEYS Per email correspondence from the City (included with this application), a traffic impact study is not required for the development based on estimated trip generation. The estimated trip generation for the development is as follows: Land Use Size ITE Land Use Code Average Daily Traffic (ADT) AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Townhomes 16 210 151 3 9 10 6 Single Family Home 1 210 9 0 1 1 0 Apartments 8 220 59 1 3 2 2 Figure 2 - Trip Generation from Proposed Development The project involves the continuation and connection of Daffodil Street and Roger’s Way through the site. The design road horizontal alignment is based on 1) the adjacent “mirrored” roadways to the north (Roger’s Way on the south side of Annie Sub. Ph. 3B) and to the west (Daffodil Street on the south end of Harvest Creek Ph. 1). It is notable that per the Findings of Fact for Annie Subdivision Phase 3C: “If and when Lot 1 is further divided, access will be available from Daffodil St. and Roger’s Way.” Findings of Fact for Annie Subdivision Phase 3 also note: “Provisions shall be made for the future extension of Daffodil Street to the east to end in a cul-de-sac or continue north to link with Rogers Way upon approval by the Director of Public Service, City Engineering, and Water/Sewer Superintendent”. Road maintenance for all streets is proposed to be provided by the City of Bozeman after the improvements have been accepted by the City. Erosion and siltation control will be included during construction by using the appropriate best management practices as outlined in the “Montana Sediment and Erosion Control Manual” (May 1993) prepared by the MDEQ Water Quality Bureau. As required by City Pre-Application comments, the project intends to construct a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at the intersection of N 27th and Durston Road. Coordination with a local RRFB installer has been conducted. The preliminary design involves the installation of two (2) solar activated RRFBs (solar only, no electrical). The Eastbound unit would be mounted on the existing luminaire pole and the Westbound unit would be installed on a new 2.5-inch telespar sign post with 288 10 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application concrete anchor. These units would be single direction signs, made by Tapco, the same as recently installed units on 11th Ave near Bozeman High School. We anticipate additional plans, and coordination with the City of Bozeman prior to acceptance of the design and construction. The existing approaches along Durston Road are proposed to be abandoned as part of the project. This will likely involve some traffic control along Durston and the temporary closure or one lane (westbound traffic could be redirected into the center turn lane). Bicycle and pedestrian routes will connect with existing adjacent routes. 13. UTILITIES Standard 10-foot front yard utility easements have been provided across the lots, per comments received on the Pre-Application. The adjacent Phase 3C development (to the west) provides 15-foot wide front utility easements. The Phase 4 easements could be made 15-feet wide to match Phase 3C, but have been left at 10 feet, since it appears that the existing underground dry utilities adjacent to the site, as mapped during the survey, are within a 10 foot corridor, and therefore could be extended through the proposed Phase 4 utility easement. A 15-foot wide utility easement has been provided along Durston Road, on the south side of the project site, to match the adjacent 15-foot wide easement per Phase 3C. There are no proposed utility road crossings associated with the project. A Northwestern Energy construction application has been submitted for the project and on-going meetings and correspondence with Northwestern Energy have occurred. Existing northwestern utilities will be properly abandoned with the development. Northwestern Energy has noted via email correspondence that the subject property has existing utilities within the adjacent developed subdivision, and an extension of the utilities should be available. The development will meet Northwestern Energy’s requirements including those provided via comment on the Pre-Application. Century Link (Lumen) has responded that service can be provided to the site. Irrigation is intended to be provided to the open space via the existing well which is located near the southeast corner of the lot, within the open space lot. Per conversations with the well driller, and Northwestern Energy, this well provides adequate water, and can be used for the irrigation supply. 289 11 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application 14. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES The Director of Facilities for the Bozeman Public Schools has been contacted as part of the project. Via email correspondence, the Director has indicated that given the nature of the project, the enrollment impacts will not be substantial. The Director has been contacted to provide additional input. 15. LAND USE Annie Subdivision Phase 4 is a 20-lot subdivision located on approximately 3.24 acres. The subdivision includes 16 townhome lots, 2 multi-family lots, 1 single-family lot, and an open space lot. The proposed preliminary plat shows the land uses. The Open Space lot is intended to be a connection/continuation of the open space lot located northeast of the subject property, which is part of the existing Annie Subdivision. Although the pedestrian trail is located east of the open space, on the adjacent parcel, this linear open space acts as a semi-natural undeveloped corridor adjacent to the stream. 16. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES No parkland is proposed for the project. The development has requested cash-in-lieu of parkland. Cash-in-lieu of parkland is proposed for the development. Calculations have been provided as follows: · Gross Lot Area = 3.24 Acres o Road Right of Way Area = 0.52 Acres o Net Lot Area = 2.72 Acres · Estimated Dwelling Units = 25 o Dwelling Units/Acre = 9.2 (12/Acre Max) · Required Dedication = 0.03 Acres/Dwelling Unit o Total Req. Dedication = 25 x 0.03 = 0.75 Acres = 32,670 Square Feet (SF) · Proposed Park Lot Size = 0 SF · Remainder Required Parkland = 32,670 SF · City Approved Land Value per Square Foot = $1.72 o Required CIL of Parkland = 32,670 SF x $1.72 = $56,192.4 290 12 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application An open space lot is included on the east side of the site, as shown on the site layout. This open space lot includes the entirety of the 50-foot watercourse setback. The west side of the open space lot extends past (west of) the watercourse setback. We understand that watercourse setbacks are unacceptable for parkland dedication unless approved by the review authority per Section 38.420.020. This open space lot continues/connects the existing open space lot located north of the subject property within Annie Subdivision Phase 3A. Maintenance of this open space will be by the HOA. The open space area is currently undeveloped grassland with scattered trees next to the creek. There is no sign of pedestrian use through the open space. Access to this open space is proposed to be from Durston. The existing trail east of the site (the Westside Trail) is located east of the creek and east of the subject property, within Lots 1 and 2 of Block 14 of Annie Subdivision Phase 1. Per the Arcadia Gardens Site Plan as-builts dated July 1995, the trail (“bike path”) is located within a 20-foot utility easement on the site. 17. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PLANS A waiver for neighborhood center plans was granted by the City during the Pre-Application review for the project. 18. LIGHTING PLAN New lighting is not proposed for the development. An evaluation of the existing street lights along Durston Road was performed as part of the project. Details for the existing lights were from the City of Bozeman’s GIS website along with direct coordination with the City. Manufacturer and series were provided by the City (Cree, XSP series). The analysis used less luminous LED as a conservative assumption. The IES file used was for LEDs that are typically used to replace 250W HPS, although the Durston luminaries were originally installed with 400W HPS. The evaluation showed that additional lighting along Durston is not required. 291 13 Annie Subdivision Phase 4 Narrative for Preliminary Plat Application 19. AFFORDABLE HOUSING An Affordable Housing Plan Application has not been provided with this submittal. 20. MISCELLANEOUS  The development will have no adverse impact to access to public lands (i.e. the open space and trail east of the project site). Pedestrian access will be maintained via Durston Road.  Per correspondence with the Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall, additional fire hydrants would not be required with the development. There is an existing fire hydrant located just west of the project site, on the north side of Daffodil (hydrant #2145) and another hydrant located northeast of the site (hydrant #1449) along Roger’s Way. There is also a hydrant located in the yard east of the project site, between the trail and parking lot (hydrant #1015). Multiple fire hydrants are also located along Durston Road adjacent to the project site. If the buildings are over four-stories, fire sprinklers and stand pipes would be required.  A fire hydrant flow test was recently conducted adjacent to the project site, specific to the development, as summarized in the Water Design Report.  Dedicating a shared access easement between Lot 10 and Lot 11 was considered. This shared access easement would theoretically allow for one single access for both lots to use, which could provide additional room for future development or parking. However, this shared access easement is not shown on the plat currently with the understanding that a shared access easement could be provided in the future, if desired.  Per discussions with the City Operations Manager and Finance Department, the project site contributed to the original Durston Road SID since it was within City limits at the time the SID was put in place. In 2011, the property owner paid the remaining balance. The payback only applies to properties within the County at the time of SID creation.  Demolition permits have been submitted to the City for both the barn and the existing home. The Owner is working with the City Buildings Department to fulfill all requirements regarding demolition. It is notable that the previous owner demo’d the existing barn  Information regarding the planned Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at the Durston Road and N 27th intersection is provided in this narrative in the Streets, Roads and Alleys section. 292 December 15, 2020 Page 1 of 1 41H 30020234 GROUND WATER CERTIFICATEWater Right Number: Place of Use: ID Govt Lot Qtr Sec Sec Twp Rge CountyAcres 2 2S 5E GALLATINSESWSE1 Priority Date:JANUARY 24, 2006 at 09:30 A.M. Maximum Flow Rate: Owners:ROGER H SMITH ROSALIND I SMITH 2305 DURSTON RD 2305 DURSTON BOZEMAN, MT 59718-2615 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 STATE OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION 1424 9TH AVENUE P.O.BOX 201601 HELENA, MONTANA 59620-1601 GENERAL ABSTRACT Version:1 -- ORIGINAL RIGHT 41H 30020234 General Abstract THIS RIGHT IS LIMITED TO THE ACTUAL AMOUNT USED UP TO 35 GALLONS PER MINUTE. THIS RIGHT IS LIMITED TO THE ACTUAL AMOUNT USED UP TO 10 ACRE-FEET.Maximum Volume: GROUNDWATERSource Type: Source Name:GROUNDWATER ID Govt Lot Qtr Sec Sec Twp Rge County Point of Diversion and Means of Diversion: WELLDiversion Means: Casing Diameter: 6.00 INCHES Static Water Level: 5.00 FEET Well Depth:40.00 FEET Period of Diversion:JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31 1 2 5E2SSESWSE GALLATIN Purpose (use):DOMESTIC Households: Volume: Purpose (Use):DOMESTIC Period of Use:JANUARY 1 to DECEMBER 31 Geocodes/Valid: 06-0798-02-4-17-18-0000 - Y Enforceable Priority Date: JANUARY 24, 2006 at 09:30 A.M. Version Status:ACTIVE 293 109 E Main Street, Ste B, Bozeman, MT 59715 I OFFICE 406.728.4611 I EMAIL wgm@wgmgroup.com May 16, 2021 Jacob Miller City of Bozeman Planning Department 20 E. Olive Street Bozeman, MT 59718 Re: Response to DRC Comments – Annie Subdivision, Phase 4 Pre-Application Comments (#21003) Dear Mr. Miller: This letter is intended to provide a narrative response to DRC comments dated February 10, 2020 for the above referenced project. The project is for a major subdivision of 20 lots for future residential development in the R-3 zoning district on 3.241 acres at the address 2305 Durston Road in the City of Bozeman, Montana. Responses to City comments have been provided in bold. 1. Requested Waivers: a. Sec. 38.220.060.3. – Groundwater i. Staff does not grant a waiver for the groundwater supplement, see stormwater comments. Groundwater monitoring wells (10-feet tall, 4-inch diameter) were installed in each of the test pits associated with the geotechnical work for the site. Groundwater within these seven (7) wells has been monitored approximately weekly since the test pits were excavated on March 19, 2021. During the test pit excavations, groundwater was not encountered in the test pits, except TP-7 where it was measured at 9.3 feet below the ground surface. During the monitoring period, groundwater within the TP-7 monitor well has been found to be as shallow as 7.21 feet below the ground surface, while all of the other monitoring wells have remained dry. Groundwater was also measured in the existing domestic and irrigation wells on-site, with static water levels of 17.1 feet and 13.0 feet below the ground surface respectively as measured on May 12, 2021. Additional information regarding groundwater and potential shallow groundwater is discussed below and has been included in the Preliminary Plat Supplements. A site cross section depicting the groundwater elevation in relation to the project site and proposed improvements has been included with the application. This exhibit shows that seasonal high groundwater will not impact the development. b. Sec. 38.220.060.6. – Wildlife i. Staff grants a waiver for the wildlife supplement. c. Sec. 38.220.060.7. – Historical Features i. Staff grants a waiver for the historical features supplement. d. Sec. 38.220.060.8. – Agriculture i. Staff grants a waiver for the agriculture supplement. 294 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 2 of 12 It has been noted that waivers have been received for wildlife, historical features, and agriculture. e. Sec. 38.220.060.12.f – Traffic Generation i. Staff requests additional information, see engineering comments. Correspondence with the City regarding a Traffic Impact Study has been included with our application. This correspondence notes that a Traffic Impact Study is not required for the project based on Trip Generations for the project. The updated Trip Generation data for the project is as follows: Land Use Size ITE Land Use Code Average Daily Traffic (ADT) AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Townhomes 16 210 151 3 9 10 6 Single Family Home 1 210 9 0 1 1 0 Apartments 8 220 59 1 3 2 2 f. Sec. 38.220.060.17. – Neighborhood center plan i. Staff grants a waiver for the neighborhood plan supplement. It has been noted that a waiver has been granted for the neighborhood center plan. 2. The preliminary plat shall conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the Uniform Standards for Subdivision Plats (Uniform Standards for Certificates of Survey (COS) and Subdivision Plats (24.183.1104 ARM). This comment has been noted. 3. Sec. 38.220.060. - Additional subdivision preliminary plat supplements. a. Please provide all additional preliminary plat supplements meeting the requirements detailed in this section that were not included in the waiver requests. The waiver requests will be reviewed with this PA Application. All information, exhibits, answers to questions must be provided for each supplement. Information regarding the additional preliminary plat supplements has been included with the preliminary plat application including a narrative addressing each of the sections that were not included in the waiver requests. Please refer to this separate narrative document. 4. Sec. 38.410.080. - Grading and drainage. a. Stormwater facilities must be provided to accommodate stormwater runoff from the public streets. If the open space lot is to be used as a stormwater facility it must be maintained by the POA and noted in the preliminary plat supplements and the conditions of approval sheet on the plat. Additional requirements for landscape design are described in Sec. 38.410.080.H. 295 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 12 The design of stormwater facilities has been provided in the Stormwater Design Report for Annie Subdivision Ph. 4. Stormwater facilities, i.e. a detention pond, are included in the open space lot. The open space lot will be maintained by the HOA. This has been noted in the preliminary plat supplements and will be noted on the conditions of approval sheet on the plat. The detention pond located within the open space has been designed to fulfill requirements in 38.410.080.H. Landscape plans have also been provided which address landscaping within the open space lot and adjacent to the stormwater detention pond. 5. Sec. 38.410.060. - Easements. a. 10’ front setback utility easements must be provided along all street frontages. b. Provide a public access easement for the common open space lot. A 10-foot front utility easement has been provided along the new road which extends through the project site. A 15-foot wide utility easement has been provided along Durston Road to match the adjacent 15-foot wide easement per Annie Subdivision Phase 3C. A 20-foot wide public access easement has been provided for the common open space lot, consistent with the existing 20-foot wide public access easement per document #2080915. 6. Sec. 38.410.100. - Watercourse setback. a. A plan must be submitted with the preliminary plat describing how this development will mitigate the impacts of development on the watercourse. Show both zones of the watercourse in the plat. Impacts to the watercourse have been mitigated with the design. A 50-foot wide watercourse setback has been provided, as shown on the plat, and extends from the edge of the mapped wetlands adjacent to the stream. Both zones of the watercourse setback have been shown on the plat. The watercourse setback is located entirely within the open space lot. Zone 2 of the watercourse setback (the 40% furthest from the watercourse) includes the stormwater detention pond. The attached landscape plan has been developed to thoughtfully mitigate the open space lot and watercourse setback. b. A setback planting plan must be prepared by a qualified landscape professional and included with the preliminary plat submittal. This plan must include descriptions of schedule, plantings, maintenance and irrigation. A setback planting plan and corresponding required information has been submitted as part of this information as prepared by a qualified landscape professional. An irrigation plan has not been prepared yet. However, the irrigation plan will be completed prior to construction. An automatic irrigation system to sustain the landscape plantings and open space lot will be provided to the City of Bozeman. A licensed landscape contractor or irrigation service technician will be contracted to maintain, service, and repair the system as needed. The system will be charged in April (typically) after the ground thaws. Upon completion of the irrigation system, as-built drawings will be provided to the City of Bozeman and the HOA. 7. Sec. 38.410.030. - Lot. a. Due to the existing configuration of the street grid this development will be allowed to create double frontage lots in between Durston and the new road. Certain design considerations will be required to be included in the POA covenants and design guidelines to mitigate this situation, for example the primary façades of the townhome 296 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 12 lots with adjacency to Durston must face Durston and will require a fence height restriction. This comment is noted. Townhomes along Durston that are subject to the double frontage will be designed to mitigate the situation. Primary facades for the townhomes adjacent to Durston will be designed to face Durston. This requirement will be outlined in the Annie Subdivision Phase 4 covenants (to be drafted) and design guidelines. Fence height restrictions will also be included in the Phase 4 covenants. The Owner is working with a local attorney to draft these documents. Draft Amendments to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Annie Subdivision Phase 3, and a Notice of Amendment to Declaration for existing property owners have been created and provided with this application. The current plan involves receiving 60%+ approval from existing HOA members to create the new Annie Subdivision Phase 4 HOA. The future Phase 4 HOA and applicable covenants and design guidelines will address the primary facades, double frontage, and fence height restrictions. The Phase 4 covenants have not been drafted yet but will once it is confirmed that the new HOA can be created. The updated covenants are also planned to change the current requirement for a double car attached garage to a single car attached garage. The covenants would be finalized and recorded with the final plat. The current/existing covenants for the site have been provided with the application. b. It appears the townhouse lot with the 20’ front property line could present encroachment issues into the required side setback of the property to the east, because of the narrow front width. Please demonstrate that this will not be an issue, or readjust the lots to allow for a wider frontage. The townhome lot in question, Lot 12, has been adjusted and the frontage has been widened to 25.15 feet. Per our evaluation, and because of the angle of the east property line, access into the lot can be accommodated while maintaining the minimum side yard setbacks and other site constraints. Correspondingly, the frontage for Lot 11 has been reduced (55.78 feet at the right of way). 8. Sec. 38.420.020. - Park area requirements. a. There is a pedestrian midblock crossing north of the property that does not connect to the Westside Trail. Improvements-in-lieu will be accepted in the form of constructing the connection. Please contact Addi Jadin with the parks department for details. Discussion regarding parkland has been provided in the response to the parkland comment near the end of this document. Cash-in-lieu of parkland is proposed for the project. 9. Sec. 38.550.070. - Landscaping of public lands. a. All perimeter street boulevard, street trees and landscaping must be installed within one year of final plat approval. Landscape plans for these areas must be submitted with the preliminary plat application. Durston is considered a perimeter street and must be maintained by the POA. The curb cuts must be removed and street trees planted. A landscape plan has been provided with this application. Perimeter street boulevard trees and landscaping will be installed within one year of final plat approval. Landscaping along Durston Road has been addressed in the landscape plan. It is anticipated that this Durston 297 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 12 Road landscaping will be irrigated by the same irrigation well used for the open space lot, and maintained by the HOA (or the Owner/Developer until 50% of the dwellings are sold), to be outlined in future Phase 4 covenants and design guidelines. The existing curb cuts and approaches will be removed along Durston and new trees planted as shown on the landscape plan. An irrigation plan has not been prepared yet. However, the irrigation plan will be completed prior to construction. An automatic irrigation system to sustain the landscape plantings and open space lot will be provided to the City of Bozeman. Upon completion of the irrigation system, as-built drawings will be provided to the City of Bozeman and the HOA. Engineering Division, Karl Johnson, kajohnson@bozeman.net, 406-582-2281 REQUESTED WAIVERS 1. BMC 38.220.060.3 Ground water: Denied, see Stormwater comments for additional details. Information regarding groundwater has been provided with this application. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted via the seven (7) groundwater monitoring wells installed during the geotechnical test pit investigations. An evaluation of the effects of potential shallow groundwater at the site has been conducted. 2. BMC 38.220.060.12.f Traffic Generation: Additional information is required to determine is a waiver can be granted. The applicant must provide trip generations from the site to determine if a Traffic Impact Study is required. Trip generation data was provided (as discussed above) and a waiver was received from the City. Related correspondence with the City is attached to the application. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Easements 1. BMC 38.410.060 (B.2) Easements - The applicant must provide a ten foot utility easement (power, gas, communication, etc.) along the developments property frontage. The easement may either be dedicated via the plat or separate easement but the easement must be shown on the plat and include the City’s standard language. The applicant may contact the Engineering Department to receive a copy of a utility easement template. A 10-foot utility easement has been provided along lot frontages on the Daffodil extension. The easement has been dedicated via the plat. Standard City language has been provided. A 15-foot utility easement has been provided along Durston to match the adjacent Phase 3C easement width. Water Rights 1. Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) 38.410.130 - The applicant must contact Griffin Nielsen with the City Engineering Department to obtain a determination of cash-in-lieu of water rights (CILWR). CILWR must be paid prior to final plat approval. It is understood that CILWR will be paid prior to final plat approval. Griffin has been contacted regarding a determination for final CILWR. Email correspondence with the City regarding CILWR has been included in the application. 298 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 12 Paybacks 1. The subject property is included in the payback district identified as SID 684 Durston N 19th to Fowler Road Improvements. The proportionate share of the payback must be paid prior to final plat approval. Correspondence with the City regarding this SID district has been provided. Per the City, 2305 Durston Road is not actually a part of the SID since it was within City limits at the time of SID creation. The payback only applies to properties within the County at the time the SID was created. The attached correspondence also notes that the property contributed to the original SID and in 2011 the property owner paid off the remaining balance. Stormwater 1. To utilize the existing Annie Subdivision detention facility the applicant must demonstrate the existing stormwater detention pond is functioning as designed, is accessible and maintainable, and is adequately designed to handle the additional runoff from the proposed development. Stormwater is planned to be controlled on-site, and there is no plan to utilize the existing Annie Subdivision stormwater infrastructure located north of the subject property. Per a field investigation, it appears that the existing Annie Subdivision stormwater pond is functioning and is accessible and maintainable. However, per our review of the previous design report, the pond may not be adequately sized to handle the additional runoff from the proposed development. There is also a structure(s) built over the conveyances (see next comment) which could impact function. Consequently, stormwater is planned to be controlled on-site, in two drainage basins, via a new stormwater detention pond located in the new open space lot, and an infiltration gallery located in the small stormwater basin on the west side of the development. The Stormwater Design Report provides additional information and detail. 2. The stormwater conveyance to the Annie detention pond has a drainage easement with a house, fence, and shed built on it. This conveyance must not be utilized for additional flows until these structures are removed. Stormwater is planned to be controlled on-site, and there is no plan to utilize the existing Annie Subdivision stormwater infrastructure. The attached Stormwater Design Report provides additional information. 3. DSSP Section (A) (4) Water Quality - The applicant must include a drainage plan prior to plat adequacy with post-construction storm water management controls that are designed to infiltrate, evapotranspire, and/or capture for reuse the post-construction runoff generated from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. For projects that cannot meet 100% of the runoff reduction requirement, the remainder of the runoff from the first 0.5 inches of rainfall must be either: a. Treated onsite using post-construction storm water management control(s) expected to remove 80 percent total suspended solids (TSS); b. Managed offsite within the same sub-watershed using post- construction storm water management control(s) that are designed to infiltrate, evapotranspire, and/or capture for reuse; or c. Treated offsite within the same subwatershed using post construction storm water management control(s) expected to remove 80 percent TSS. Please refer to the Stormwater Design Report for Annie Subdivision Phase 4. Stormwater infrastructure has been designed per City of Bozeman design standards. 299 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 7 of 12 4. DSSP Section (C) Water Quantity - The applicant must provide detention prior to approval with release rates limited to predevelopment runoff rates. Retention ponds must be sized based on a 10-year, 2-hour storm intensity. Please refer to the Stormwater Design Report for Annie Subdivision Phase 4. Stormwater infrastructure has been designed per City of Bozeman design standards. 5. The seasonal high groundwater elevation must be determined prior to plat adequacy. The engineer responsible for the design drainage must certify that the drainage infrastructure can meet or exceed the City’s drainage requirements during the seasonal high. Groundwater has been monitored during the spring of 2021 via seven (7) groundwater monitoring wells installed as part of the geotechnical evaluation. Per the monitoring data, shallow groundwater will not impact the proposed development. Per our evaluation of the data, and our evaluation of the potential for “shallower” groundwater during “wetter” years, capacity of the proposed stormwater system will not be impacted by potential seasonally shallow groundwater this year or during wet years. We understand that Gallatin Valley has had a relatively dry spring in 2021, and therefore groundwater may be higher (shallower) in wetter years. Our design has accounted for this possibility. In general, the proposed development is elevated high enough to provide adequate separation from potential shallow groundwater. The proposed detention pond is located on a mild bench above the stream elevation. This design, along with the fact that the adjacent stream is “losing” results in the safe assumption that shallow groundwater will not adversely impact the site (i.e. inundate the stormwater pond, affect the road, or impact crawl spaces). Additional information and analysis has been provided in the application. Crawl spaces are proposed for the future townhomes. To provide additional assurance that the crawl spaces will not be impacted by groundwater, we would propose to add recommended minimum finished floor elevations to the plat. The following note is also proposed to be placed on the plat: This is a known area of high groundwater. No basements may be constructed. Sump pumps are not allowed to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. Sump pumps are not allowed to be connected to the drainage system. Water from sump pumps may not be discharged onto streets, such as into the curb and gutters where they create a safety hazard for pedestrians and passing vehicles. Water 1. DSSP Section (V.D.1) Alignment, Depth, and Easements – The alignment of water and sewer services must be arranged so there is a minimum of ten (10) feet of horizontal separation between each other. The water and sewer service alignments have been adjusted. Please refer to the attached water and sewer drawings. Wastewater 1. Applicant is advised water and sewer services must run perpendicular to respective mains through the utility easement line. 300 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 8 of 12 Water and sewer services have been adjusted so they run perpendicular to the respective mains. Please refer to the attached water and sewer drawings. Transportation 1. The 2017 Transportation Master Plan Pedestrian Recommendation, 36 identifies the need to add a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon to the existing crossing at the east side of N 25th Ave and Durston Rd intersection. The beacon must be installed upon future development. This comment has been noted. Design assistance has been solicited from local contractors familiar with the installation of RRFBs within the City of Bozeman. We anticipate the need to receive concurrence from the City on the final plan for design and installation of the RRFBs prior to development. The current proposed plan for the RRFBs includes two (2) solar activated units, with electrical not included. The Eastbound unit will be mounted on the existing luminare pole. The Westbound unit will be installed on a new 2.5 inch telespar sign post and concrete anchor. The units would be the same as those recently installed on 11th Ave. The units are made by Tapco. The signs are single direction. Again we understand that additional coordination and design plan review will be required prior to acceptable by the City and installation. Lighting 1. The applicant must demonstrate the existing lighting on Durston Rd meets the lighting design criteria identified in section XII of the DSSP along the property’s frontage to Durston Rd. If the standards are not met additional lighting may be required. A lighting analysis has been completed (attached) which demonstrates that the existing lighting on Durston Road meets the City’s criteria. The lighting analysis is based on direct recent correspondence with the City regarding the manufacturer and type of lighting currently along Durston Road. The data used in the analysis was conservative since the IES file used is for LEDs that are typically used to replace 250W HPS whereas the Durston luminaires were originally installed with 400 HPS. Therefore, the actual luminaires likely have more luminosity that what is should in the analysis. NWE Project Engineer Erica Chaney Erika.Chaney@northwestern.com 1. Has an application to Northwestern Energy (NWE) been submitted? An application to Northwestern Energy has been submitted. An on-site meeting with Northwestern Energy occurred on April 6, 2021 involving WGM, NWE, and the owner of the property. The proposed improvements were discussed at this meeting along with proper abandonment of existing utilities to the existing home. Per the discussions with NWE, the existing electric service to the barn was properly abandoned by NWE prior to demolition of the structure. This structure was demo’d by the previous owner of the property. 2. With the demolition of the existing structures the applicant needs to, weeks in advance of the scheduled demolition, contact NorthWestern Energy for a disconnect of the electric and gas services. This has been noted and the demolition was discussed during the April 6, 2021 meeting. Per NWE, electric service to the barn was properly abandoned prior to demo of the barn. It is our 301 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 9 of 12 understanding that the barn was not served by gas. Proper abandonment of the electric and gas serving the existing home will occur prior to demolition. 3. Transformer Location. For larger apartment buildings a 3-phase transformer may be needed therefore, a 3-phase transformer pad site should be planned. Typical 3-phase pad is going to be a 7’x7’ pad. For all transformer locations, single phase and three phase transformers, clearance requirements to any buildings is 2-feet for non-combustible walls and surfaces, void of openings such as doors, windows, air intake, and fire escapes routes, and meets current NEC or NFPA requirements for non-combustible material. For any combustible surface, not meeting current NEC or NFPA requirements for non-combustible material, a minimum of a 10- foot clearance is required between the building or any combustible surface and the transformer. For all single phase and three phase transformers, regardless of size, requires a 10-foot unobstructed clearance space in front of the pad where the transformer doors are located. Note, all distances are referenced to the edge of the pad. Due to COVID-19 there has been an impact on receiving larger three phase and single phase transformers and a longer timeline may be needed to receive the needed equipment for these services. It is important to submit an application to NWE and provide the calculated loads as soon as possible to avoid any delays. This comment has been noted and these requirements are being coordinated with NWE and coordination will continue through the building permit and construction phases of the project. Larger apartment buildings which require 3-phase power are not anticipated to be a part of this project. 4. NWE will need to review building elevation plans for the proposed buildings for the meter locations as well as final grading plans for all utility installation locations. With the extension of Rogers Way a civil plan with final top back of curb grade elevations will be needed to establish proper bury depths of all underground utilities. Road grading plans and townhome building elevation plans have been provided to NWE. The townhome plans have been used recently on another City of Bozeman site and therefore it is anticipated that NWE service to these buildings can meet all requirements. 5. Service & Meter Location. The electric meter & or CT cabinet will need to be installed in the same general location within 10-feet of the gas meter. NorthWestern Energy reserves the right to specify the location of our meters. All meters are to be located outdoors on the corner or in a location on the building closest to the transformer or secondary junction can serving the building unit. On new construction, electric meter locations must be within 10 feet of the gas meter if NorthWestern Energy will be providing both electric and gas service. Meter locations will need to be approved by NWE. NWE policy is to maintain a minimum 30-inches wide by 3- feet clear zone between the front of the meter and landscape screening or wall screening for self-contained meter bases and 48-inches for installations requiring cabinets. Location of the meter(s) shall allow easy access to the meters for operation and maintenance. This can be determined through the design process after an application is submitted through NWE and the area project engineer will work through allowable shrubs and plants for screening and to determine adequate clearances for access to our meters. This comment has been noted and coordination with Northwestern Energy is on-going regarding the final design of the electric and gas utilities. 302 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 10 of 12 6. The following applies to the gas regulator. The gas regulator cannot be placed under a window or within 3’ of the operable portion of the window. It can be placed under a window/deck on the second story, provided the “open/operable” portion has at least 6’ of clearance from the regulator. Ensure that there is 10’ of separation from any mechanical air intake, including air conditioning units. The regulator will need to be 3’ from the closest corner of any portion of the electric meter base. Submitting an application to NWE will get the NWE engineer involved and can help with this process. This comment has been noted and the gas regulator location will be adequately designed during the architectural and building permit process. The proposed townhome layout is similar to townhomes which were recently built on Meriwether and Durston Road, and therefore a similar approach to addressing Northwestern requirements along with the building layout is anticipated. 7. Apartment or townhomes are proposed there will be a need to install multiple meters within the same location. With multiple meters, adequate wall space will be needed to install the number of electric and gas meters, and electric gear. For gas meters, NWE will only stack gas meters 2 high and therefore the needed wall space for gas meters will require a longer wall space. The two areas for gas and electric meters will need to occupy the same wall space, unless otherwise approved by a NWE project engineer, with the needed separation between gas and electric meters. This comment has been noted. At this time there are no final plans for the apartment buildings. However, when those plans are finalized, coordination with Northwestern Energy will be completed such that this comment is completely addressed. 8. When there are multiple units with multiple meters NWE requires that the meters have a permanent placard for each meter. For multiple metering each location or premise must have its address and unit numbers permanently attached by means of a placard to the meter bases and the individual apartment /unit breaker boxes before the meter is set. These identifying placards must match the unit information as displayed on the unit’s entry door. This comment has been noted and during development of building permit plans for the structures, each unit will have a permanent identification placard for each meter. 9. Utility easements. Any extension of gas main or electric primary will need to be installed within an easement. Normally a 10-foot easement is required. To establish the needed utility easement locations the NWE project engineer and/or Northwestern Energy’s real estate representative will help to establish these locations as well as the needed documentation. Negotiations and costs between other landowners for easements is entirely the applicant’s responsibility. Utility easements for primary gas and electric have been provided with the development as shown on the proposed plat drawing. A 10-foot wide utility easement has been provided along the front of the lots (adjacent to the new road). However, it is notable that the adjacent lots (Annie Subdivision Phase 3C) include a 15-foot wide utility easement along Daffodil. We have provided the 10-foot easement per this comment and other City comments. Per the survey, it appears that adjacent underground dry utilities are located within a 10-foot corridor so extension of those utilities into the new 10-foot wide easement would be feasible. We request from Northwestern concurrence on the 10-foot easement along the new road. Note that the 303 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 11 of 12 plan includes a 15-foot wide utility easement along Durston, which matches the adjacent Phase 3C easement. 10. NWE will need to review landscape plans for proposed landscaping within the proposed development with location to utility easements and equipment. Landscape plans have been provided with this application. It has been noted on the landscape drawings that final landscaping locations and details must be reviewed and confirmed with Northwestern Energy prior to construction. 11. For landscaping. No large deep rooted trees or bushes will be allowed within the 10-foot utility easement. No large trees reaching heights of 15-feet or taller will be allowed under any overhead distribution lines. All other approved landscaping will be placed so as not to damage or prevent or hinder operation and maintenance of NWE utilities. No large deep rooted trees or bushes have been provided on the landscape plan within the utility easements. No large trees are proposed below overhead distribution lines. It should be noted that discussions were started regarding the existing overhead power service to the existing irrigation well, during the field meeting between Northwestern Energy and the Engineer and Owner. It was discussed that this overhead service line could remain, if desired, but we anticipate additional review by Northwestern Energy prior to a final determination. The overhead line does cross through several large existing trees that would likely need to be removed prior to construction. Therefore, abandonment of this existing overhead service and replacement with an underground service may be warranted. 12. For landscaping, planting of bushes or shrubs a Minimum Working Space for a Pad-Mounted Transformer is, 4-feet on the sides and back portion of the concrete pad and 10-feet of clearance on the front side of the pad where the transformer doors are located. Note, all distances are referenced to the edge of the pad. This comment has been noted. 13. Submit an application online to have the NWE project engineer work with the applicant. Go to www.northwesternenergy.com/construction to apply online Montana Construction Application, and access Montana New Service Guide to provide information on electric and gas service requirements. An application for construction has been submitted to Northwestern Energy. An initial site visit was conducted with Northwestern Energy, the Engineer, and Owner to discuss the project. The application was submitted in March 2021 with tracking number 20210318-890-NC. Community Housing Program, Tanya Andreason, tandreason@bozeman.net, 406-582-2953 1. The cash in lieu calculation will be based upon 10% of the townhomes and single detached home, meaning that the payment will be calculated using 1.7 units (.10 x 17 homes = 1.7 units). 2. The Affordable Housing Plan online form has a Cash-in-lieu rate table on page 2 for the applicant’s use. This table is updated annually, and the required payment amount should be calculated using the City’s published rate. The AH Plan form is required as part of the Preliminary Plat submittal, and will be recorded with the Final Plat. CIL payment is due before Final Plat is recorded. 304 Response to Pre-App Comments May 12, 2021 Page 12 of 12 These comments have been noted. Affordable housing has not been provided for this project. Parks and Recreation; Addi Jadin, ajadin@bozeman.net, 406-582-2908 1. Parks recommends cash-in-lieu of parkland for this project and does not recommend acceptance of the open space area at the east of the property as parkland because it would not be an uninterrupted linear park and would create uncertainty of ownership. Staff requests that applicants address the feasibility/costs of applying CILP for off-site improvements-in-lieu to construct a bridge that connects sidewalk spur to the Westside Trail at the terminus of Rose Ct. Per the recommendations, cash-in-lieu of parkland is proposed for this project to meet the City’s parkland requirements. Cash-in-lieu of parkland calculations have been provided on the attached Additional Preliminary Plat Supplements. Parkland is not proposed for this project. An open space lot is located on the east side of the site, which encompasses the watercourse setback and a small amount of additional acreage between the watercourse setback and the residential lots. This open space lot is proposed to be maintained by the HOA (or the Owner/Developer until 50% of the dwellings are sold). The feasibility and costs associated with construction of a bridge that connects sidewalk at the terminus of Rose Court to the Westside Trail was considered. However, this improvements-in-lieu is not considered practical due to several hurdles. These hurdles or potential constraints include the following: gaining approval from the adjacent property owner (of the Arcadia Gardens site) since the existing Westside Trail appears to be located on private land; wetland permitting associated with a bridge crossing; approval from the existing Annie Subdivision HOA of which has an unknown status. It is unknown if the current Annie HOA maintains the existing open space lot and who would provide maintenance for the new bridge crossing and trail connection. Since Annie Subdivision Phase 4 is proposing to create a new HOA specific to the proposed development, it is unclear who would maintain a trail connection at this location. Sincerely, WGM Group, Inc. Gary Fox, PE PROJECT ENGINEER Q:\WGM Group\WGM Style Guide\APP B - BUSINESS FORMS\4.0 BOZEMAN FORMS\1.0 WGM_Letterhead_Template_BZN.docx 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 1 Gary Fox From:donotreply@northwestern.com Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:26 PM To:Gary Fox Subject:Your New Construction Request Attachments:Application_For_New_Service_20210318202554.pdf [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. Dear WGM Group - Gary Fox (for Russell Hosner LLC - developer), ** DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. SEE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW. ** Your construction application has been successfully submitted and your tracking number is 20210318-890-NC. We are reviewing the application and a phone call or email may be necessary to request further information. An email will be sent when your application has been processed. Please allow three business days for processing. A copy of the application is attached for your records. For information regarding construction guidelines and requirements, click on this link http://www.northwesternenergy.com/construction To correspond with us, either click on this link to your ticket number https://www.northwesternenergy.com/userapps/contactus/responsenc.aspx?Tn=20210318-890-NC or open your internet browser and copy and paste the URL into the address field and press ENTER. To receive a reply, please reference your ticket number. To speak to a NorthWestern Energy agent call 1-83 FOR BUILD or 1-833-672-8453 Sincerely, NorthWestern Energy 314 315 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 5059080505911050591405059170505920050592305059260505929050590805059110505914050591705059200505923050592605059290494520 494550 494580 494610 494640 494670 494700 494730 494760 494790 494820 494850 494520 494550 494580 494610 494640 494670 494700 494730 494760 494790 494820 494850 45° 41' 13'' N 111° 4' 13'' W45° 41' 13'' N111° 3' 57'' W45° 41' 6'' N 111° 4' 13'' W45° 41' 6'' N 111° 3' 57'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,610 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 316 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Gallatin County Area, Montana Survey Area Data: Version 24, Jun 4, 2020 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 3, 2009—Sep 1, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 317 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 50B Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 1.6 12.5% 457A Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes 8.1 61.7% 510B Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 2.8 21.5% UL Urban land 0.6 4.4% Totals for Area of Interest 13.2 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate Custom Soil Resource Report 11 318 pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 319 Gallatin County Area, Montana 50B—Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vq Elevation: 4,350 to 5,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 37 to 43 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Blackdog and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Blackdog Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Calcareous loess Typical profile A - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam Bt - 10 to 19 inches: silty clay loam Bk - 19 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent Available water capacity:High (about 10.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 44B-B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meagher Percent of map unit:4 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Custom Soil Resource Report 13 320 Ecological site:R044XS355MT - Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Quagle Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS357MT - Limy (Ly) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Bowery Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS355MT - Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56tb Elevation: 4,300 to 5,200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 15 to 19 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Turner and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Turner Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loam Bt - 6 to 12 inches: clay loam Bk - 12 to 26 inches: clay loam 2C - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 14 321 Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 96 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity:Low (about 5.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R044BB032MT - Loamy (Lo) LRU 44B-B Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Meadowcreek Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS359MT - Subirrigated (Sb) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS354MT - Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Turner Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS355MT - Silty (Si) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 56vt Elevation: 4,200 to 5,950 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 18 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 45 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 110 days Custom Soil Resource Report 15 322 Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Meadowcreek and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Meadowcreek Setting Landform:Stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile A - 0 to 11 inches: loam Bg - 11 to 25 inches: silt loam 2C - 25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 4 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 24 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity:Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R044BY150MT - Subirrigated (Sb) LRU 44B-Y Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Blossberg Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS365MT - Wet Meadow (WM) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: Yes Beaverton Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial fans, stream terraces Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Ecological site:R044XS354MT - Shallow to Gravel (SwGr) 15-19" p.z. Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 16 323 UL—Urban land Map Unit Composition Urban land:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 17 324 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Reports The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included. Building Site Development This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings. Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its described condition and does not consider present land use. Example interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect local roads and streets, shallow excavations, and lawns and landscaping. The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and 18 325 moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic-supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, the amount of large stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic-supporting capacity are soil strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water table, and ponding. Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing. Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. Irrigation is not considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established. The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Custom Soil Resource Report 19 326 Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report—Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Roads and Streets, Shallow Excavations, and Lawns and Landscaping–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Lawns and landscaping Local roads and streets Shallow excavations Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 50B—Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Blackdog 90 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.07 Low strength 0.93 Dusty 0.07 Frost action 0.50 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Turner 85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.09 Frost action 0.50 Dusty 0.09 Shrink-swell 0.01 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Meadowcreek 85 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited Dusty 0.14 Frost action 1.00 Depth to saturated zone 0.99 Dusty 0.14 Unstable excavation walls 0.01 UL—Urban land Urban land 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction, and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect dwellings and small commercial buildings. Custom Soil Resource Report 20 327 The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments. Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil. The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Custom Soil Resource Report 21 328 Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Report—Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings [Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations] Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value Rating class and limiting features Value 50B—Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Blackdog 90 Not limited Not limited Not limited 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Turner 85 Somewhat limited Not limited Somewhat limited Shrink-swell 0.01 Shrink-swell 0.01 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Meadowcreek 85 Not limited Somewhat limited Not limited Depth to saturated zone 0.99 UL—Urban land Urban land 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated Soil Physical Properties This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil physical properties. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soil physical properties are measured or inferred from direct observations in the field or laboratory. Examples of soil physical properties include percent clay, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity, and bulk density. Custom Soil Resource Report 22 329 Physical Soil Properties This table shows estimates of some physical characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Particle size is the effective diameter of a soil particle as measured by sedimentation, sieving, or micrometric methods. Particle sizes are expressed as classes with specific effective diameter class limits. The broad classes are sand, silt, and clay, ranging from the larger to the smaller. Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter. In this table, the estimated sand content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.002 to 0.05 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification. The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink- swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations. Moist bulk density is the weight of soil (ovendry) per unit volume. Volume is measured when the soil is at field moisture capacity, that is, the moisture content at 1/3- or 1/10-bar (33kPa or 10kPa) moisture tension. Weight is determined after the soil is dried at 105 degrees C. In the table, the estimated moist bulk density of each soil horizon is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Bulk density data are used to compute linear extensibility, shrink-swell potential, available water capacity, total pore space, and other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space available for water and roots. Depending on soil texture, a bulk density of more than 1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by texture, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates in the table are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. Custom Soil Resource Report 23 330 Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in inches of water per inch of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure. Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not an estimate of the quantity of water actually available to plants at any given time. Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3- or 1/10-bar tension (33kPa or 10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change. Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. The shrink-swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed. Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. In this table, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity, water infiltration, soil organism activity, and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops and soil organisms. Erosion factors are shown in the table as the K factor (Kw and Kf) and the T factor. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and Ksat. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Erosion factor Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size. Erosion factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year. Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. The groups are described in the "National Soil Survey Handbook." Custom Soil Resource Report 24 331 Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. (http://soils.usda.gov) Custom Soil Resource Report 25 332 Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H). Physical Soil Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map symbol and soil name Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist bulk density Saturated hydraulic conductivity Available water capacity Linear extensibility Organic matter Erosion factors Wind erodibility group Wind erodibility indexKwKfT In Pct Pct Pct g/cc micro m/sec In/In Pct Pct 50B—Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Blackdog 0-10 - 9--67-20-24- 27 1.10-1.20- 1.30 4.00-9.00-14.00 0.18-0.19-0.2 0 0.0- 1.5- 2.9 2.0- 3.0- 4.0 .37 .37 5 6 48 10-19 - 7--62-27-31- 35 1.20-1.30- 1.40 1.40-2.70-4.00 0.16-0.18-0.2 0 3.0- 4.5- 5.9 1.0- 2.0- 3.0 .37 .37 19-60 -11--69-15-20- 25 1.20-1.30- 1.40 4.00-9.00-14.00 0.16-0.18-0.2 0 0.0- 1.5- 2.9 0.5- 0.8- 1.0 .49 .49 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Turner 0-6 -42--37-15-21- 27 1.10-1.20- 1.30 4.00-9.00-14.00 0.15-0.17-0.1 9 0.0- 1.5- 2.9 2.0- 3.0- 4.0 .24 .24 3 6 48 6-12 -34--37-25-30- 35 1.30-1.40- 1.50 4.00-9.00-14.00 0.12-0.15-0.1 8 3.0- 4.5- 5.9 0.5- 1.3- 2.0 .28 .28 12-26 -34--38-18-28- 35 1.35-1.43- 1.50 4.00-9.00-14.00 0.12-0.15-0.1 8 3.0- 4.5- 5.9 0.0- 0.3- 0.5 .32 .32 26-60 -81--17-0- 3- 5 1.35-1.43- 1.50 42.00-92.00-14 1.00 0.01-0.04-0.0 6 0.0- 1.5- 2.9 0.0- 0.3- 0.5 .05 .15 Custom Soil Resource Report 26 333 Physical Soil Properties–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map symbol and soil name Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist bulk density Saturated hydraulic conductivity Available water capacity Linear extensibility Organic matter Erosion factors Wind erodibility group Wind erodibility indexKwKfT In Pct Pct Pct g/cc micro m/sec In/In Pct Pct 510B— Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Meadowcreek 0-11 -41--37-18-22- 25 1.20-1.30- 1.40 4.00-9.00-14.00 0.18-0.19-0.2 0 0.0- 1.5- 2.9 2.0- 3.5- 5.0 .24 .24 3 6 48 11-25 -20--54-18-26- 27 1.20-1.30- 1.40 4.00-9.00-14.00 0.13-0.14-0.1 5 0.0- 1.5- 2.9 1.0- 2.0- 3.0 .37 .37 25-60 -96-- 2-0- 3- 5 1.20-1.35- 1.50 141.00-141.00- 141.00 0.02-0.03-0.0 3 0.0- 1.5- 2.9 0.0- 0.3- 0.5 .02 .02 UL—Urban land Urban land ————————— Custom Soil Resource Report 27 334 Water Features This folder contains tabular reports that present soil hydrology information. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Water Features include ponding frequency, flooding frequency, and depth to water table. Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff This table gives estimates of various soil water features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The four hydrologic soil groups are: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Surface runoff refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Surface runoff classes are based on slope, climate, and vegetative cover. The concept indicates relative runoff for very specific conditions. It is assumed that the surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface water resulting from irregularities in the ground surface is minimal. The classes are negligible, very low, low, medium, high, and very high. Report—Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The dash indicates no documented presence. Custom Soil Resource Report 28 335 Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff–Gallatin County Area, Montana Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Surface Runoff Hydrologic Soil Group 50B—Blackdog silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Blackdog 90 —C 457A—Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Turner 85 —B 510B—Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Meadowcreek 85 —C UL—Urban land Urban land 100 —— Custom Soil Resource Report 29 336 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 30 337 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 31 338 W:\Projects\201016\Docs\Wetland Delineation\AnnieSubdivisionWetlandDelineationMemo_042621.docx MEMORANDUM DATE: April 30, 2021 TO: City of Bozeman Planning Department FROM: Sarah Howell, Staff Scientist 2 RE: Lot 1 Annie Subdivision Phase 3C Wetland Delineation Summary Bozeman, Montana S02, T2S, R5E WGM Group conducted a wetland and non-wetland waterway delineation at Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase 3C on April 7th, 2021. This delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual of the U.S. and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0). The delineation was performed to identify the presence and extent of wetlands on the property and to map wetland boundaries so required setbacks could be applied to the subdivision plans. The delineation limits encompass 3.24 acres and are located within the southwest ¼ of the southeast ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M. in Gallatin County, Montana. The property is located on the north side of Durston Road, just east of the intersection with North 25th Avenue in Bozeman (see Figure 1, Attachment A). One wetland (WL-1) was delineated during the April 7th, 2021 wetland delineation (see Figure 2, Attachment A). The topography of the property is generally flat with the exception of a 1- to 1.5-foot-deep swale running south to north on the eastern third of the property and the inset floodplain of the West Fork of Catron Creek. The western two thirds of the property have been landscaped with trees, shrubs and lawn while the eastern third appears more natural although disturbance is still evident. The swale is lined with ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) on the western edge and yellow-twigged willow (Salix alba) on the eastern edge. A sample point (SP2U) was performed in the middle of this swale to document the lack of wetlands. Herbaceous vegetation included orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). The inset floodplain is about 12 to 15 feet wide on the west side of the West Fork of Catron Creek and about 6 feet wide on the east side. Topography drops 2 to 3 feet down to the floodplain and about another foot or so to the water surface in the stream. Vegetation within the floodplain is dominated by FAC species including Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis), common Timothy (Phleum pratense), and slender wild rye (Elymus trachycaulus). The soils were checked hydric soil indicators at several locations within the floodplain, but criteria were not met for hydric soils except for within a narrow wetland fringe along the stream. It is likely that the stream no longer accesses this floodplain regularly due to hydrologic changes resulting from development in the watershed. 339 The West Fork of Catron Creek and its wetland fringe were delineated as WL-1. The portion of this wetland within the property is 0.07 acres. The channel is about 3 feet wide and 1 foot deep and enters the property near the southeast corner through two concrete culverts. The wetland fringe is 1-3 feet wide on each side. The stream runs along the eastern property boundary and leaves the property near the northeast property corner. Wetland hydrology is supported by surface water conveyed in the stream. Soils have a silt loam texture and are black at the surface to about 14 inches depth becoming very dark grayish brown below. Soils met the criteria for the loamy mucky mineral (F1) hydric soil indicator. Wetland hydrology indicators include primary indicators of surface water (A1) and saturation (A3) and the secondary indicatory of geomorphic position (D2). The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classified this feature as palustrine, emergent, persistent, temporarily flooded, excavated (PEM1Ax). No other wetlands were mapped by NWI on the property. One pair of sample points were documented to support the location of the wetland boundaries. (see Attachment B – Wetland Determination Data Forms). Several additional soil pits were used to determine wetland boundaries but were not recorded. WL-1 is likely jurisdictional due to its connection to the East Gallatin River. 340 ATTACHMENT A FIGURES 341 342 343 ATTACHMENT B WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS 344 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):3 Subregion (LRR): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Vegetation dominated by grasses. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 335 0 105 =Total Cover Elymus trachycaulus 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover No FACU Yes 5 foot radius NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Project/Site: Lot 1 Annie Subdivision LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6863621870851 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? significantly disturbed? Sample point on floodplain about 6 feet from water's edge. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Section 2, T2S R5E MT SP1U concave Section, Township, Range: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 4/7/21 Drew Russell/Russell Hosner Sarah Howell floodplain Bozeman/GallatinCity/County: Datum:-111.067357064657 510B - Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes PEM1Ax Long: UPL species FACW species 100.0% ) 15 foot radius ) 75 Prevalence Index worksheet: 255 00 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 80 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 85 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Schedonorus pratensis FAC FAC Herb Stratum 20 No Poa pratensis 10 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vacular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 3.19 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 foot radius naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 105 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0345 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 99 1 C M Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) x Surface Water Present? Yes x Water Table Present? Yes x Saturation Present? Yes x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Soils only moist. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Surface Water (A1) 10YR 3/1 Matrix Texture 9-18 Redox FeaturesDepth (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 10YR 3/6 0-6 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: This data form is revised from Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 8.0, 2016. Few redox concentrations below 9 inches depth are prominent, but do not meet other criteria for redox dark surface hydric soil indicator. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-9 SP1USOIL silt loam cobbly sandy loam cobbly sandy loam Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0346 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):3 Subregion (LRR): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Bare ground percent represents area covered by water/stream. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 20 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 306 0 102 =Total Cover No FAC Poa pratensis Phleum pratense Schedonorus pratensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 2 Yes FACW Yes 5 foot radius NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Project/Site: Lot 1 Annie Subdivision LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 45.6864025962663 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? significantly disturbed? Sample point on floodplain about 2 feet from water's edge. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Section 2, T2S R5E MT SP1W concave Section, Township, Range: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 4/7/21 Drew Russell/Russell Hosner Sarah Howell floodplain Bozeman/GallatinCity/County: Datum:-111.067326870209 510B - Meadowcreek loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes PEM1Ax Long: UPL species FACW species 50.0% ) 15 foot radius ) 40 Prevalence Index worksheet: 186 00 20 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 80 Multiply by: 40 Prevalence Index = B/A = 62 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: No Phalaris arundinacea No FACU FAC Herb Stratum 15 No Solanum dulcamara Salix alba FACW 20 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 20 5 - Wetland Non-Vacular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Cirsium arvense (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 3.00 5 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Indicator Status 1 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 foot radius naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No 102 10 No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0347 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 x Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X x x Surface Water Present? Yes x Water Table Present? Yes x Saturation Present? Yes x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 8 10 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Soils saturated below 10 inches depth. Surface water in stream 2 feet away, approximately 8 inches deep. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Surface Water (A1) Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-14 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: This data form is revised from Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 8.0, 2016. Soils feel greasy to 14 inches depth. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 14-18 SP1WSOIL mucky silt loam silt loam Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0348 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):1-2 Subregion (LRR): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: x Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes x No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Bare ground is covered by litter. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 55 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 100 394 20 103 =Total Cover Schedonorus pratensis Taraxacum officinale Poa pratensis 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: Pinus ponderosa Salix alba Populus deltoides Yes =Total Cover 15 Yes FACU Yes 5 foot radius NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Project/Site: Lot 1 Annie Subdivision LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 23 10 10 3 FACU 45.6862141829722 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? significantly disturbed? Sample point in the bottom of a swale running N-S across the property. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Section 2, T2S R5E MT SP2U concave Section, Township, Range: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 4/7/21 Drew Russell/Russell Hosner Sarah Howell swale Bozeman/GallatinCity/County: Datum:-111.067803682638 457A - Turner loam, moderately wet, 0 to 2 percent slopes Upland Long: FAC UPL species FACW species 33.3% ) 15 foot radius ) 20 Prevalence Index worksheet: 54 00 10 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 220 Multiply by: 20 Prevalence Index = B/A = 18 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dactylis glomerata Yes FAC UPL Herb Stratum 20 Yes Bromus inermis 15 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 25 5 - Wetland Non-Vacular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACU 3.83 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Indicator Status 2 6 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 foot radius No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:FACW Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? No Yes 80 10 No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0349 Sampling Point: % %Type1 Loc2 100 100 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) x Surface Water Present? Yes x Water Table Present? Yes x Saturation Present? Yes x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Soils only moist. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Surface Water (A1) 10YR 3/2 Matrix Texture 6-18 Redox FeaturesDepth (inches) Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-3 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils 3: This data form is revised from Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils, Version 8.0, 2016. Lots of mycelium in the 3-6 inch layer. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 3-6 SP2USOIL loam clay loam cobbly clay loam Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0350 1 Gary Fox From:Wussow, Daniel <Daniel.Wussow@northwestern.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 19, 2021 12:20 PM To:Gary Fox Cc:Stewart, Thomas Subject:FW: Service Request for Annie Sub Ph. 4 - City of Bozeman [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. Gary, Per your request please see my response below: Northwest Energy has existing gas and electric utility infrastructure in the vicinity of the Annie Sub Ph4. Northwest Energy will plan to install a utility backbone by extending existing utilities from the north (Roger’s Way) and through the development along the access road/street (Daffodil Street) to the west. From the utility backbone (gas main/electrical primary), services with be provided to individual lots. Please let me know if the this email and verbiage above will work for a services letter. If you have any further questions please let me know. Respectfully, Daniel Wussow From: Stewart, Thomas <Thomas.Stewart@northwestern.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:57 PM To: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com> Cc: Wussow, Daniel <Daniel.Wussow@northwestern.com> Subject: RE: Service Request for Annie Sub Ph. 4 - City of Bozeman Gary, The area in question has existing utilities within the developed subdivision adjacent to the proposed location and an extension of utilities should be available. I will have Daniel look into this request and respond accordingly. Daniel please respond to Gary’s request as soon as possible. Thank you, Tom From: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:17 PM To: Stewart, Thomas <Thomas.Stewart@northwestern.com> Subject: FW: Service Request for Annie Sub Ph. 4 - City of Bozeman CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source outside of NorthWestern Energy. The Original Sender of this email is gfox@wgmgroup.com. Are you expecting the message? Is this different from the message sender displayed above? 351 2 Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure you recognize the sender and you know the contents are safe. If you believe the email to be malicious and/or phishing email, please use the Report Phish button. Hi! Following up on the email below. Wondering if we could get a service letter for this subdivision in Bozeman? Or maybe we do not need the letter since we have had some field discussions and preliminary review from NWE on our pre-application already? Thank you, Gary Gary Fox, P.E. Project Engineer • WGM Group From: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 12:31 PM To: thomas.stewart@northwestern.com Cc: Daniel Wusso (daniel.wussow@northwestern.com) <daniel.wussow@northwestern.com>; Hunter Morrical <hmorrical@wgmgroup.com>; erika.chaney@northwestern.com Subject: Service Request for Annie Sub Ph. 4 - City of Bozeman Hi Thomas, We are working on a subdivision in Bozeman located at 2305 Durston Rd. The project is called Annie Subdivision Phase 4. We have started a construction project with Northwestern. We have discussed the project with Daniel Wusso, and received comments from Erika Chaney via the City of Bozeman. We are hoping to get a letter from Northwestern, for our Preliminary Plat submittal, as an indication of available service from Northwestern. Attached is our letter request and the preliminary site layout. Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information! Thank you, Gary Fox, P.E. Project Engineer M: 406-598-1201 O: 406-728-4611 109 East Main Street, Suite B Bozeman, Montana 59715 www.wgmgroup.com This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of 352 3 this message if you are not the intended recipient. NorthWestern Corporation and its subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its network. 353 Legal DescriptionOwner NameAddressCityStateZipcodeANNIE SUB PH 3A, COMMON OPEN SPACEANNIE SUB PH 3AGENERAL DELIVERY BOZEMAN MT 59718-9999WEST PARK MANOR 4TH ADD, BLOCK 5, Lot 14, PLAT J-184 JARDSTROM LARRY WESLEY & MELISSA ANN MARKHAM TRUSTEE 513 N 23RD AVE BOZEMAN MT 59718-3177WEST PARK MANOR 4TH ADD, BLOCK 4, Lot 17, PLAT J-184 WESTLAND ENTERPRISES INCPO BOX 938 BOZEMAN MT 59771-0938ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 2, Lot 2, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE FAITH JOSHUA & CANDETA655 JAQUETTE RD KALISPELL MT 59901-7895DURSTON MEADOWS SUB PH 1, BLOCK 2, Lot 12, PLAT J-238 NYQUIST RYAN2503 DAFFODIL ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-7504ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 2, Lot 1, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE OTTENBREIT GEOFF &2483 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3692ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 1, Lot 6, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE FLEMING DARCY2412 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3691VERANA FOUR PLEX CONDO, ANNIE SUB PH 3A LOT 17 BLK 3 UNITS A-D CONDO MASTER VERANA FOUR PLEX CONDOMINIUM GENERAL DELIVERY BOZEMAN MT 59718-9999ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 1, Lot 5, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE RUSSELL CHAD D & RACHAEL A2424 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3691ANNIE SUB PH 1, BLOCK 14, Lot 1 - 3, PT OF TRACT 1A, PLAT J-135 BRIDGE EMBASSY HOUSE LP1850 MT DIABLO BLVD STE 410 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596-4439DURSTON MEADOWS SUB PH 2 & 3, BLOCK 2, Lot 11, PLAT J-258 BOULANGE JOSHUA2502 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-7589ANNIE DUPLEX CONDO, BUILDING 1, ANNIE SUB PH 3A SE4 LOT 3 CONDO MASTER ANNIE DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM MASTER CARD GENERAL DELIVERY BOZEMAN MT 59718-9999ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 1, Lot 1, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE ROWLEY NICOLE M & STEPHEN D2496 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3691ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 2, Lot 4, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE MOSNESS ROBIN R2439 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3692ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 2, Lot 6, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE PERIGEN JENNIFER2419 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3692DURSTON MEADOWS SUB PH 1, BLOCK 1, Lot 11, PLAT J-238 JOHNSTON JEFFREY & RACHEL2502 DAFFODIL ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-9045C.O.S. 1817, PARCEL BWESTERN SHAMBALLA INC63 SUMMIT WAY GARDINER MT 59030-9314WEST PARK MANOR 4TH ADD, BLOCK 5, Lot 15, PLAT J-184 WESTLAND ENTERPRISES INCPO BOX 938 BOZEMAN MT 59771-0938ANNIE SUB PH 3C, Lot 4, PLAT J-482ABN HOLDINGS LLCPO BOX 10366 BOZEMAN MT 59719-0366ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 3, Lot 16, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE ROBINSON TIFFANI768 ROGERS WAY BOZEMAN MT 59718-2687ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 1, Lot 4, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE ENGLER SHELLY2436 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3691ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 1, Lot 2, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE MATESKON JOHN & ELIZABETH2472 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3691ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 3, Lot 15, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE FUKUMURA MAI782 ROGERS WAY BOZEMAN MT 59718-2687ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 2, Lot 5, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE BLY MIRANDA & CHRISTOPHER2427 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3692ANNIE SUB PH 3C, Lot 3, PLAT J-482WILEY TRAVIS2495 DAFFODIL ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-9800ANNIE SUB PH 3C, Lot 2, PLAT J-482BARHAM GINA & ROBERT12990 COTTONWOOD RD BOZEMAN MT 59718-8976WILLOWBROOK CONDO, TR 1 COS 1855WILLOWBROOK CONDO MASTERGENERAL DELIVERY BOZEMAN MT 59718-9999ANNIE SUB PH 3A, BLOCK 2, Lot 3, PLAT J-343 PLUS OPEN SPACE SCHMIDT BRIAN F &2445 SNAPDRAGON ST BOZEMAN MT 59718-3692 354 PROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARY1.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTCITY OF BOZEMAN STANDARDS AND THE STATE OF MONTANA BUILDING ANDSPECIALTY CODES2.INSTALL EROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OFBOZEMAN STANDARDS PRIOR TO SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION.3.MARK AND PROTECT ALL UTILITIES, SITE FEATURES, AND VEGETATION TO BERETAINED. EXISTING TREES TO BE SALVAGED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, PERTHE OWNER AND IF APPROVED BY THE CITY OF BOZEMAN AND HOA.4.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ANDUTILITY COMPANIES, LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCINGWORK. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR DAMAGES TO EXISTINGUTILITIES, HARDSCAPES AND STRUCTURES AS A RESULT OF THECONTRACTORS ACTIVITIES.8.PRIOR TO PLANTING, ON-SITE TOPSOIL SHALL BE TESTED FOR SOIL FERTILITYBY A CERTIFIED TESTING LAB. IF NECESSARY, TOPSOIL FOR TREE PITS,SHRUB PITS, AND GROUND COVER BEDS SHALL BE AMENDED ASRECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL FERTILITY REPORT. TOPSOIL DEPTH SHALL BE AMINIMUM DEPTH OF 6" FOR LAWN AREAS AND 12" FOR SHRUB BEDS.9.MATCH GRADES OF LAWNS TO CURBS, SIDEWALKS, AND TRAILS AT A 5%MAXIMUM SLOPE AND A 2% MINIMUM SLOPE. TAPER TO EXISTING GRADES.10.ALL PLANTING AREAS ADJACENT TO BUILDING SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM THEBUILDING FOR THE FIRST 10 FEET AT A 2% MINIMUM SLOPE.11.EDGING AS SPECIFIED. INSTALL EDGING AFTER INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATIONAND PRIOR TO PLANTING. RE-STAKE EDGING IF NECESSARY AS DIRECTED BYOWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.12.TYPAR PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE FABRIC, OR APPROVED EQUAL, TO BEINSTALLED IN ALL GARDEN BEDS.13.MULCH AS SPECIFIED. MULCH ALL GARDEN BEDS AND TREE RINGS.14.DURSTON ROAD AND COMMON OPEN SPACE PLANTING TO BE IRRIGATED BYAUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM UTILIZING EXISTING WELL AS WATERSOURCE.GENERAL NOTESEXISTING TREES TO RETAINEXISTING DURSTON STREET TREES TO RETAINWATERCOURSE PLANTINGS262 LF OF WATERCOURSE:ZONE 1:- 30' WIDE FROM EDGE OF WETLAND- REQUIRED: 9 TREES & 26 SHRUBS (5 TREES& 13 SHRUBS IF IRRIGATED & FENCED)- SHOWN: 6 TREES & 13 SHRUBS TO BE IRRIGATED & FENCED- SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH NATIVEGRASS MIXZONE 2:- 20' WIDE FROM EDGE OF ZONE 1- SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH NATIVEGRASS MIX1.PRIOR TO PLANTING, CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING CITYOF BOZEMAN TO SCHEDULE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND TO OBTAINPROPER TREE PLANTING PERMITS.2.PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARDFOR NURSERY STOCK, BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY AND LANDSCAPEASSOCIATION. ALL PLANTS TO BE NURSERY GROWN.3.NO SUBSTITUTIONS ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THEOWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. ANY PLANT OR MATERIAL NOT MEETING THEREQUIREMENTS SHALL BE REJECTED, REMOVED, DISPOSED OF ANDREPLACED BY AND AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.4.PLANTS SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED ON-SITE PRIOR TO PLANTINGBY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.5.PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE SHALL GIVE DIRECTION, MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, ANDAPPROVE LOCATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.6.VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES. PLANT QUANTITIES IN THE PLANT SCHEDULE AREFOR REFERENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO COMPLETE THEIROWN QUANTITY TAKE-OFFS FOR ALL PLANS AND SIZES SHOWN ON THE PLAN.IN CASE OF A DISCREPANCY THE PLANTING PLAN SHALL DICTATE QUANTITY.7.SEED/SOD ALL DISTURBED EXISTING LAWN AREAS TO PRE-DISTURBANCECONDITION.8.BACKFILL TO BE LOOSENED NATIVE SOIL UNLESS AMENDMENT ISNECESSARY AS DICTATED BY SOIL TEST.9.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER PLANTINGS UNTIL IRRIGATIONSYSTEM IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL AND PROVIDE A 1-YEAR WARRANTY PERIODAFTER INSTALLATION AND GUARANTEE ALL PLANTINGS TO BE ALIVE AND INSATISFACTORY HEALTH.PLANTING NOTESWGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMOVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MTMay 5, 2021L1.0PRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:5/12/215/5/210SCALE - FEET303060NOVERALL PLANTING PLAN1PLANSEE SHEET L1.1SEE SHEET L1.1DEVELOPMENT DATAADDRESS: 2305 DURSTON RDLEGALDESCRIPTION:LOT 1 PLAT J-482 ANNIE SUB. PHASE 4PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIALZONING: R-3SITE SIZE: ± 3.24 ACRESOWNER / DEVELOPERRUSSELL HOSNER LLCPO BOX 1567LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035503.816.4539LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTWGM GROUP109 E MAIN ST, SUITE BBOZEMAN, MT 59715CONTACT: KATE DINSMORECIVIL ENGINEERWGM GROUP109 E MAIN ST, SUITE BBOZEMAN, MT 59715CONTACT: GARY FOXCONTACT INFORMATION1.SEE CIVIL SHEETS FOR OPEN SPACE INFORMATION.2.SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR SITE PLAN3.SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADINGNOTES:DURSTON ROADDAFFODIL STREETROGER'S WAY ZONE 2ZONE 150' WATERCOURSESETBACKSTORMWATERDETENTION PONDEXISTINGWETLANDEXISTING WELL:AUTOMATIC IRRIGATIONWATER SOURCEL1.0COVER SHEET05/05/2021L1.1PLANTING PLAN05/05/2021L1.2PLANT SCHEDULE & DETAILS05/05/2021LANDSCAPE SHEET INDEX355 EMI LY DRSNAPDRAGON ST DAFFODIL ST ROGERS WAYDURSTON RDN 25TH AVEWILLOWBROOKN 23RD AVEANNIE SUBPH 3A JARDSTROM LARRYWESLEY & MELISSAANN MARKHAM TRUSTEE WESTLANDENTERPRISESINC FAITH JOSHUA& CANDETA NYQUIST RYAN OTTENBREITGEOFF & FLEMING DARCY VERANAFOUR PLEXCONDOMINIUMRUSSELL CHADD & RACHAEL A BRIDGEEMBASSYHOUSE LP BOULANGEJOSHUA ANNIE DUPLEXCONDOMINIUMMASTER CARDROWLEY NICOLEM & STEPHEN D MOSNESSROBIN R PERIGENJENNIFER JOHNSTONJEFFREY& RACHEL WESTERNSHAMBALLAINC WESTLANDENTERPRISESINC ABNHOLDINGSLLC ROBINSONTIFFANI ENGLER SHELLY MATESKON JOHN& ELIZABETH FUKUMURA MAI BLY MIRANDA &CHRISTOPHER WILEY TRAVIS BARHAM GINA& ROBERT WILLOWBROOKCONDO MASTERWILLOWBROOKCONDO MASTER SCHMIDTBRIAN F & Legend Site200 Foot RadiusAdjoining Ownership q 1 inch = 75 feet 0 7537.5 Disclaimer: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor asurvey and is not intended to be used as such. WGM Groupdoes not guarantee the accuracy, current status, orcompleteness of the material contained herein and is notresponsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of thisinformation or its derivatives. This map is a graphicrepresentation and is to be used for general planningpurposes only.ADJOINING OWNERS WITHIN 200' RAD. EXHIBITANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4BOZEMAN, MONTANAPROJECT: 20-10-16FILE NO: 201016_adj_owners.mxdFILE PATH:W:\PROJECTS\201016\GIS\MXDDRAFT: CEGAPPROVE: GFDATE:APRIL 20211 1SHEETOF WWW.WGMGROUP.COM SITE 356 SEED ALL DISTURBEDAREAS IN ZONE 1 &ZONE 2 WITH NATIVEGRASS MIXFENCING FORPLANT ESTABLISHMENTFENCING FORPLANT ESTABLISHMENTEXIST. WELL: AUTOMATIC IRRIGATIONWATER SOURCEZONE 1ZONE 2PROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARY50'WATERCOURSESETBACKSTORMWATERDETENTIONPONDBOULDERS, TYP.STREET TREES PERC.O.B. REQUIREMENTSSTREET TREES PERC.O.B. REQUIREMENTSEXIST.WETLANDWGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMPLANTING PLAN ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MTMay 5, 2021L1.1PRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:5/12/215/5/210SCALE - FEET202040NENLARGED PLANTING PLAN1PLANDURSTON ROADROGER'S WAYDA F FO D I L S T R E E T 357 358 BOULEVARD PLANT SCHEDULETREESQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTCAL4ACER X FREEMANII `SIENNA` TMB&B2" CALSIENNA GLEN MAPLEMATURE SIZE 50`H X 35`W FULLY BRANCHED;SPACING AS SHOWN4CELTIS OCCIDENTALISB&B2" CALCOMMON HACKBERRYMATURE SIZE 60`H X 60`W; FULLY BRANCHED;SPACING AS SHOWN.4GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SKYCOLE` TMB&B2" CALSKYLINE HONEY LOCUSTMATURE SIZE 45`H X 35`W FULLY BRANCHED;SPACING AS SHOWN7TILIA CORDATA `GREENSPIRE`B&B2" CALGREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDENMATURE SIZE 50`H X 35`W FULLY BRANCHED;SPACING AS SHOWNGRASSESQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONT12,092 SFTURF SODSODWATER SAVER TURF TYPE FESCUE BLENDOPEN SPACE & WATERCOURSE PLANT SCHEDULETEMPORARY FENCING FORWATERCOURSE PLANTESTABLISHMENTTREESQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONTCAL5POPULUS TREMULOIDES2" CAL.B&BQUAKING ASPENMATURE SIZE 30`H X 15`W;FULLY BRANCHED; SPACINGAS SHOWN.4POPULUS TREMULOIDES M/S12` HT.B&BMULTI-STEM QUAKING ASPENMATURE SIZE 30`H X 15`W;FULLY BRANCHED; SPACINGAS SHOWN.SHRUBSQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONT10AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA5 GAL.SASKATOON SERVICEBERRYMATURE SIZE 10`H X 8`W;SPACING AS SHOWN20CORNUS SERICEA `ISANTI`5 GAL.ISANTI RED TWIG DOGWOODMATURE SIZE 6`H X 6`W; FULLYBRANCHED; SPACING ASSHOWN5SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS5 GAL.COMMON WHITE SNOWBERRYMATURE SIZE 6`H X 6`W; FULLYBRANCHED; SPACING ASSHOWNGRASSESQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMECONT15,927 SFTURF HYDROSEED NATIVE MIXSEEDCIRCLE S SEEDS ``NATIVE MIX``HYDROSEED EARLY SPRINGOR FALLCIRCLE S SEEDS "NATIVE MIX"(406) 285-3269, ORAPPROVED EQUALOTHER MATERIALSWGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMLANDSCAPE SCHEDULE & DETAILS ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 BOZEMAN, MTMay 5, 2021L1.2PRELIMINARYPLOTTED:SAVED:5/12/215/5/21PRUNE TREE AS SPECIFIED TO RETAIN NATURALFORM AND TO REMOVE DEAD OR DAMAGED LIMBSOR BRANCHES.NTSTREE PLANTING1DETAILROUND WOOD TREE STAKES AND FLATGROMMET TREE STRAPS AS SHOWN.STAKES SHALL NOT PENETRATE ROOTBALL. STAKES SHALL BE REMOVEDAFTER TWO YEARS.SEASONAL TREE WRAP TO PROTECTAGAINST DEER, RODENTS, AND SUN SCALD.INSTALL ANNUALLY IN SEPTEMBER AND REMOVEANNUALLY IN APRIL.PULL MULCH 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK.4' DIAMETER MULCH RING AND WEED BARRIERFABRIC, AS SPECIFIED.BACKFILL AS SHOWN. PLANTING SOIL MIX ASSPECIFIED.REMOVE BURLAP, WIRE BASKET, TAGS,LABELS, AND STRINGS.EXCAVATE SLOPING SHALLOW PIT TWICE THEDIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL. DEPTH OF PITTO BE NO GREATER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THEROOT BALL. ALL WALLS TO BE FRACTURED ANDUNGLAZED.NOTES:1.TREE STAKING IS MANDATORY.2.ALL TREES TO BE PLANTED SHALL HAVE THE SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISH GRADE ASORIGINALLY GROWN IN THE NURSERY.NTSPLANTING ON A SLOPE4SECTION2" HIGH EARTH SAUCER ATDOWNHILL EDGE OF ROOTBALL2" DEPTH COMPOST MULCHSET CROWN OF ROOTBALL ATFINISH GRADESPECIFIED PLANT, SET VERTICALEXISTING SLOPE, 2:1 ORFLATTER ONLYTILL AND PLACE TOPSOIL TO 12"DEPTH AS CONDITIONS ALLOWBACKFILL TOPSOILSET ROOT BALL FIRMLY ONUNDISTURBED OR WATER SETTLEDNATIVE SOILNTSTREE PROTECTION FENCING3DETAILMULTIPLE OR CLUSTERED TREESSINGLE OR SPECIMEN TREESMETAL SUPPORT POSTTREE PROTECTIONFENCINGOUTSIDE LIMITS OF TREECANOPYCRITICAL ROOT ZONETREE PROTECTIONFENCINGOUTSIDE LIMITS OFTREE CANOPYCRITICAL ROOTZONEMETAL SUPPORTPOST2'-81 2"8'-0" MAXIMUM103 4" MIN TREEPROTECTIONFENCINGMETAL SUPPORT POST,DRIVEN INTOUNDISTURBEDSUBGRADE ORSUPPORTED BYCONCRETE BLOCKSNOTES:1.TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 6'-0", ORANGEPLASTIC AND BE SECURED TO THE GROUND WITH 8'-0" METALPOSTS OR 6'-0" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE SUPPORTED BYCONCRETE BLOCKS.2.TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE ERECTED OUTSIDEOF THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING,GRADING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN TREE PROTECTION FENCING INPLACE DURING CONSTRUCTION.FINISHGRADEPULL MULCH 3" AWAY FROM TRUNK.PROVIDE 12" DIA. ORGANIC COMPOST MULCH,SPECIFIED MULCH THEREAFTERMULCH AND WEED BARRIER FABRIC. SEE EDGING,MULCH & FABRIC DETAILREMOVE ROOT CONTAINMENT MATERIALS, TAGS,LABELS, AND STRINGSBACKFILL AS SHOWN. PLANTING SOIL MIX ASSPECIFIED. PLANTING DEPTH TO MATCH FINISHGRADE.EXCAVATE SLOPING SHALLOW PIT TWICE THEDIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL. DEPTH OF PIT TOBE NO GREATER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOTBALL. ALL WALLS TO BE FRACTURED ANDUNGLAZED.NTSSHRUB PLANTING2DETAILNOTES:ALL SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED SHALL HAVE THE SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISHGRADE AS ORIGINALLY GROWN IN THE NURSERY.359 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 1 of 18 21201 Staff Report for the Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Date: Planning Board meeting will be held Monday, September 20, 2021 at 6:00 pm. Link: https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php?MTID=e4599f6e0fe0a5 21f4a684a5ae3eda45f City Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 6:00 pm via WebEx. A WebEx link will be provided with the City Commission agenda. Project Description: A major preliminary plat subdivision application of 3.241 acres that includes 16 townhouse lots, 2 multi-household lots, 1 single-household lot, and 1 open space lot. Project Location: The property is legally described as Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Ph. 3C, Section 2, Township 2S, Range 5E. Recommendation: The application conforms to standards and is sufficient for approval with conditions and code provisions. 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 21201 and move to recommend approval of the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. Report Date: September 16, 2021 Staff Contact: Jacob Miller, Associate Planner Karl Johnson, Project Engineer Agenda Item Type: Action (Quasi-judicial) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unresolved Issues. There are no unresolved issues with this application. Project Summary This report is based on the application materials submitted and any public comment received to date. The Department of Community Development received a Preliminary Plat Application on June 2, 2021 requesting to subdivide 3.241 acres to create 20 townhouse lots, 2 multi-household lots, 1 single-household lot and 1 open space lot. The site had an existing single-household lot and shop 360 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 2 of 18 that have since been demolished with proper permitting. The property will have access from the continuation of Rogers Way onto N. 25th Ave. The property is zoned R-3. On September 2, 2021 the Development Review Committee (DRC) found the application adequate for continued review and recommends the conditions and code provisions identified in this report. The subdivider did not request any subdivision or zoning variances with this application. The City did not receive any written public comment on the application as of the writing of this report. The final decision for a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat with less than 50 lots must be made within 60 working days of the date it was deemed adequate. The Development Review Committee (DRC) deemed the application adequate for continued review on September 1, 2021. Pursuant to BMC 38.240.130 the city commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision application by November 10, 2021, unless there is a written extension from the developer, not to exceed one year. Alternatives 1. Approve the application with the recommended conditions; 2. Approve the application with modifications to the recommended conditions; 3. Deny the application based on the Commission’s findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 4. Continue the public hearing on the application, with specific direction to staff or the subdivider to supply additional information or to address specific items. 361 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 3 of 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 Unresolved Issues. .............................................................................................................. 1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1 – MAP SERIES .......................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2 – REQUESTED VARIANCES ................................................................................. 8 SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ............................................ 8 SECTION 4 – CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAT CORRECTIONS ....................... 8 SECTION 5 – RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ............................................ 11 SECTION 6 – STAFF ANALYSIS and findings ......................................................................... 11 Applicable Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 38.240.130.A.5.e, BMC. .................... 11 Primary Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 76-3-608 ................................................. 13 Preliminary Plat Supplements ........................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY..................................... 17 APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 17 APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ......................................................... 18 APPENDIX D – OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ................................. 18 FISCAL EFFECTS ....................................................................................................................... 18 ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 18 362 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 4 of 18 SECTION 1 – MAP SERIES Exhibit 1 – Zoning 363 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 5 of 18 Exhibit 2 – Community Plan 2020 Future Land Use 364 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 6 of 18 Exhibit 3 – Current Land Use 365 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 7 of 18 Exhibit 4 – Preliminary Plat Exhibit 5 – Landscaping Plan 366 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 8 of 18 SECTION 2 – REQUESTED VARIANCES The subdivider did not request any subdivision or zoning variances with this preliminary plat application. 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 this project. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 2. The final plat must conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the Uniform Standards for Subdivision Plats (Uniform Standards for Certificates of Survey and Subdivision Plats (24.183.1104 ARM) and shall be accompanied by all required documents, including certification from the City Engineer that as-built drawings for public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and corrected certificates. The Final Plat application shall include three (3) signed reproducible copies on a 3 mil or heavier stable base polyester film (or equivalent). The Gallatin County Clerk & Recorder’s office has elected to continue the existing medium requirements of 2 mylars with a 1½” binding margin on one side for both plats and COS’s. The Clerk and Recorder will file the new Conditions of Approval sheet as the last same sized mylar sheet in the plat set. 3. The watercourse setback must be removed from the plat prior to final plat approval. 4. The existing sewer septic system(s) must properly abandoned prior to final plat approval. 5. The applicant must provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID’s) or special districts. The provided draft SID waiver is acceptable. The applicant must provide a copy of the filed SID waiver prior to Final Plat approval. 6. Due to the known high groundwater conditions in the area no basements will be permitted with future development of the site. No crawl spaces will be permitted with future development of the site, unless a professional engineer registered in the State of Montana certifies that the lowest point of any proposed structure is located above the seasonal high groundwater level and provide supporting groundwater data prior to the release of building permit. In addition, sump pumps are not allowed to be connected to the sanitary sewer system or the drainage system unless capacity is designed into the drainage system to accept the pumped water. Water from sump pumps may not be discharged onto streets, such as into the curb and gutters where they may create a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. 367 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 9 of 18 7. The responsibility of maintenance for the stormwater facilities, stormwater open space lots, pedestrian open space lots and street frontage landscaping for the perimeter streets must be that of the property owners’ association. Maintenance responsibility must include, all vegetative ground cover, boulevard trees and irrigation systems in the public right-of-way boulevard strips along all external perimeter development streets. The property owners’ association must be responsible for levying annual assessments to provide for the maintenance, repair, and upkeep of all perimeter street frontage landscaping and stormwater facilities and all open space landscaping. 8. Remove General Notes 2 and 3 on the Conditions of Approval sheet. The utility easement language is already present in the legal description and a separate easement document will be required to clarify location and size of the easement. A separate public access easement must be provided to grant public access over the open space lot. SECTION 4 – CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. Sec. 38.220.070. - Final plat. a. The final plat must conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the Uniform Standards for Monumentation, Certificates of Survey, and Final Subdivision Plats (24.183.1101 ARM, 24.183.1104 ARM, 24.183.1107 ARM) and must be accompanied by all required documents, including certification from the City Engineer that record drawings for public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and corrected certificates. b. A letter from the city engineer certifying that the following documents have been received: i. As-built drawings, i.e., copies of final plans, profiles, grades and specifications for public improvements, including a complete grading and drainage plan. c. Noxious weed MOU. Prior to final plat approval, a memorandum of understanding must be entered into by the weed control district and the developer. The memorandum of understanding must be signed by the district and the developer prior to final plat approval, and a copy of the signed document must be submitted to the community development department with the application for final plat approval. d. Irrigation system as-builts. The developer must provide irrigation system as-builts, for all irrigation installed in public rights-of-way and/or land used to meet parkland dedication requirements, once the irrigation system is installed. The as-builts must include the exact locations and type of lines, including accurate depth, water source, heads, electric valves, quick couplers, drains and control box. e. A conditions of approval sheet addressing the criteria listed in this section must be provided with the final plat as set forth in 24.183.1107 ARM and must: i. Be entitled "Conditions of Approval of Annie Phase 4 Subdivision with a title block including the quarter-section, section, township, range, principal meridian, county, and, if applicable, city or town in which the subdivision is located. 368 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 10 of 18 ii. Contain any text and/or graphic representations of requirements by the governing body for final plat approval including, but not limited to, setbacks from streams or riparian areas, floodplain boundaries, no-build areas, building envelopes, or the use of particular parcels. iii. Include a certification statement by the landowner that the text and/or graphics shown on the conditions of approval sheet(s) represent(s) requirements by the governing body for final plat approval and that all conditions of subdivision application have been satisfied. iv. Include a notation stating that the information shown is current as of the date of the certification, and that changes to any land-use restrictions or encumbrances may be made by amendments to covenants, zoning regulations, easements, or other documents as allowed by law or by local regulations. v. Include a notation stating that buyers of property should ensure that they have obtained and reviewed all sheets of the plat and all documents recorded and filed in conjunction with the plat, and that buyers of property are strongly encouraged to contact the local community development department and become informed of any limitations on the use of the property prior to closing. vi. List all associated recorded documents and recorded document numbers. vii. List easements, including easements for agricultural water user facilities. 2. Sec. 38.270.030 - Completion of Improvements. a. If it is the developer’s intent to file the plat prior to the completion of all required improvements, an Improvements Agreement shall be entered into with the City of Bozeman guaranteeing the completion of all improvements in accordance with the preliminary plat submittal information and conditions of approval. If the final plat is filed prior to the installation of all improvements, the developer shall supply the City of Bozeman with an acceptable method of security equal to 150 percent of the cost of the remaining improvements. 3. Sec. 38.240.450 - Certificate of completion of non-public improvements. a. Certificate must specifically list all installed improvements and financially guaranteed improvements. 4. Sec. 38.410.060. - Easements. a. All Easements indicated below must be provided on city standard easements templates. Drafts must be prepared for review and approval by the city. Signed hard copies of the easements must be submitted to the City prior final plat approval. The applicant may contact the review engineer to receive standard templates. b. The applicant must provide a ten foot utility easement (power, gas, communication, etc.) along the developments property frontage. c. The applicant must provide a storm drainage easement along the proposed storm sewer main and detention facility. 369 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 11 of 18 d. The final plat must provide all necessary utility easements and they must be described, dimensioned and shown on each subdivision block of the final plat in their true and correct location. 5. Sec. 38.410.130 - Water Adequacy. a. Subject to subsections B and C, prior to final approval by the review authority of development occurring under this chapter or chapter 10, the applicant must offset the entire estimated increase in annual municipal water demand attributable to the development pursuant to subsection D. i. Payment-in-lieu of water rights must be made for the townhouse lots prior to final plat approval. 6. Sec. 38.410.130.C.2 - Water Adequacy. a. Compliance with this section is deferred for the following developments until the occurrence of future development if the applicant records a notice of restriction on future development in a form acceptable to the review authority with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder: Individual lots of a subdivision final plat planned for future multiple-household development. i. A note must be included in the conditions of approval sheet indicating lots which will require future payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights upon future development. SECTION 5 – RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS The Development Review Committee (DRC) determined the application was adequate for continued review and recommended approval with conditions on September 1, 2021. Planning Board meeting will be held Monday, September 20, 2021 at 6:00 pm. Link: https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php?MTID=e4599f6e0fe0a5 21f4a684a5ae3eda45f City Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 6:00 pm via WebEx. A WebEx link will be provided with the City Commission agenda. 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 Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 38.240.130.A.5.e, BMC. In considering applications for subdivision approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following: 370 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 12 of 18 1) Compliance with the survey requirements of Part 4 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act The preliminary plat was prepared in accordance with the surveying and monumentation requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Montana. As noted in the code requirements, the final plat must comply with State statute, Administrative Rules of Montana, and the Bozeman Municipal Code. 2) Compliance with the local subdivision regulations provided for in Part 5 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act The final plat must comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Bozeman Municipal Code. The subdivider is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions not specifically listed as a condition 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. Sections 3 and 4 of this report identify conditions and code provisions necessary to meet all municipal standards. The listed code requirements address necessary documentation and compliance with standards. Therefore, upon satisfaction of all conditions and code corrections the subdivision will comply with the subdivision regulations. 3) Compliance with the local subdivision review procedures provided for in Part 6 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act The Bozeman Planning Board and City Commission public hearings were properly noticed in accordance with the Bozeman Municipal Code. Based on the recommendation of the Development Review Committee (DRC) and other applicable review agencies, as well as any public testimony received on the matter, the City Commission will make the final decision on the subdivider’s request. The Department of Community Development received a preliminary plat application on June 2, 2021. The DRC reviewed the preliminary plat application and determined the submittal did not contained detailed, supporting information that was sufficient to allow for the continued review of the proposed subdivision on July 7, 2021. A revised application was received on August 4, 2021. The DRC determined the application was adequate for continued review on September 1, 2021 and recommended conditions of approval and code corrections for the staff report. The City scheduled public notice for this application for publication in the legal advertisements section of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on Friday, September 3, 2021 for postings on Sundays, September 5 and September 12, 2021. The applicant posted public notice on the subject property on September 5, 2021. The applicant sent public notice to physically adjacent landowners via certified mail, and to all other landowners of record within 200-feet of the subject property via first class mail, on September 5, 2021. No public comment had been received on this application as of the writing of this report. 371 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 13 of 18 On September 16, 2021 this major subdivision staff report was completed and forwarded with a recommendation of conditional approval for consideration to the Planning Board. 4) Compliance with Chapter 38, BMC and other relevant regulations Community Development staff and the DRC reviewed the preliminary plat against all applicable regulations and the application complies with the BMC and all other relevant regulations with conditions and code corrections. This report includes Conditions of Approval and required code provisions as recommended by the DRC for consideration by the City Commission to complete the application processing for final plat approval. All municipal water and sewer facilities will conform to the regulations outlined by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the requirements of the Design Standards and Specifications Policy and the City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. 5) The provision of easements to and within the subdivision for the location and installation of any necessary utilities The final plat will provide and depict all necessary utilities and required utility easements. Code requirement No. 4, requires that all easements, existing and proposed, must be accurately depicted and addressed on the final plat and in the final plat application. Public utilities are located within dedicated street right of ways. 6) The provision of legal and physical access to each parcel within the subdivision and the notation of that access on the applicable plat and any instrument transferring the parcel The final plat will provide legal and physical access to each parcel within the subdivision. All of the proposed lots will have frontage on public streets constructed to City standards with lot frontage meeting minimum standards shown on the preliminary plat. Primary Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 76-3-608 1) The effect on agriculture This subdivision will not impact agriculture. The City of Bozeman Community Plan designates the subject property as Urban Neighborhood designation which allows for the proposed uses. The lot is currently vacated residential land with no significant agricultural uses. 2) The effect on Agricultural water user facilities This subdivision will not impact agricultural water user facilities. No irrigation facilities are present on the lots. No water body alterations are proposed. 3) The effect on Local services Water/Sewer – The existing water and sewer mains located in Roger’s Way will be extended with this development and will provide adequate service to all newly constructed residential uses. 372 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 14 of 18 Utilities – Utilities to serve the residential lots will be constructed with phase I and will connect to the main extensions provided with this development. Standard 10-foot front yard utility easements have been provided across the lots. Streets – This project will construct the continuation and connection of Roger’s Way and Daffodil Street through the site. Per City Pre-Application comments, the applicant will construct a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at the intersection of N. 27th and Durston Road. The existing curb cuts along Durston will be abandoned as part of the project. The applicant has also requested to construct the Roger’s Way at a grade of 0.43% which is less than the minimum allowable of 0.5%. This has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be acceptable. Police/Fire – The City’s Police and Fire emergency response area includes the subject property. This subdivision does not impact the City’ ability to provide emergency services to the property. Stormwater – Stormwater is proposed to be managed on-site with this development. Two drainage basins are proposed. The applicant has requested that the stormwater drain pipe that crosses Roger’s Way near the north-center portion of the site be allowed to be buried to a minimum depth of 12 inches, as opposed to the standard of 2 feet. This has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be acceptable. Parkland – Cash-in-lieu of parkland will be provided with this development, as determined by the Parks Department. 4) The effect on the Natural environment No significant physical or topographical features have been identified, (e.g., outcroppings, geological formations, steep slopes), on the subject property. Provisions will be made to address the control of noxious weeds and maintenance of the property and will be further addressed by inclusion in the existing protective covenants and compliance with the recommended conditions of approval. 5) The effect on Wildlife and wildlife habitat The subdivision will not significantly impact wildlife and wildlife habitat. The subdivision is zoned for residential development and is surrounded by adjacent residentially zoned properties that are fully developed. There are no known endangered or significant wildlife populations on the property. 6) The effect on Public health and safety With the recommended Conditions of Approval and required plat corrections, the subdivision will not significantly impact public health and safety. The intent of the regulations in Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The DRC reviewed the subsequent minor subdivision preliminary plat and determined that it is in compliance with the title. This staff report notes all other conditions deemed necessary to ensure compliance. In addition, all subdivisions must be reviewed against the criteria listed in 76-3- 373 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 15 of 18 608.3.b-d, Montana Code Annotated (MCA). As a result, the Department of Community Development reviewed this application against the listed criteria and further provides the following summary for submittal materials and requirements. This report includes findings to justify the recommended site-specific Conditions of Approval for reasonable mitigation of impacts from the proposed minor subdivision. Preliminary Plat Supplements The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed a subdivision pre-application plan review on February 10, 2021 and no variances were requested. The applicant requested and was granted waivers for Wildlife, Historical Features, Agriculture, and Neighborhood Center Plan. Staff offers the following summary comments on the supplemental information required with Article 38.220.060, BMC. 38.220.060.A.1 – Surface water This subdivision will not significantly impact surface water. An existing stream runs near the eastern boundary of the property and will be protected by a 50’ watercourse setback. 38.220.060.A.2 - Floodplains No mapped 100-year floodplains impact the subject property. A floodplain was mapped with Phase 3C of the subdivision and is well within the 50’ watercourse setback. No construction within or near the floodplain will occur. 38.220.060.A.3 - Groundwater A geotechnical site evaluation was completed in March 2021 and included seven test pits, the majority of which remained dry, indicating there are no issues due to deep groundwater, however a condition of approval will restrict the construction of basements. 38.220.060.A.4 - Geology, Soils and Slopes This subdivision will not significantly impact the geology, soils or slopes. No significant geological features or slopes exist on the site. 38.220.060.A.5 - Vegetation This subdivision will not significantly impact vegetation. No critical plant communities identified on site. 38.220.060.A.6 - Wildlife This subdivision will not significantly impact wildlife. A waiver for wildlife was granted during the Pre-Application process. 38.220.060.A.7 - Historical Features This subdivision will not significantly impact historic features. A waiver for historical features was granted during the Pre-Application process. 374 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 16 of 18 38.220.060.A.8 - Agriculture This subdivision will not impact agriculture. A waiver for agriculture was granted during the Pre-Application process. 38.220.060.A.89 - Agricultural Water User Facilities This subdivision will not impact agricultural water user facilities. No irrigation facilities are present on the lots. No water body alterations are proposed. 38.220.060.A.10 - Water and Sewer The subdivision will not significantly impact city water and sewer infrastructure. Water and sewer improvements will be designed to meet City of Bozeman Standards and State Department of Environmental Quality Standards and Regulations. 38.220.060.A.111 - Stormwater Management The subdivision will not significantly impact stormwater infrastructure. See discussion above under primary review criteria. 38.220.060.A.12 - Streets, Roads and Alleys The subdivision will not significantly impact the City’s street infrastructure and will provide adequate improvements to support the development. See discussion above under primary review criteria. 38.220.060.A.13 - Utilities This subdivision will not significantly impact existing utilities. See discussion above under primary review criteria. 38.220.060.A.14 - Educational Facilities This subdivision will not significantly impact educational facilities. The applicant has contacted the Director of Facilities for the Bozeman Public Schools who has indicated that the development will not significantly impact enrollment. 38.220.060.A.15 - Land Use The subdivision will not significantly impact land use. The proposed subdivision will create 16 townhouse lots, 2 multi-household lots, one single-household lot, and 1 open space lots. 38.220.060.A.16 - Parks and Recreation Facilities This proposed subdivision will be required to provide cash-in-lieu of parkland as determined by the Parks Department. 38.220.060.A.17 - Neighborhood Center Plan The subdivision was granted a waiver neighborhood center plan during Pre-Application review for the project. 38.220.060.A.18 - Lighting Plan This subdivision will not significantly impact lighting. No new lighting is proposed. 375 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 17 of 18 38.220.060.A.19 - Miscellaneous The proposed subdivision is not located within 200 feet of any public land access or within a delineated Wildland Urban Interface area. 38.220.060.A.20 - Affordable Housing The City’s Legal Division has advised that due to the state’s adoption of HB 259 related to inclusionary zoning, the City will not enforce the requirements for affordable housing cash in lieu as originally required during the preliminary plat and as reflected in the findings of fact. The affordable housing plan and plat notes related to affordable housing and cash in lieu have been removed from this application or will be eliminated prior to final plat. 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 provide for the development of one- to five-household residential structures near service facilities within the city. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The subject property is designated 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. This proposed subdivision is well-suited to implement the Urban Neighborhood by providing lots that will support a variety of housing types including townhouses, multi-household, and single household units. APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Background and Description A preliminary plat application by the applicant, WGM Group, 109 E. Main St., Ste. B, Bozeman, MT 59715, representing the property owner Russell Hosner, LLC, 7003 Jackson Creek Road, Bozeman, MT 59715. 376 21201 Staff Report for Annie Ph. 4 Major Subdivision Page 18 of 18 APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Notice was provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to the City Commission public hearing per BMC 38.220.420, The City scheduled public notice for this application on September 4, 2021 for publication in the legal advertisements section of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on Sunday, September 5 and Sunday, September 12, 2021. The applicant posted public notice on the subject property on September 5, 2021. The City sent public notice to physically adjacent landowners via certified mail, and to all other landowners of record within 200-feet of the subject property via first class mail, on September 5, 2021. No public comment had been received on this application as of the writing of this report. APPENDIX D – OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: Russell Hosner, LLC, 7003 Jackson Creek Road, Bozeman, MT 59715 Applicant: WGM Group, 109 E. Main St., Ste. B, Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative: WGM Group, 109 E. Main St., Ste. B, Bozeman, MT 59715 Report By: Jacob Miller, Associate Planner FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this subdivision. 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 #21201, 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?startid=232508&cr=1 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=21-201 Public Comment: None to date 377 378 ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4VICINITY MAPWGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMNOWNER/SUBDIVIDER379 380 s>KWDEdZs/tWW>/d/KE REPRESENTATIVE Name: Full Address: Email: WŚŽŶĞ͗ APPLICANT Name: Full Address: Email: WŚŽŶĞ͗ PROPERTY OWNER Name: Full Address: Email: WŚŽŶĞ͗ CERTIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURES dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶŵƵƐƚďĞƐŝŐŶĞĚďLJďŽƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ;ƐͿĂŶĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌ;ƐͿ;ŝĨĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚͿĨŽƌĂůůĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƚLJƉĞƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ ƐƵďŵŝƩĂůǁŝůůďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚ͘dŚĞŽŶůLJĞdžĐĞƉƟŽŶƚŽƚŚŝƐŝƐĂŶŝŶĨŽƌŵĂůƌĞǀŝĞǁĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƚŚĂƚŵĂLJďĞƐŝŐŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ;ƐͿŽŶůLJ͘ ƐŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ;ƐͿďĞůŽǁ͕ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ;ƐͿĂŶĚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌ;ƐͿƐƵďŵŝƚƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞƚĞƌŵƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞŽnjĞŵĂŶDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽĚĞ͘/ƚŝƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚĂŶLJǁŽƌŬƵŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶƚŽĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨŽnjĞŵĂŶƐŚĂůůďĞŝŶĐŽŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚĞŽnjĞŵĂŶDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽĚĞĂŶĚĂŶLJƐƉĞĐŝĂů ĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůĂƵƚŚŽƌŝƚLJ͘/ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJŚĂƐĂŶ/ŵƉĂĐƚ&ĞĞWƌŽŐƌĂŵĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚĨĞĞƐŵĂLJďĞ ĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĨŽƌŵLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘&ƵƌƚŚĞƌ͕/ĂŐƌĞĞƚŽŐƌĂŶƚŝƚLJƉĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŐĞŶĐLJƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟǀĞ͛ƐĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ;^ĞĐƟŽŶϯϴ͘ϮϬϬ͘ϬϱϬ͕DͿ͘/;tĞͿŚĞƌĞďLJĐĞƌƟĨLJƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶŝƐƚƌƵĞĂŶĚ ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞďĞƐƚŽĨŵLJ;ŽƵƌͿŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ͘ ĞƌƟĮĐĂƟŽŶŽĨŽŵƉůĞƟŽŶĂŶĚŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞʹ/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŽĨĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůŵĂLJďĞĂƉƉůŝĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĂƚ /ǁŝůůĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚĂŶLJĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŽĨĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůŽƌŵĂŬĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJĐŽƌƌĞĐƟŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚ ŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůĐŽĚĞƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ͘ ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨ/ŶƚĞŶƚƚŽŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ&ŝŶĂůWůĂŶʹ/ĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŶŽƚŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĮŶĂůƉůĂŶŵĂLJƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĚĞůĂLJƐŽĨŽĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJŽƌĐŽƐƚƐƚŽĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŶŽŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͘ ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ WƌŝŶƚĞĚEĂŵĞ͗ KǁŶĞƌ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗   WƌŝŶƚĞĚEĂŵĞ͗ ZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟǀĞ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ WƌŝŶƚĞĚEĂŵĞ͗ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ Page 2ŽĨ3 ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶĂƚĞ͗:ƵŶĞϮϬϮϬ Russell Hosner, LLC PO Box 1567 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 drew@russellhosner.com 503-816-4539 WGM Group - Gary Fox 109 East Main Ste. B, Bozeman, MT 59715 gfox@wgmgroup.com 406-728-4611 Same as Applicant Gary Fox - WGM Group Drew Russell 381 382 CVA Page 1 of 2 4-8-20 Development Review Application COVID-19 Acknowledgment of Application Processing Delays On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued a Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak. On March 12, 2020, the Governor of the State of Montana issued Executive Order No. 2-2020 Declaring a State of Emergency to Exist Within the State of Montana Related to the Communicable Disease COVID-19. The City of Bozeman issued a COVID-19 emergency declaration on March 16, 2020. The City subsequently issued Order ED-05 setting forth public meeting protocols on March 31, 2020 and Order ED-06 closing City facilities to public entry, including the Stiff Professional Building, on March 23, 2020. Order ED-05 states in relevant parts, “In accordance with the Emergency Declaration, public meeting agendas will be limited to only essential matters. . . .” It describes notice requirements, the use of videoconferencing or telephonic technology to hold remote hearings, and providing the public an opportunity to participate remotely. A copy of Order ED- 05 is attached to this form. On March 27, 2020 the Attorney General of the State of Montana issued a letter of guidance to local governments recommending public meetings be held only for essential business, and those public meetings be held remotely. Provisions in the emergency declarations and City of Bozeman Orders may restrict or delay the ability of the City to complete the review and finally approve certain development review applications. Acknowledgment and signatures This acknowledgement must be signed by both the applicant(s) and the property owner(s) (if different) for all application types before the submittal will be accepted and processed. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code the City’s COVID-19 Emergency Declaration and subsequent Orders issued by the City Manager. I acknowledge that the City may be delayed in the processing of my application and may not be able to complete the application review within standard time limits due to the constraints present under the emergency orders. I (We) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Certification of Acknowledgment – I understand that there may be delays in the processing of my application and that it may reach a point in processing where it may not proceed to final approval and that I will not hold the City responsible for any delays presented under the emergency order. Applicant Signature: Printed Name: Owner Signature: 383 Page 2 of 2 4-8-20 Printed Name: Owner Signature Printed Name: If signing as a corporation or LLC, please provide the title and position of the individual signing on behalf of the corporation/LLC. Attach separate sheets for additional owner signatures. Drew Russell 384 385 386 ZONING:R-3ZONING:R-4ZONING:R-3ZONING:R-3ZONING:R-3ZONING:R-3LEGEND-EXISTINGLEGEND-PROPOSEDAREASBASIS OF BEARINGSANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4ZONINGWGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COMNSITE ADDRESSLEGAL DESCRIPTIONVERTICAL DATUM387 Amendment to the Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC Declaration Page 1 Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION YOUR SIGNATURES ARE NEEDED! On the _____ day of ________________________ , 20____ , the members of the Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC voted to amend the: Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Annie Subdivision, recorded as Document No. 2080912 on September 12, 2002 with the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Gallatin County, Montana. Signature Requirement for Passage: according to Article XI, Section 6 of the Declaration, the Declaration may only be amended by signatures of Owners representing not less than sixty percent (60%) of the Owners of the Lots of the Association. Each Lot is entitled to one (1) vote. Therefore, if more than sixty percent (60%) of the Lot interests within Annie IIIA, Annie IIIB and Annie IIIC Subdivisions vote YES, then the below amendment passes. This means that thirty-three (33) of the fifty-five (55) Annie III Subdivision Lots or more must vote “yes” by signing this document below to pass this Amendment. You are signing on the below amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Annie Subdivision, recorded as Document No. 2080912 on September 12, 2002 with the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Gallatin County, Montana (Hereinafter referred to as “Amendment”). If passed, the Amendment shall be recorded with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office. The Amendment is set forth below. The Amendment will modify the existing Declaration as specifically stated in the Amendment. This Amendment shall amend and supersede the previously aforementioned Declarations for the Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC and the Annie Subdivision, as amended on this _____ day of _____________________ , 20_____ , and shall apply to all the real property and improvements placed or constructed thereon and shall be in existence in perpetuity unless this is amended or terminated by operation of law. In the event any provision of this Amendment is declared invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. The Property by which this Amendment submitted and subject to the Unit Ownership Act is legally described as: Annie Subdivision III, a tract of land being Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase 3C, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-343. NO NEW UNITS ARE BEING DECLARED BY THIS AMENDMENT. The following Articles and Sections of the Declaration for the Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC are amended pursuant to Article XI of the original Declaration as follows: 388 Amendment to the Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC Declaration Page 2 AMENDMENT TO THE DECLARATION Changes in the Declaration language are denoted with italics (new language) and strikethough (removed language.) Please sign to approve this Amendment: AMENDMENT 1: Amend paragraphs entitled “Witnesseth” of the Declaration to read as follows: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain property in the County of Gallatin, State of Montana, which is more particularly described as: Annie Subdivision III, a tract of land being Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-343. NOW THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of the properties described above, shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following easements, restrictions, covenants, and conditions, which are for the purpose of the protection the value and desirability of, and which shall run with the real property and be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the described properties or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. WHEREAS, Pursuant to the Annie Subdivision Declaration, the Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC and the Annie Phase 4 Homeowners’ Association choose to each operate separately under their own declaration. Each homeowners’ association will operate separately under the current Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Annie Subdivision, recorded as Document No. 2080912 on September 12, 2002 with the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Gallatin County, Montana until they desire to amend them with a sixty (60%) vote of their particular association members. Declarant is the owner of certain property in the County of Gallatin, State of Montana, which is more particularly described as: Annie Subdivision III, a tract of land being Lot 1 of Annie Subdivision Phase II, except for Lot 1, located in the SE ¼ of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, Plat J-343. NOW THEREFORE, the Association hereby declares that all of the properties described above, shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following easements, restrictions, covenants, and conditions, which are for the purpose of the protection of the value and desirability of, and which shall run with the real property and be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest 389 Amendment to the Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC Declaration Page 3 in the described properties or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of, each owner thereof. Dated this _____ day of ______________, 2021. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ 390 Amendment to the Annie Subdivision Phases IIIC Declaration Page 4 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ 391 1 Gary Fox From:Brian Heaston <bheaston@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent:Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:22 PM To:Gary Fox Subject:RE: Subdivision of 2305 Durston Road [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. This message ballparks preliminary CILWR fee for the subdivision.      Townhouse lot annual demand = 0.234 AF/yr  MF lots: CILWR deferred until future development pursuant to Sec. 38.410.130.C.2 BMC  Existing offsets = 0 (can’t locate any historical documentation that CILWR was provided to plat Annie 3C.  If proof of  payment or provision of water rights can be provided, an offset credit will be given)    38.410.130 BMC demand estimate: 0.234*14 = 3.28 AF  CILWR @ $6,000/AF = $19,680    A well is preferred for irrigation water.  Demand supplied by a groundwater water right will offset demand estimate  commensurately.     Updated administrative procedures manual is being developed now.  Should be final 1st qtr of 2021.  The manual  provides implementation details concerning demand estimates, offsets, water rights transfers, etc. for 38.410.130 BMC.     From: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com>   Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:13 PM  To: Brian Heaston <bheaston@BOZEMAN.NET>  Subject: [SENDER UNVERIFIED]Subdivision of 2305 Durston Road  Hi Brian,    Thank you for the preliminary CILWR determination.     Attached is the preliminary subdivision layout.  We are planning to submit Subdivision Pre‐Application soon.  Two  existing buildings (home and shop) are planned to be removed.    Project Site:                        2305 Durston Road                                                  Lot 1, Annie Subdivision Phase 3C (Plat J‐482)                                                  3.241 Acres  Preliminary Plan:              14 Townhome Lots                                                   3 Multi‐Family Units (each 4‐Plexes)                                                  1 Duplex Lot    Is use of an exempt well typical/recommended for irrigation water supply?    Please let me know if you need more information.    Thank you,            392 2                     Gary Fox Project Engineer     From: Brian Heaston <bheaston@BOZEMAN.NET>   Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:13 AM  To: Gary Fox <gfox@wgmgroup.com>  Subject: RE: Subdivision of 2305 Durston Road  [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Only open attachments or click on links from senders you trust. Gary ‐ Go ahead and send me the pre‐app layout and proposed landuses of proposed lots and I’ll put a preliminary  CILWR determination together.    Brian  City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may  be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender  and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record  retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be  protected from disclosure under law. 393 ANNIE SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4WGMGROUPWWW.WGMGROUP.COM394 Memorandum REPORT TO:Planning Board FROM:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner SUBJECT:Introduction to Form Based Codes (FBC). MEETING DATE:September 20, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:No action required. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.1 Informed Conversation on Growth: Continue developing an in-depth understanding of how Bozeman is growing and changing and proactively address change in a balanced and coordinated manner. BACKGROUND:The Board has expressed interest in Form-Based Codes (FBC) and how they might be applied to the City of Bozeman. There are a wide variety of resources from academic, practical, and general educational. The most robust sources are from proponents of the approach such as the Form-Base Codes Institute. Ongoing educational opportunities are readily available from the American Planning Association (APA). Any subject matter has more depth and complexity than generally anticipated and FBC’s are no different. In an effort the to cut through the clutter of resources we have selected a few more effective resources to pass on to you. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) prepared a FBC handbook in association of the creation and adoption of the “GO TO 2040 comprehensive regional plan.” The purpose of the handbook provided local agencies a step-by-step guide to form-based codes, an alternative approach to zoning. The handbook is attached to this memo. Link to handbook is HERE. file:///Q:/Office/Misc%20resources/Form%20Based%20COdes%20CMAP- GuideforCommunities.pdf The Montana Department of Commerce, in association with WGM Group, prepared an introduction to Form Based Codes. This webinar can be reviewed HERE and at the following link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YK3rUBs5d8 395 A more in-depth and academic resource is Form Based Codes: A Guide for Planner, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers, by D. Parolek, K. Parolek, and P. Crawford, Wiley, March 2008. The book can be purchased form a variety of sources. Link is HERE. https://www.wiley.com/en- us/Form+Based+Codes%3A+A+Guide+for+Planners%2C+Urban+Designers%2C+Municipalities%2C+and+Developers- p-9780470049853 The Form-Based Code Institute offers a series of online tutorials to different audiences including practitioners, commission and boards, and the general public. The Form-Based Codes Institute (FBCI), a program of Smart Growth America, is a professional organization dedicated to advancing the understanding and use of form-based codes. The intensive practitioner course is a three piece program while the prerecorded webinars offer overview to FBC for three different groups. The three part course is not being offered at this time. The webinars are available at any time and a fee is required. Three course FBC program FBC Webinars UNRESOLVED ISSUES:The Form-Based Code Institute has not responded to staff inquiry on how large audiences can view the webinars concurrently. In addition, how can member of the public who may wish to view the information without the purchase of individual access per viewer. ALTERNATIVES:None FISCAL EFFECTS:Cost of webinar series per view or group. Attachments: Form Based COdes CMAP-GuideforCommunities.pdf Report compiled on: September 14, 2021 396 Form-Based Codes: A Step-by-Step Guide for Communities 397 Acknowledgements Special thanks to: Daniel and Karen Parolek, Opticos Design, Inc. Carol Wyant, Form-Based Codes Institute Alan Mammoser, Form-Based Codes Institute Heather Smith, Congress for the New Urbanism Krysti Barksdale-Noble, United City of Yorkville Jeff Brady, Village of Glenview Robert Cole, Village of Oak Park Kimberly Flom, Village of Orland Park Bryan Gay, City of Crest Hill Scott Magnum, Village of Des Plaines David Mekarski, Village of Olympia Fields Dustin Nilsen, Village of Antioch Jeff O’Brien, Village of Downers Grove Kimberly Stone, Village of Lockport Additional thanks to the following irms for permission to use images of their work: Dover, Kohl & Partners Farr Associates Ferrell Madden/Code Studio The Lakota Group Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists Teska Associates Torti Gallas and Partners Urban Advantage Urban Design Associates The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is the region’s oficial comprehensive planning organization. Its GO TO 2040 planning campaign is helping the region’s seven counties and 284 communities to implement strategies that address transportation, housing, economic development, open space, the environment, and other quality of life issues. See www.cmap.illinois.gov for more information. The Form-Based Codes Institute (FBCI) is a non-proit professional organization dedicated to advancing the understanding and use of form-based codes. FBCI pursues this objective through three main areas of action: developing standards for form-based codes, providing education, and creating a forum for discussion and advancement of form-based codes. See www.formbasedcodes.org for more information. Endorsed by Cover photo: Main Street, Antioch, Illinois. © 2013 Google, Image Date: August 2012.398 3 Table of Contents Purpose of Handbook 5 GO TO 2040 5 Who Should Use This Handbook? 5 Introduction: What are Form-Based Codes? 7 Conventional Zoning 8 Form-Based Codes 9 Should Your Community Adopt a Form-Based Code? 11 Different Methods 12 Step One: Scoping 15 Who Should Be Involved? 16 Deine Your Form-Based Codes Area 16 Planning Process 16 Relationship with Existing Regulations 17 Organizing Principle 17 Template Codes 18 Step Two: Assessing Existing Conditions 21 Community Sub-Areas 22 Smaller Scale Details 23 Step Three: Visioning and Creating Regulations 25 Engaging the Community 26 Explaining and Illustrating the Zoning Districts 27 Creating the Regulating Plan and Zoning District Regulations 33 Optional Components That May be Included in a Form-Based Code 37 Creating the Development Review Process 40 Conclusion 43 Learn More 44 399 Hinsdale, Illinois. Credit: Hinsdale Magazine, Inc. | Hinsdale60521.com. 400 5 One of the central goals of the GO TO 2040 comprehensive regional plan is to make our region a better place to live. This means creating livable communities at the local level through planning and development decisions made by local government oficials, developers, and individuals. This handbook provides a step-by-step guide to form-based codes, an alternative approach to zoning. GO TO 2040 GO TO 2040 states that deining “livability” is a challenge simply because people’s values and priorities are so diverse. However, when residents across the region describe their values and priorities, certain commonalities of livability emerge. Livable communities are healthy, safe, and walkable. Livable communities offer transportation choices that provide timely access to schools, jobs, services, and basic needs. Livable communities are imbued with strength and vitality, features which emerge from preserving the unique characteristics that give our diverse communities “a sense of place.” GO TO 2040 states that the building blocks of local planning are comprehensive plans, consistent ordinances and other regulations, and trained decision-makers. Local comprehensive plans are the vision of what a community wants to become and the steps needed to meet that goal. Most communities ind that a irst necessary step to implement a comprehensive plan is to update their zoning ordinance. As communities have sought to reinvigorate their downtowns or create viable commercial corridors, many have found that conventional methods of zoning, oriented around regulating land use, may not address certain physical characteristics that contribute to the sense of place in a community. While it is important to consider which uses should occur in a given place, we live in a visual world, and conventional methods of zoning often do not suficiently address the fundamental aesthetic character of our communities — existing or desired. Form-based codes, which emphasize the physical character of development, offer an alternative. This handbook explains what form-based codes are and how they are created to help communities assess whether they may be right for them. Who Should Use This Handbook? Most communities lack the staff expertise and time necessary to develop a form-based code on their own and therefore choose to hire consultants to lead the effort and perform most of the work. However, it is vital that municipalities understand the scope of work that is required in the creation of a form-based code. Municipalities that educate themselves on the typical steps that are necessary will be in a better position to gauge the amount of outside assistance that is needed (and the amount of funding that will be required), write a more precise request for proposals (RFP), and evaluate consulting irms bidding for the project. Once the development of the form- based code is underway, well-informed municipal staff can better facilitate the process and monitor the work of hired consultants. Municipal staff will be responsible for administering the new form- based code once it is adopted, and possessing an understanding of how it was created is likely to provide a more nuanced appreciation of the reasons behind the regulations, as well as the amount of hard work that went into its creation. Purpose of Handbook 401 Axonometric Diagram: Forecourt Section Diagram: Forecourt Plan Diagram: Forecourt b a R.O.W f d e g f d a R.O.W Parcel e c b a R.O.W Setback Line Section Diagram: Stoop Axonometric Diagram: Frontyard / Porch Plan Diagram: Stoop c a R.O.W Parcel Setback line b R.O.W ed b a R.O.W d a1 a1 Section Diagram: Frontyard / PorchAxonometric Diagram : Frontyard / Porch Plan Diagram: Frontyard / Porch e a R.O.W Parcel Setback Line c d b R.O.W a e d c a1 b a R.O.W a1 e e a1 a1 a1 a1 Architectural Standardards - Frontage Types, Transit Zoning Code (2010), City of Santa Ana, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. 6 402 7 Nearly everyone can identify things they like in their community and things they want to change. Whether a favorite house, street, or place, it’s common to wonder why there isn’t more of what we like and less of what we don’t. There are many reasons for this dissatisfaction with the physical character of many of our communities, especially the quality of the public realm. One reason is that conventional methods of zoning, which are focused on what uses are permitted, have often shaped the form of the built environment in unintended— and occasionally unwanted—ways. Form-based codes include speciication of what uses are permitted in a building or place, but focus on the physical character of development, particularly how it relates to the public realm that everyone shares. A growing number of communities across the country and in our region have found that form-based codes are a more precise and reliable tool for achieving what they want, preserving what they cherish, and preventing what they don’t want. Introduction What are Form- Based Codes? 403 Conventional Zoning Conventional methods of zoning arose out of the need to protect public health, safety, and welfare by preventing the most negative impacts of siting, size, and use of buildings. Limiting the spread of ire from one building to another, providing access to sunlight and air, and separating smoke-producing industry from residential uses are but a few of the worthy objectives that conventional zoning was intended to fulill. In addition to helping protect public health, safety, and welfare, conventional zoning was meant to protect property values by separating incompatible uses in a particular area or district. This separation is typically accomplished by creating single- or limited- use zones that segregate different land uses, such as residential and commercial. Fueled in part by rapid national growth in population and gross domestic product that followed the end of World War II, the practice of separating “incompatible” land uses led to the near universal segregation of different land uses—often at great distance from one another. As a result, cities and towns have increasingly been placing residential uses in one area, commercial in another, and industrial in still another. In particular, conventional zoning tends to isolate single-family homes from all other types of development. The development resulting from such zoning requirements often makes it dificult, if not impossible, to walk from home to purchase a quart of milk. Public transportation has become increasingly less eficient in these areas, and travel by personal automobile has often made more sense. Accordingly, maximizing the low of trafic has been a top priority for street design, which has increasingly yielded streets designed for car travel, not pedestrians. Over the decades, these and other related factors shaped the urban environment of many communities. Often a community’s unique “sense of place” has been diminished—or, in many new communities, was never achieved in the irst place. In general, conventional zoning: • Separates uses related to daily activity, such as home, school, and work. • Frequently promotes low-density development and relatively limited housing choices. • Often encourages excessive land consumption and automobile dependency. • Ends up focusing on what uses are not allowed, rather than encouraging what the community actually wants. • Applies standards and design requirements generically, in a “one-size-fits-all” manner, throughout the entire community. • Uses regulations such as floor area ratio, which can shape the form of development in ways that are hard to visualize beforehand and may encourage developers to “max out” the massing of a building within allowed limits, often at the expense of its architectural detailing and sensitivity to existing context. • Regulates private development, but typically not the design or character of the streets that serve it. This usually leaves development of standards to the city engineer or public works department, which tend to focus on accommodating automobile traffic. Ultimately, development and street standards in conventional zoning often do not promote the type of development envisioned by a community’s comprehensive plan, and even when created with the best of intentions, they can undermine the very plans they are supposed to support. Chicago suburbs from the air. Credit: Flickr user Shawndra and Simon. 404 9WHAT ARE FORM-BASED CODES? Form-Based Codes In the 1980s, a group of planners and architects sought to create an alternative to conventional zoning, focused less on use and more on scale, intensity of development, the shape of public spaces, and the interrelationships between buildings. During this period, the design irm Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company drafted what was effectively the irst modern form-based code to guide the development of Seaside, Florida, a new community based on traditional neighborhood design principles. A radical departure from conventional zoning, the entire “Urban Code” for Seaside was graphically presented on one poster. But what are form-based codes? Form-based codes are a method of development regulation, adopted into municipal or county law, that emphasizes the physical character of development (its form) and includes—but often de-emphasizes—the regulation of land uses. As in a conventional zoning ordinance, land uses are regulated, but land use is typically regulated more broadly, with land use categories in lieu of long lists of speciic permitted uses. A form-based code focuses on how development relates to the context of the surrounding community, especially the relationships between buildings and the street, pedestrians and vehicles, and public and private spaces. The code addresses these concerns by regulating site design, circulation, and overall building form. Due to this emphasis on design, form-based codes usually provide greater predictability about the visual aspects of development, including how well it its in with the existing context of the community. They offer a community the means to create the physical development it wants and developers a clearer understanding of what the community seeks. Over time, these beneits can foster greater community acceptance of new development. A form-based code can be customized to the vision of any community, including preserving and enhancing the existing character of one neighborhood or dramatically changing and improving the character of another. Typically, they do both. But how do form-based codes differ from conventional zoning? In general, a form-based code: • Encourages a mix of land uses, often reducing the need to travel extensively as part of one’s daily routine. • Promotes a mix of housing types. • Is “proactive,” focusing on what the community wants and not what it dislikes. • Results from a public design process, which creates consensus and a clear vision for a community, to be implemented by the form-based code. • Tailors the requirements to it speciic places or neighborhoods by relecting local architecture and overall character. • Emphasizes site design and building form, which will last many years beyond speciic numerical parameters such as density and use regulations that are likely to change over time. • Addresses the design of the public realm and the importance that streetscape design and individual building character have in deining public spaces and a special “sense of place.” • Provides information that is easier to use than conventional zoning codes because it is shorter, more concise, and emphasizes illustrations over text. Urban Code (1986), Town of Seaside, Florida. Credit: Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. Toft Avenue improvements, Downtown Form-Based Code (2010), Village of Antioch, Illinois. Credit: The Lakota Group. 405 SmartCode Transect Map SmartCode Transect Map with existing buildings added 1 2 3 New commercial and office buildings are clustered at intersections SMARTCODE DEVELOPMENT ILLUSTRATED Comparison of typical development patterns under conventional zoning and the SmartCode form-based code template, Downtown Montgomery Plan (2007), City of Montgomery, Alabama. Credit: Dover, Kohl & Partners. 4 5 6 New residential units locate at intersections; planned corridor de- velopment connects intersections. Clustered, mixed-use areas become neighborhoods and urban centers which attract new development. The SmartCode requires street trees in the public and private realm. In time, an urban canopy is created. 4 5 6 The intent of the conventional ordinance is the segregation of uses. Different building New development and redevelop- ment can occur in any commercial zoning, unconnected to each other. Years worth of office space growth are "spent" on self-contained tow- ers with no effect on city vitality. Isolated new commercial uses and self-contained towers do not contribute to the creation of complete neighborhoods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Current zoning ordinance map with existing buildings The intent of the conventional ordinance is the segregation of uses. Different building uses are shown with different colors. Current zoning ordinance map CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ILLUSTRATED 10 406 11 Should Your Community Adopt a Form-Based Code? Before embarking on the creation of a form-based code, a community needs to carefully consider whether a form-based code is the right tool to achieve community goals for the built environment. Current regulations may be suficient. A key indicator is whether the community has experienced a substantial amount of new development in recent years and if there is broad satisfaction with the built environment of a community (buildings, streets, public spaces, etc.). It is common for residents to express high satisfaction with their community’s built environment when it has remained largely unchanged over several decades, often the result of strict preservation laws or low demand for new development. A Means of Preservation and Transformation If current regulations are not suficient, form-based codes can preserve what residents love about the physical character of their community, ensuring that future development is in harmony with existing context or facilitating varying degrees of change. Either way, the main purpose of a form-based code is to proactively regulate the physical form and character of new development so that the community gets what it wants, rather than reacting to those elements of each development proposal on a piecemeal basis (or not at all). It should be noted that while conventional architectural standards can be effective at preserving context, they are often applied subjectively. In addition, some architectural standards lack the necessary scope of regulation, leading to unforeseen consequences, such as new development that follows the letter of the law but only supericially its in with existing context. For example, architectural standards may permit the construction of an outsized, modern building on a lot located between two historic cottages once the developer agrees to paste decorative shutters on the building’s facade. Form-based codes are typically more comprehensive and directly address the aspects of building form that most impact the relationship between buildings and the public realm as a whole. An Adaptable Approach Form-based codes are not “one-size-its-all,” but are tailored to the local context, objectives, and means of each community. These considerations include the community’s existing physical character and goals for preservation or transformation, as well as its local political landscape and what inancial and staff resources are available to support the effort. Increasing Predictability, Lowering Risk, and Expanding Options for Developers Nevertheless, it is common for municipalities to be wary of adopting new development regulations, especially in dificult economic times. Although the adoption of any new form-based code will require developers, not to mention municipalities, to learn a new system of development regulation, comprehensive form-based codes have the potential to encourage and facilitate development more effectively than conventional regulations. Form-based codes are often easier to follow than conventional codes and ultimately more comprehensive, providing municipalities and potential developers with a system that, once learned, is more transparent, predictable, and thorough. As an added beneit, the need for review by a discretionary body such as a planning commission or design review board is often eliminated. In addition, form-based codes typically—but not always— reduce regulation of what uses are allowed within buildings. This can expand the potential market for new development and result in structures that are more adaptable to different kinds of tenants, today and throughout the evolution of the community over many decades. WHAT ARE FORM-BASED CODES? Photo simulation of proposed changes to Sheridan Road, Heart of Peoria Land Development Code (2007), Peoria, Illinois. Credit: Urban Advantage (www.urban-advantage.com). 407 12 Different Methods There are many approaches to creating a form-based code. Nevertheless, most methods share many of the same steps and speciic practices. The Form-Based Codes Institute (FBCI, www.formbasedcodes.org), led by Carol Wyant (who irst coined the term “form-based codes”), is a non-proit professional organization dedicated to advancing the understanding and use of form-based codes. FBCI offers an introductory webinar on the “ABCs of Form-Based Codes” and advanced, two-day courses on creating, adopting, and administering form-based codes. Architects Daniel and Karen Parolek of Opticos Design, Inc. are both on the FBCI Board of Directors and frequently serve as instructors for FBCI’s courses and webinars. Drawing upon years of experience developing award-winning form-based codes for communities across the nation, they wrote (with Paul Crawford) the inluential textbook Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers (2008), which offers a highly- detailed, comprehensive process for creating a form-based code that impressively incorporates established best practices. Their process may differ from that used by many consulting irms specializing in form-based codes, who often follow a highly customized process they’ve crafted over the years. But in order to provide municipalities in our region with an idea of what the creation of a form-based code could entail, a synopsis of the steps recommended by the authors follows. The steps include: Step 1: Scoping deines the area of the community to be addressed through the form-based code and the extent to which form-based codes interact with existing regulations. Step 2: Assessing Existing Conditions documents and analyzes the community’s existing urban form at different scales, providing a basis for the creation of the form-based code. Step 3: Visioning and Creating Regulations deines the community’s vision for its future and determines the speciic regulations and procedures of the form-based code. FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES Thoroughfare standards for Orchard Street in Transitional Core District, Downtown Form-Based Code (2010), Village of Antioch, Illinois. Credit: The Lakota Group. 408 Glenview Downtown Development Code June 17, 2008, Ordinance Number: 5112 Article 4: Design Standards 61 Building Types 4.6.1 Mixed Use Figure 4.1: Mixed-use Building on Corner Lot Example of mixed-use building on corner lot with articulated architecture. Design standards for mixed-use, Downtown Development Code (2008), Village of Glenview, Illinois. Credit: The Lakota Group. 13 409 McLEAN COURT MAPLEWOOD LANE AVENUELAKE STEVENS DRIVETALLTR STREETSTREETSTREETPINEPINE PINE COURT LANETINKERWAY SLEEPYHOLLOWROADWILLOW LANE WOODVIEW TINKERWAUKEGANGROVEHUTCHINGS DEWES STREET STREETAVENUESTREETSTREET STREET PRAIRIE GROVE PINECHURCHRAILROAD AVENU EDEPOT WASHINGTONROAD HENLEYSTREETAVENUERAILROADAVENUELEH IGH PRAIRIE GLENVIEW EEN AVENUE STREET VERNONRALEIGHROADROADHARLEMROADDowntown Revitalization Plan (2006), Village of Glenview, Illinois. Credit: The Lakota Group. 14 410 15 Step One Scoping Once a municipality chooses to develop a form-based code, there are several questions the community will need to carefully consider at the beginning of the process, such as: What staff should be involved? How much help will we need from consultants? Should the new form-based code cover the whole community, or just part of it? How much change do we want? The answers to these essential questions will determine the scope of the form-based code. 411 Municipal Staff Key municipal departmental staff are essential to the creation of the form-based code, participating—at a minimum—in an initial assessment of the existing zoning regulations, community visioning sessions and workshops, and code drafting and review. Departments that typically participate include planning, public works, parks and recreation, economic development, police, and ire. Consultant Assistance Consultants are typically engaged to augment the expertise of the municipal staff and often to lead the effort. These consultants are usually planners, architects, or urban designers. Depending on the focus and objectives of the form-based code effort, the consultant team could also draw on expertise from disciplines such as transportation planning, market analysis, historic preservation, legal support, and public participation. FBCI provides sample Request for Qualiications (RFQs) and RFPs at www.formbasedcodes.org. Deine Your Form-Based Codes Area Form-based codes can be applied at a variety of scales. Examples include: • Sub-areas within a municipality: Downtowns Deteriorating strip commercial corridors “Dead” big-box shopping centers One or more undeveloped “greenield” areas adjacent to a municipality that are intended to accommodate growth Existing neighborhoods or other developed areas where inill development is intended to preserve or extend existing patterns of physical character • Entire municipalities • Counties or regions that include both urban areas and countryside • Areas that have been targeted for economic revitalization, are undergoing changes in land ownership, or are the location of planned infrastructure improvements Planning Process Form-based codes are typically created by integrating a planning process with the drafting of speciic rules for development. Communities will need to take into consideration the timing of the most recent comprehensive plan update and whether the update included suficient engagement with the community and urban design speciications in the plan, as well as the amount of funding available for the development of the form-based code. FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES16 Who Should Be Involved? Form-based codes address both the short- and long-term interests of several specialized areas. Therefore, it is vital to assemble a diverse team to lead the creation of the form-based code. Typically, this code team is composed of municipal staff with consultant assistance, frequently with the consultant team responsible for guiding the effort and completing the majority of tasks required by the planning process. Testing the Waters Some municipalities may choose to irst create a form-based code for a limited area before applying the techniques to more extensive areas or to the entire municipality. This may be due to uncertainty among elected oficials and residents or a desire to create a pilot project that will provide an opportunity for municipal staff and elected oficials to gain experience. Photo simulation of proposed changes to Dexter Avenue, Downtown Montgomery Plan (2007), City of Montgomery, Alabama. Credit: Urban Advantage (www.urban-advantage.com). 412 17STEP ONE: SCOPING Relationship with Existing Regulations There are several different methods for introducing form-based codes into an established zoning ordinance. Their suitability often depends upon the degree of change that is desired by the community and a realistic assessment of political feasibility. Comprehensive Replacement of Existing Code The form-based code replaces the existing conventional zoning code for all or part of a community, and all development within the area must abide by the regulations of the form-based code. This approach generally offers the widest range of opportunities for transforming a targeted area of a community while maintaining established character in others. It also offers the advantage of consistency in regulatory vocabulary and procedures throughout the code. Hybrid Zoning Code A hybrid code is one that combines form-based zoning districts, and potentially other form-based standards, with a conventional zoning approach. Form-based standards can be merged with the existing conventional code or created in conjunction with new conventional zoning standards. A hybrid code can take the form of a chapter within the code, similar to a special district or overlay. The hybrid form-based code is cross-referenced to other sections of the pre- existing code for selected development standards, such as parking dimensions or landscaping standards. Areas that fall within the form-based code boundaries are rezoned to new zoning districts per the code. Within these areas, any and all development must abide by the new regulations for the form-based zones. This approach can be used for a sub-area in the phased replacement of an existing code, and can also be an effective way of responding to pressure for physical change in “sensitive” areas of the community. Optional/Parallel Code The form-based code is created as a standalone code but does not replace the existing conventional zoning code. Instead, in speciic areas deined in the form-based code, the developer is given the choice to build under the existing conventional zoning or the new form-based code. The property does not have to be rezoned, but once the developer chooses a code, the entire development project must abide by it. There are advantages to this approach, but the challenges of administering even a single zoning code are signiicant, and two codes may create confusion about the community’s commitment to the requirements and principles relected in the form-based code. It may also result in developers attempting to pick and choose only those form-based code requirements that are most beneicial to their interests. Organizing Principle There are many different approaches to regulating the type, scale, form, and intensity of allowable development in a form-based code. Some common approaches are explained below, but it is important to note that any consulting irm that specializes in form-based codes is likely to have its own individualized approach. Transect-Based Codes Many form-based codes are organized using the concept of a rural- to-urban “transect,” in which zones are primarily classiied by the physical intensity of the built form, the relationship between nature and the built environment, and the complexity of uses within the zone (please see diagram below explaining the concept). This allows for a gradual transition between different areas in a community. Applying the concept of the transect to a particular planning area often results in a modiied version that responds to local conditions; indeed, this is how the transect-based SmartCode, a form-based code template, functions (an explanation of the SmartCode is provided on the following page). Building Type-Based Codes In this common approach, the form-based code is organized through different building types, each deined by speciic development standards regulating the conigurations, features, and functions of buildings. The building types and their accompanying development standards are applied to different blocks and districts within the planning area. This approach is thought to work best in smaller planning areas, especially inill development, where the compatibility of new development with existing buildings is a high priority. In this scenario, the use of building types can reinforce the existing character of a community. The Transect. Credit: Topograis PC. 413 FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES18 Street-Based Codes Street-based codes are form-based codes that are organized by different street types, such as boulevards, arterials, and collectors. Each street type is deined by the level of trafic the roadway is designed to accommodate, design speeds, pedestrian crossing times, the width of vehicle lanes and sidewalks, the coniguration of on-street parking, the presence of medians bicycle lanes, and other factors, including how buildings are required to address the street (in terms of height, frontage type, and build-to lines). Street-based codes are typically illustrated using section drawings. Template Codes A form-based code can be designed and developed locally from scratch or based on a predetermined “template” that has been used elsewhere and can be customized to serve local needs. SmartCode The most notable currently available code template is the SmartCode. It was originally created by the architectural irm of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company and has since undergone continual reinement by the irm, other planning and design professionals, and communities that have used the code. The SmartCode is a comprehensive, transect-based form-based code template (or “model ordinance”) that includes model language, standards, and requirements for multiple scales of development by public and private sectors, as well as administrative procedures for development review and approval. It is intended to be customized to the local context, priorities, and legal requirements of each community that uses it. It has been used by several communities across the U.S., and in its largest implementation to date, it was used as the basis for the new development code for the City of Miami, Florida. Other templates Consultant teams that have prepared more than a few form-based codes are likely to have developed at least one form-based code template. If the consultant team is based in the region, it is likely that their template will likely be customized to the local context and legal requirements of the municipality. Considerations for Templates If the form-based code will apply to an area composed of only one transect level, a transect-based approach such as the SmartCode may not be necessary. Also consider the extent to which local oficials (particularly municipal attorneys) are conident that the template can be suficiently calibrated to and customized to comply with applicable state law requirements, including consistency with the municipality’s comprehensive plan. 1.!Two"Lane!Avenue! A wide median and plentiful street trees make the Two Lane Avenue a quiet address especially well suited to residential and office uses. Notes:!! 1. Appurtenances may extend beyond the height limit. 2. Building fronts are required to provide shelter to the sidewalk by means of at least one of the following: arcade, colonnade, marquee, awning, or second-floor balcony. 3. The alignment of floor-to-floor heights of abutting buildings is encouraged to allow for shared use of elevators. A.!Building!Placement: Build-to-line location: 0–10 ft. from property line Space Between Buildings: 0 ft. if attached 6–10 ft. if detached B.!Building!Volume:!! Bldg. Width: 16 ft. minimum 160 ft. maximum Bldg. Depth: 125 ft. maximum Bldg. Height: 2 stories minimum 4 stories maximum 55 ft. maximum The first floor shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height ! II-5 July 16, 2001 5.01.090 Building Types 5-16 Livermore Development Code Five attached townhouses designed with a single simple plane. Elevated covered stoops provide a secondary rhythm along the street. Four attached townhouses designed with a simple massing with a continuous porch. The dormers and slight plane shift in the end units help to break down the overall massing. Three attached townhouses designed with a simple massing. Individual porches and gable ends on the end units provide the secondary rhythm. 5.01.090 Townhouse General Note: the drawings and photos below are illustrative. A. Description The Townhouse building type consists of structures that contain three or more dwelling units placed side by side. A small side or rear yard is provided for each unit as private open space. This building type provides a higher- density, fee-simple unit in a more urban form. Building Types: Townhouse, Development Code (2010), City of Livermore, California. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. Street Types: Two-Lane Avenue, Central Hercules Plan (2001), City of Hercules, California. Credit: Dover, Kohl & Partners. 414 SMarTCoDe Municipality SmartCode VerSion 9.2sc42 T1 naTural zone T2 rural zone T3 SuB-urBan zone T4 General urBan zone T5 urBan CenTer zone T6 urBan Core zone SD SPeCIal DISTrICT note: All requirements in this table are sub- ject to calibration for local context. a. alloCaTIon oF zoneS per Pedestrian Shed (applicable to article 3 only)(see table 16) ClD requires no minimum 50% min 10 - 30% 20 - 40% not permitted not permitted TnD requires no minimum no minimum 10 - 30% 30 - 60 % 10 - 30% not permitted rCD requires no minimum no minimum not permitted 10 - 30% 10 - 30% 40 - 80% b. BaSe reSIDenTIal DenSITY (see Section 3.4) By right not applicable 1 unit / 20 ac avg. 2 units / ac. gross 4 units / ac. gross 6 units / ac. gross 12 units / ac. gross By TDr by Variance by Variance 6 units / ac. gross 12 units / ac. gross 24 units / ac. gross 96 units / ac. gross other Functions by Variance by Variance 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 50% 50 - 70% c. BloCK SIze Block Perimeter no maximum no maximum 3000 ft. max 2400 ft. max 2000 ft. max 2000 ft. max * d. ThorouGhFareS (see Table 3 and Table 4)* 3000 ft. max with parking structures hW permitted permitted permitted not permitted not permitted not permitted BV not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted aV not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted CS not permitted not permitted not permitted not permitted permitted permitted Dr not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted ST not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted not permitted rD permitted permitted permitted not permitted not permitted not permitted rear lane permitted permitted permitted permitted not permitted not permitted rear alley not permitted not permitted permitted required required required Path permitted permitted permitted permitted not permitted not permitted Passage not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted Bicycle Trail permitted permitted permitted not permitted * not permitted not permitted Bicycle lane permitted permitted permitted permitted not permitted not permitted Bicycle route permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted e. CIVIC SPaCeS (see Table 13)* permitted within open spaces Park permitted permitted permitted by Warrant by Warrant by Warrant Green not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted not permitted Square not permitted not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted Plaza not permitted not permitted not permitted not permitted permitted permitted Playground permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted f. loT oCCuPaTIon lot Width not applicable by Warrant 72 ft. min 120 ft. max 18 ft. min 96 ft. max 18 ft. min 180 ft. max 18 ft. min 700 ft. max DISPoSITIonlot Coverage not applicable by Warrant 60% max 70% max 80% max 90% max g. SeTBaCKS - PrInCIPal BuIlDInG (see Table 15) (g.1) Front Setback (Principal) not applicable 48 ft. min 24 ft. min 6 ft. min 18 ft. max 2 ft. min 12 ft. max 2 ft. min 12 ft. max (g.2) Front Setback (Secondary) not applicable 48 ft. min 12 ft. min 6 ft. min 18 ft. max 2 ft. min 12 ft. max 2 ft. min 12 ft. max (g.3) Side Setback not applicable 96 ft. min 12 ft. min 0 ft. min 0 ft. min 24 ft. max 0 ft. min 24 ft. max (g.4) rear Setback not applicable 96 ft. min 12 ft. min 3 ft. min * 3 ft. min * 0 ft. min Frontage Buildout not applicable not applicable 40% min 60% min 80% min 80% min h. SeTBaCKS - ouTBuIlDInG (see Table 15) (h.1) Front Setback not applicable 20 ft. min +bldg setback 20 ft. min +bldg setback 20 ft. min +bldg setback 40 ft. max from rear prop not applicable (h.2) Side Setback not applicable 3 ft. or 6 ft. 3 ft. or 6 ft. 0 ft. min or 3 ft. 0 ft min not applicable (h.3) rear Setback not applicable 3 ft. min 3 ft. min 3 ft. 3 ft. max not applicable i. BuIlDInG DISPoSITIon (see Table 9) edgeyard permitted permitted permitted permitted not permitted not permitted Sideyard not permitted not permitted not permitted permitted permitted not permitted rearyard not permitted not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted Courtyard not permitted not permitted not permitted not permitted permitted permitted j. PrIVaTe FronTaGeS (see Table 7) Common Yard not applicable permitted permitted not permitted not permitted not permitted ConFIGuraTIonPorch & Fence not applicable not permitted permitted permitted not permitted not permitted Terrace or Dooryard not applicable not permitted not permitted permitted permitted not permitted Forecourt not applicable not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted Stoop not applicable not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted Shopfront & awning not applicable not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted Gallery not applicable not permitted not permitted permitted permitted permitted arcade not applicable not permitted not permitted not permitted permitted permitted k. BuIlDInG ConFIGuraTIon (see Table 8) Principal Building not applicable 2 stories max 2 stories max 3 stories max, 2 min 5 stories max, 2 min 8 stories max, 2 min outbuilding not applicable 2 stories max 2 stories max 2 stories max 2 stories max not applicable l. BuIlDInG FunCTIon (see Table 10 &Table 12) residential not applicable restricted use restricted use limited use open use open use FunCTIonlodging not applicable restricted use restricted use limited use open use open use Ofice not applicable restricted use restricted use limited use open use open use retail not applicable restricted use restricted use limited use open use open use arTICle 5 arTICle 2, 3, 4 TaBle 14. SMarTCoDe SuMMarY Summary of sample SmartCode requirements (intended to be calibrated to the context and needs of each community). Credit: Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. 19 415 Rockville Town Center Existing Framework Gateway Town Center Focal Point Major Pedestrian Spine Major Vehicular ThoroughfareV Critical Connection Railroad Transitional Office Zone Neighborhood Auto-Oriented Commercial Distinctive Core Area (high density, mixed-use, pedestrian orientation) Spring A v e n u e Frederick A v e n u e Lincoln A v e n u e Howard A v e n u e Crabb Avenue Park R o a d Woodland RoadNorth S ton e s t r e e t A venu e St o n e s t r e e t A v e n u e Veirs M i l l R o a d WoottonParkway evirDnotsnomdE M/ e v i rD d r o f r e g n uH D R o u t e 355 ek iP e l l i v k c oR Martin s L a n e North Street WhtroN teertSnotgnihsaBeall A v e n u e enaLelddiMtsaE Montgomery A v e n u e Monroe S t r e e t Jefferson S t r e e t Wood L a n e Vinson Street Fleet S t r e e t Maryla n d A v e n u e Monroe Street Richard M ontgo mery Dri ve Vernon Pl a c e eki P e l l i v k c o R M D 3 5 5 Existing Framework, Town Center Master Plan (2001), City of Rockville, Maryland. Credit: Development Concepts, Inc./HNTB. 20 416 21 Step Two Assessing Existing Conditions A form-based code guides development to build upon and strengthen the unique characteristics of a community, helping to preserve desired character. Before a form-based code is created, the code team identiies these unique characteristics by documenting and analyzing the community’s existing urban form at different scales, from the broad characteristics of a community’s neighborhoods to the speciic architectural details of windows on typical houses within each neighborhood. The information gathered during this phase is organized and analyzed to provide a basis for the creation of the form-based code. It should be noted that the following approach to documenting and analyzing existing conditions is not standardized, so a variety of approaches are possible. Many form-based code consultants choose a different process, such as documenting large and small scale elements simultaneously, rather than in two phases. 417 FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES22 Community Sub-Areas Documenting the existing conditions of a community’s sub- areas helps the code team understand the composition of the community at a larger scale. Some common sub-areas that can be identiied include: Neighborhoods, which usually are areas that contain blocks or buildings that are uniied in character or style. A neighborhood is often walkable and may have a clearly deined center or edge. Districts, which are areas typically deined by a particular use or activity, such as light industrial districts. Corridors, which can be man-made elements relating to movement, such as roads or railways, or natural elements such as rivers. Whether man-made or natural, these corridors often deine boundaries within and between neighborhoods. However, roads that function as commercial corridors often serve as the center of many communities. Preparation Reviewing Background Documents With the help of municipal staff, the code team should gather existing background documents, such as maps and past plans, for the area. These documents provide immediate context for the code team’s analysis and will help them develop a form-based code that accommodates and works with existing regulations that will remain in effect after the form-based code is implemented. In addition, it is important for the code team to review any regulations that are being replaced in order to help understand the existing place and to learn from those regulations’ successes and failures. Similarly, studying past plans can help the team to incorporate any previous visioning work that was completed by the community prior to the form-based code process. Mapping Existing Conditions To understand existing conditions and select areas to focus on during the site visit, the code team may create an existing conditions map with information such as public right-of-way lines, lot lines, building footprints, curbs and sidewalk locations, existing land uses, parking location, and natural features (such as rivers) that will impact development. The code team will review these maps, looking for patterns and marking up the maps with the existing neighborhood, district, and corridor framework of the community. In addition, the team will usually mark the map in response to questions about the physical form of the community (please see inset above). If the team anticipates a transect-based form-based code (see page 17), it might begin to make an initial list of transect levels that are likely to be included in the form- based code. Site Visit Members of the code team will often visit the study area to determine the centers and boundaries of any neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, then mark them on a map (such as an existing conditions map created before the site visit). Neighborhoods For neighborhoods, the code team will often try to locate its center (which is a crossroad, commercial center, school, government building, or park) as well as its outer boundary (typically a street, rail line, or creek). The team is likely to take photographs intended to illustrate the physical character of each neighborhood; these photographs may be used later on to help the team determine which transect level is applicable to the neighborhood. The code team is likely to make an initial assessment of how much each neighborhood should change (such as “preserve,” “preserve and enhance,” “evolve,” and “transform”). If relevant to the project, the team may note potential locations for new neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. Site visit, Downtown Montgomery Plan (2007), City of Montgomery, Alabama. Credit: Dover, Kohl & Partners. Analyzing Existing Conditions Maps Existing conditions maps can be marked in response to any of the following questions: • Where are the centers or focal points? • Which streets and roadways are regional connectors? Which are local connectors? • Where are the green or pedestrian corridors? • Which areas are currently slated for major changes in scale and/or use? • Which places deine the community’s identity? Are historic developmental patterns intact in any of these places? • Where do building and street patterns change and what might be the reason? • Which neighborhoods would beneit from the preservation of their existing character? • Are there any districts that are expressly zoned for a particular use or activity, such as light industry? • Are there clear edges and transitions between neighborhoods? • Which transect levels exist within the community? 418 23STEP TWO: ASSESSING EXISTING CONDITIONS Districts The code team usually will also mark any identiied districts (on the existing conditions map, or equivalent), and take photographs of the area. If there are any districts, the team should assess the relationship of each district to the community, determining whether it is a healthy component of the community (such as an educational campus), an incompatible-use district (such as a heavy industrial area), or an area unnecessarily zoned as a district (such as single- use districts that could be appropriately placed within a mixed- use district). In addition, the team should consider whether each necessary district will need to expand in the future. Corridors The code team may also mark the location of any corridors, such as important roads, trails, or streams, and consider how the corridor is functioning as an element of the built environment and whether there is a balance between auto and pedestrian trafic. Special Conditions The team will usually note any other unique larger elements of the area, such as topography. Organizing the Data According to a methodology that is most helpful to them, the code team may create a series of spreadsheets, diagrams, or maps to organize the information from the site visit. Some teams may ind it helpful to compile the data from all maps and diagrams onto a single summary diagram (some irms refer to this as an “existing framework diagram”). If developing a transect-based form-based code, the team will likely review the summary diagram for the various transect levels noted for each neighborhood during the irst round of site visits. Any photographs taken during the site visit will usually be organized by transect level. The code team may then create an “existing transect diagram,” which includes all neighborhoods and indicates which transect levels are found in each, usually illustrated by photographs from the site visits. Smaller Scale Details Documenting the existing conditions of smaller scale details provides dimensional measurements for the irst draft of the form- based code, which will then be modiied during the visioning and coding phases. Some of the basic elements to be documented by the code team are buildings (form, placement, frontages, types, and use), thoroughfares, lots and blocks, civic spaces (parks and plazas), and additional elements (such as architecture or landscaping) as desired by the community. Preparation Choosing Sampling Areas To document the community at a smaller scale, the code team will usually select several “sampling areas.” If developing a transect- based form-based code, the team will generally review the range of transect levels previously documented, and then select four or ive sampling areas (often a block-long street) for each that seem to represent typical conditions that are desired by the community. However, if the code team has chosen an approach other than a transect-based code, the sampling method will be slightly different. For example, if the form-based code is to be organized by building types, the code team will usually identify existing buildings in the community that exemplify the physical characteristics of each building type, and then select which ones should be documented (or “sampled”). It is also important to document the area(s) where new building types are to be applied in order to understand the impacts of applying new development standards to those areas. Site Visit To document buildings for a transect-based form-based code, the code team will usually visit the areas they have chosen to sample, illing in details about the physical characteristics of each building and lot. Typically, this will include gathering measurements and other information about the form and dimensions of the building, its placement on the lot, the front of the building and its physical relationship to the street, number of parking spaces, and its associated land uses. The team may also take a variety of photos of the block, including building elevations and architectural features, views along the sidewalk, side street conditions, any alleys, and other views showing the relationship between buildings, landscaping, and the public realm. Organizing the Data Once the documentation of smaller scale details in the community is complete, the code team will generally begin determining which values among those collected from the sampling areas are most representative of typical conditions. For example, in transect-based form-based codes, the values that best exemplify typical conditions of each sampling area are then used to determine the most representative values for each transect. As mentioned previously, these values will become the base measurements used in developing the actual regulations of the form-based code. “Ground-Truthing” the Findings This would be a good time for the code team to hold a meeting with community stakeholders, presenting what the team found and documented during the irst round of site visits. Any maps, diagrams, or photo galleries created by the team would be shared with stakeholders, who should be asked whether any important areas were missed or documented incorrectly. Stakeholders should also be asked which areas are successful, which need improvement, and which are good models to replicate elsewhere. 419 Illustrative plan (top) and regulating plan (bottom), Transit Zoning Code (2010), City of Santa Ana, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. 24 420 25 Step Three Visioning and Creating Regulations A form-based code is intended to ensure a predictable outcome for the built environment. This requires the desired outcome— the “vision”—to be deined, in detail, by the community. Ideally, a community has already deined its desired outcome in part or in whole—for example, through the recent update of its comprehensive plan. If not, the code team works together with the community to create a detailed vision for its future. Once this community vision is in place, the code team proceeds to create the speciic regulations and procedures of the form- based code. 421 Engaging the Community The speciic methods to reach a common community vision will vary, but the essential ingredient is active participation and discussion using a variety of methods, such as community workshops, design charrettes, and focus interviews with key stakeholders. With the community actively engaged, a vision for the deined area is created. At this point in the process, some consulting irms will create a detailed drawing, sometimes called an “illustrative plan,” that shows the envisioned layout of the community. It includes the locations of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, as well as thoroughfares, civic spaces, buildings, and transit lines. While this drawing is not a necessary step, it may be helpful to communicate signiicant proposed changes in a community. Kickoff Meeting Often at this point in the process, the code team will hold a kickoff meeting with the community (although this may occur earlier in the process). The meeting should provide residents with a brief, lucid explanation of form-based codes, the overall process, and their role in the creation of the form-based code. If the kickoff meeting occurs at this point in the process, it’s likely that the team would present its indings from the documentation of existing conditions to the community. Maps, diagrams, or photo galleries that are easy for a layperson to understand should be exhibited to help explain the team’s indings, as well as give the community something visual to respond to. Photo galleries that document the different areas and aspects of the community can be especially effective in helping residents understand new concepts relevant to the development of the form-based code, such as different transect levels or building types (and can help to give the code team credibility in understanding the community). In response to the presentation, meeting participants typically will be asked which aspects of the community should remain, what should change, what should be a model for future development, and what they want overall. Four suggested categories for change are: “ Preserve” The community wants to retain the existing physical character of one or more areas with distinct identities (i.e. neighborhoods, transit station areas, or downtowns) and to ensure that inill and redevelopment “its in” with the existing context. “ Preserve and enhance” The community wants to retain the existing physical character in one or more areas, but is interested in careful, targeted enhancements to them. This could include changes in the form of future private development or within the public realm (such as streets). Public workshop, Village of Campton Hills, Illinois. Credit: Teska Associates, Inc. 422 27STEP THREE: VISIONING / CREATING THE REGULATIONS “ Evolve” The community wants to see desired physical change within the planning area over time, but is willing to allow change to occur more gradually, often according to the preferences of individual property owners within the planning area. “ Transform” The community wants to see desired physical change occur within the shortest possible time. This often entails the combination of form-based codes that are more ambitious and rigorously enforced with other strategies, such as development incentives, housing density bonuses, accelerated processing of development applications, and street and streetscape improvements undertaken by the municipality. After the Meeting Following this meeting, the code team will usually take this feedback and information from the community, along with the products of their existing conditions analysis, and reevaluate larger elements (such as neighborhoods, districts, and corridors). If preparing a transect-based form-based code, the team will probably assign an intended transect level for each neighborhood, both existing and new, from the list of transect levels. In addition, the code team may designate the degree of change desired for existing neighborhoods (such as “preserve,” “preserve and enhance,” “evolve,” and “transform”), based upon input gathered at the community meeting. If applicable, the code team will also reexamine other elements they have documented and analyzed (such as existing thoroughfares, blocks, civic spaces, and buildings), based on public input. Explaining and Illustrating the Zoning Districts The regulations of most form-based codes are assigned by zoning district based upon classiications such as transect level, building type, or street type. At this stage, the code team will usually begin to deine and illustrate the main characteristics of each district. The team will also begin to determine which details and elements belong in each district, such as what types of uses, buildings, frontages, thoroughfares, or civic spaces are allowed. A summary of this information is often paired with a written vision description and illustration of the district on a single page or two, which may be presented to the public as a poster for feedback and eventually serve as the main explanation of the district in the inal form-based code document. The Importance of the Kick-Off Meeting The kickoff meeting sets the tone for the creation of the community vision that will guide the form-based code. It’s a collaborative effort that requires the input of a variety of stakeholders in the community (including the general public), along with key professionals necessary to complement the knowledge base and skill set within the community. A form- based code is a legal document that inherently affects and will need to be approved by the community, and an effective kickoff meeting is vital to its success. BOARDWALK FRONTAGE The Boardwalk is one of the most memorable places in Virginia Beach. Cyclists, beachgoers, visitors, and residents intermix with cafes and clubs that address out onto the ground floors of the hotels that rise above. Hotels have a maximum base height of 75 feet with towers as high as 200 feet. The Boardwalk is made accessible by regular intersections with Beach Streets. SHOPPING FRONTAGES Premier retail addresses within the Oceanfront Resort Area. Shopfronts, outdoor cafe seating, and other commercial uses front wide sidewalks and slower-moving traffic. Residential, office and hotel uses are typically located above the shops and restaurant uses. Streets include 17th, 19th, 31st, and Atlantic Avenue. GATEWAY FRONTAGES Primary routes to, through, and from the Oceanfront Resort Area. While these routes typically carry a higher volume of traffic, they still offer ample accommodations for the pedestrian. Parking and service is also accessed primarily from Gateway streets. Pacific Avenue is an example of a Gateway street. BEACH FRONTAGES Ways in which residents and visitors access the Boardwalk. Beach streets have clear visual and physical access to the Boardwalk and are lined with a mix of residential front doors and lobbies alongside outdoor dining and small retail establishments. Frontage types, Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code (2012), City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Credit: Urban Design Associates. 423 FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES28 The code team will also usually begin to create lists of other elements that will be regulated (such as the types of thoroughfares, civic spaces, building types, and frontages). The team will typically create a summary of each that includes descriptive text, illustrations, and diagrams as needed. For example, if thoroughfares will be regulated by the form-based code, the team will prepare a summary of each type of thoroughfare that is needed, usually including a section drawing of the intended thoroughfare design that indicates the basic standard dimensions that will be required. Finally, the code team may assess whether there are any other optional elements the community wants to regulate, such as architectural style. If so, the team would usually determine the types (or styles) to be included in the vision and the code for these elements, and then create appropriate descriptive text and imagery for each. Use Types In conventional zoning, zoning districts are primarily deined by land use. Form-based codes emphasize the physical character of development (its form) and include the regulation of land uses. Similar to conventional zoning, permitted and conditional or special uses are listed by district in most form-based codes. However, land uses may be regulated more broadly, with land use categories in lieu of long lists of speciic permitted uses. Of course, form-based codes can also specify sub-types that are not allowed in certain locations or would be subject to discretionary review, such as businesses involving the sale of alcohol. Last, it is common for form-based codes to include requirements for the location of various uses within individual buildings (such as permitting ofice or residential uses on upper stories only). Building Types Some common building types used in form-based codes include “detached single-unit house,” “townhouse,” “duplex,” “courtyard apartment,” and “mixed-use building.” Building types typically include bulk regulations (such as minimum lot width, maximum building height, building setbacks, etc.) that are usually deined by zoning district in a conventional zoning code, as well as some design and architectural parameters (such as roof type, location of parking, minimum transparency requirements, building materials, etc.). Regulating which building types are allowed is not required in a form-based code, but it can help a community ensure a diverse stock of buildings, which is key to the creation (or preservation) of vibrant urban places. It is one of the means by which a community can avoid the damaging effects of some conventional zoning regulations, such as loor area ratio, which can encourage developers to focus on achieving maximum volume allowed for a lot. In addition, requiring a diverse mix of building types might be necessary to mitigate decades of standards that promote single-use development and discourage alternative building types. Building Type Standards, Gridley, Allin, & Prickett Neighborhood Form-Based Code (2007), City of Bloomington, Illinois. Credit: Farr Associates. Building Types, Cincinnati Form-Based Code (Public Review Draft, 2012), City of Cincinnati, Ohio. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. Table 1703-3.30.A: Building Types General Building Type Transect Zones Carriage House. This Building Type is an accessory structure typically located at the rear of a lot. It typically provides either a small residential unit, home ofice space, or other small commercial or service use that may be above a garage or at ground level. This Type is important for providing affordable housing opportunities and incubating small businesses within walkable neighborhoods. T3E T3N T4N.1 T4N.2 T5MS T5N.1 T5N.2 T5F T6C Detached House: Medium. This Building Type is a medium-sized detached structure on a medium-sized lot that incorporates one unit. It is typically located within a primarily single-family residential neighborhood in a walkable urban setting, potentially near a neighborhood main street. T3E T3N T4N.1 T4N.2 T5MS T5N.1 T5N.2 T5F T6C Detached House: Compact. This Building Type is a small detached structure on a small lot that incorporates one unit. It is typically located within a primarily single-family residential neighborhood in a walkable urban setting, potentially near a neighborhood main street. This Type enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed higher densities and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. T3E T3N T4N.1 T4N.2 T5MS T5N.1 T5N.2 T5F T6C Cottage Court. This Building Type consists of a series of small, detached structures, providing multiple units arranged to deine a shared court that is typically perpendicular to the street. The shared court takes the place of a private rear yard and becomes an important community-enhancing element of this Type. This Type is appropriately-scaled to it within primarily single-family or medium- density neighborhoods. It enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed higher densities and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. T3E T3N T4N.1 T4N.2 T5MS T5N.1 T5N.2 T5F T6C Duplex. This Building Type is a small- to medium-sized structure that consists of two side-by-side or stacked dwelling units, both facing the street and within a single building massing. This Type has the appearance of a medium to large single-family home and is appropriately scaled to it within primarily single-family neighborhoods or medium-density neighborhoods. It enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed higher densities and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. T3E T3N T4N.1 T4N.2 T5MS T5N.1 T5N.2 T5F T6C Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed 1703-3-3City of Cincinnati Form-Based Code Public Review Draft: 9/21/12 1703-3.30 Speciic to Building Types 9City of Bloomington: GAP Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance April 2007 44.6-26. GAP Form-Based Code D. Building Type Standards Figure D-2: Typical Block. This illustration details how the buildings types can be utilized on both mid-block and corner lots. House. This building type may be utilized either on mid-block or corner lots. Its height falls between 1 and 2.5 stories. Apartment Building.This building type blends in with the block by having a front entrance and a considerable amount of transparency on the front facade, similar to the other residential building types. The corner parcel allows for additional building entrances on the corner side facade. Manor MultiFamily on Interior Lots. The use of this building type on a parcel not located on a corner requires a wider lot in order to allow room for additional entrances on the side or rear facades and adequate parking to the rear. Manor MultiFamily on Corner Lots.When this building type is located on a corner parcel, it is preferable to use the corner side facade for additional building entrances. On any corner building, elements such as turrets (shown above) should be utilized to catch the attention of passers-by and draw them down the block. Street design should result in the interaction of building types in order to create a street wall. Maintaining facade transparency adds visual interest as well as a sense of “eyes on the street.” Adding to the sense of safety is the presence of welcoming entrances (either porches or stoops). Wherever possible, alleys should be implemented to access garages or parking lots. Manor MultiFamily. Similar in appearance to a house or estate building type, the manor multifamily building type consists of two or more units. Apartment Building House House House House Manor MultiFamily ManorMultiFamily ManorMultiFamily(interior lot)ManorMultiFamily(corner lot) 424 5.0 Permitted Land Uses 5.2 Permitted Use table Heart of Peoria 3-5 Land Development code 5.2.2 Permitted Use Table KEY: UsE cAtEGoRY sPEcIFIc UsE R1 R2 R3 R4 R6 R7 R8 cn cG B1 n1 P1 I1 I2 I3 Use standard single-Family two-Family (Duplex)5.3.1A townhouse Apartment Upper story Residential Live-Work 5.3.1B Boarding House, Rooming House children's Home congregate Housing Elderly Housing, Assisted Living Facility Fraternity, sorority, student Dormitory Family care Facility 5.3.1c Group care Facility 5.3.1c Monastery, convent nursing Home, Full-time convalescent, Hospice, Life care center cIVIc Museum, Library neighborhood Arts center or similar community Facility (public) Philanthropic Institution Police, Fire, EMs substation All day care, except as listed below: child care Home (up to 8 children)5.3.2A Day care center (8+ children)5.3.2B Drop-in child care center All educational facilities, except as listed below: Academy (special training) college, community college, University Job training, Vocational Rehabilitation service school, Vocational, Business school, trade, no heavy equipment or truck operators All medical facilities, except as listed below: Hospital, Medical center Medical or Dental Laboratory Medical or Dental clinic, Rehabilitative clinic Medical, Dental office or chiropractor All parks and open areas, except as listed below: cemetery, Mausoleum, columbarium, Memorial Park Game Preserve, Wildlife Management Area, Refuge, Animal Airport, Heliport Bus, train Passenger terminal taxicab Dispatch station, Limousine service, charter service Place of Worship (see 5.6.3.G)All places of worship Alchohol Abuse treatment, Drug Rehabilitation Halfway House 5.3.1c Psychiatric Institution, sanatorium single Room occupancy social service Facility, soup kitchen, transient Lodging or shelter for the Homeless All minor utilities 5.3.2c All major utilities Wireless communication Facility coMMERcIAL All indoor recreation, except as listed below: Auditorium, arena, stadium (indoor) convention center Indoor shooting Range office (see 5.6.4.B)All offices All outdoor recreation, except as listed below: outdoor shooting Range stadium or Arena, commercial Amphitheater Bed and Breakfast 5.3.3B Hotel, Motel, Inn, Extended stay Facility Youth Hostel Parking, commercial (see 5.6.4.E)All commercial parking All restaurants, except as listed below: Restaurant, Drive-in Restaurant (see 5.6.4.F) weiveR esU laiceps ot tcejbus = dettimreP ton = llec knalB = Permitted Group Living (see 5.6.2.B) community service (see 5.6.3.A) Household Living (see 5.6.2.A) social service Institution (see 5.6.3.H) overnight Lodging (see 5.6.4.D) Passenger terminal (see 5.6.3.F) outdoor Recreation (see 5.6.4.c) Utilities (see 5.6.3.I) Indoor Recreation (see 5.6.4.A) see 5.3.2D REsIDEntIAL Day care (see 5.6.3.B) Parks and open Area (see 5.6.3.E) Medical Facility (see 5.6.3.D) Educational Facility (see 5.6.3.c) 29 Permitted Use Table, Heart of Peoria Land Development Code (2007), Peoria, Illinois. Credit: Ferrell Madden/Code Studio. 425 FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES30 Frontage Types Frontage refers to the way that the building engages the public realm—typically the building’s front side. Similar to standards regulating minimum and maximum building height, form-based codes often specify which types of frontages are allowed in each zone. The SmartCode, a form-based code template, includes eight standard frontage types: “common yard,” “porch and fence,” “terrace or light court,” “forecourt” (where a portion of the façade is close to the frontage line and the central portion is set back), “stoop,” “shop front and awning,” “gallery,” and “arcade.” Frontage Types, Cincinnati Form-Based Code (Public Review Draft, 2012), City of Cincinnati, Ohio. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc.Frontage Types, Cincinnati Form-Based Code (Public Review Draft, 2012), City of Cincinnati, Ohio. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. Frontage standards, Form-Based Code Regulations (2008), Village of Lake Zurich, Illinois. Credit: Torti Gallas and Partners. Frontage Types, Downtown Speciic Plan (2007), City of Ventura, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. Table 1703-4.30.A: Frontage Types General The private frontage is the area between the building facade and the lot line. SECTION PLAN LOT/ PRIVATE FRONTAGE › ‹ › ‹R.O.W. LOT/ PRIVATE FRONTAGE › ‹ › ‹R.O.W. Common Yard. The main facade of the building has a large planted setback from the frontage line providing a buffer from the higher-speed thoroughfares. The front yard created remains unfenced and is visually continuous with adjacent yards, supporting a common landscape and working in conjunction with the other private frontages. Porch: Projecting. The main facade of the building has a small-to-medium setback from the frontage line. The resulting front yard is typically very small and can be deined by a fence or hedge to spatially maintain the edge of the street. The projecting porch is open on three sides and all habitable space is located behind the setback line. Porch: Engaged. The main facade of the building has a small-to-medium setback from the frontage line. The resulting front yard is typically very small and can be deined by a fence or hedge to spatially maintain the edge of the street. The engaged porch has two adjacent sides of the porch that are engaged to the building while the other two sides are open. Stoop. The main facade of the building is near the frontage line and the elevated stoop engages the sidewalk. The stoop shall be elevated above the sidewalk to ensure privacy within the building. Stairs from the stoop may lead directly to the sidewalk or may be side-loaded. This Type is appropriate for residential uses with small setbacks. Forecourt. The main facade of the building is at or near the frontage line and a small percentage is set back, creating a small court space. The space could be used as an entry court or shared garden space for apartment buildings, or as an additional shopping or restaurant seating area within retail and service areas. 1703-4-2 City of Cincinnati Form-Based CodePublic Review Draft: 9/21/12 1703-4.30 Speciic to Frontage Types An example of a shopfront with formal pilastered bays An example of a shopfront with a recessed doorway A. Description In the Shopfront Frontage Type, the main facade of the building is at or near the frontage line with an at-grade entrance along the public way. This Type is intended for retail use. It has substantial glazing at the sidewalk level and may include an awning that may overlap the sidewalk. It may be used in conjunction with other frontage types. B. Size Distance between Glazing 2' max. Ground Floor Transparency 75% min. Depth of Recessed Entries 5' max. C. Awning Depth 4' min. Setback from Curb 2' min. Height, Clear 8' min. D. Miscellaneous Residential windows shall not be used. Doors may be recessed as long as main facade is at BTL. Operable awnings are encouraged. Open-ended awnings are encouraged. Rounded and hooped awnings are discouraged. Shopfronts with accordion-style doors/windows or other operable windows that allow the space to open to the street are encouraged. A B C D 1703-4.110 Shopfront A BTL, ROW BTL, ROWStreet Street D B C ROW / Lot Line Setback Line/BTL Key 1703-4-12 City of Cincinnati Form-Based CodePublic Review Draft: 9/21/12 1703-4.110 Speciic to Frontage Types ©Torti Gallas and Partners, Inc. |  Spring Street, th floor, Silver Spring, Maryland  .. Downtown Lake ZurichVillage of Lake ZurichEquity Services Group, LLCtorti gallas and partners 20 Commercial Route 22 Frontage Ceiling Height Clearance Minimum Residential 10'-0" A Minimum Residential 9'-0" B First Floor Finish Level (Street Frontage Only) Minimum Residential Floor Level Above Average Grade 1'-6" C Lobby Entries: Shall be at grade� Ground Plane: Shall be scored concrete or pavers from curb to 11' from the curb� Beyond the 11' the ground plane shall be grass, shrubs and/or ground cover� Furnishing Location: Not Applicable Uses: Cafe seating is not permitted�Street trees shall be planted in tree pits with tree grates� • • • •• B C A B Planting Strip 6'5'Sidewalkhroug h w a y Varies SetbackBuild-to-Line Property Line Primary Residential Frontage Ceiling Height Clearance Minimum Retail 15'-0" A Maximum Retail 25'-0" B Minimum Oce or Residential 10'-0" CFirst Floor Finish Level (Street Frontage Only)Maximum Floor Finish Level Above Sidewalk 0'-0" D Notes:Minimum Sidewalk Throughway is 5 ft.1) Entries: Shall be barrier free�Ground Plane: Shall be scored concrete or pavers from curb to face of building� Furnishing Location: Not ApplicableUses: Cafe seating is not permitted�Street trees shall be planted in tree pits with tree grates� Product displays (lowers, food, etc�) are encouraged� •• ••• • C A&B D Varies Sidewalkhrou g h w a y Tree Box Zon e 6'DriveAisle15'Parking18' 25' Build-to-Line Sidewalkand Bufer Zone Existing Curb Line 0'to4' Estimated R�O�W 426 31STEP THREE: VISIONING / CREATING THE REGULATIONS Thoroughfare Types Thoroughfare types may include alleys, lanes, roads, streets, commercial/main streets, avenues, and boulevards. Each thoroughfare type could be assigned regulations such as the number and width of lanes designated for both vehicular and bicycle travel, the width of space allotted for pedestrians, the number and width of areas designated for on-street parking, and the type and spacing of trees and street lights. Thoroughfare standards for “Neighborhood Center Boulevard,” Loma Rica Ranch Speciic Plan (2011), City of Grass Valley, California. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. Concepts for Speciic Streets, Transit Zoning Code (2010), City of Santa Ana, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. Street Speciications - Prospect Avenue, Heart of Peoria Land Development Code (2007), Peoria, Illinois. Credit: Ferrell Madden/Code Studio. 6.0 Form Districts 6.7 Street Specifications Heart of Peoria 6-46 Land Development Code TRANSIT ZONING CODE 6:13 TRANSIT ZONING CODESPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT 84City of Santa Ana, California Minter Street MOVEMENT................................... freeMEDIAN ........................................ noneTRAFFIC LANES ........................... 2; 1 each wayBULBOUTS.................................... mid-block - 250' spacingPARKING ...................................... both sides Minter Street would be experienced as a moderately slow paced, free moving resi-dential street characterized by canopy trees in continuous planters, visually sepa-rating the vehicular traffic from the pedestrian traffic on sidewalks. Streetlights poles would be at pedestrian scale and in a style complimentary to the overall streetscape. Parking would be provided on both sides of the street. Bulbouts may be installed midblock as needed. Plan / Section Diagram Existing condition Garfield Street MOVEMENT.................................. slowMEDIAN ........................................ noneTRAFFIC LANES ........................... 2; 1 each wayBULBOUTS.................................... mid-block - 250' spacingPARKING ...................................... both sides Garfield Street would be experienced as a slow paced, slow moving residential street characterized by canopy trees in continuous planters, visually separating the vehicular traffic from the pedestrian traffic on sidewalks. Streetlights poles would be at pedestrian scale and in a style complimentary to the overall streetscape. Parking would be provided on both sides of the street. Bulbouts may be installed midblock as needed. Plan / Section Diagram Existing condition R1-2 : Table 7A: Concepts for Specific Streets R1-1 Thoroughfares Thoroughfares can serve many roles in a community, and are integral to their success. They are a means of travel to destinations, near and far, and as the primary public space in most communities, frequently they are the destination for shopping and other activities. In communities that have not reached their potential, walkability is frequently a missing element. In Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods (Center for Livable Communities, 1999), Dan Burden, an expert in the creation of livable communities, has stated that “Walkable streets form the backbone of friendly, interactive, safe, secure neighborhoods.” Focused on the safe and eficient low of automobile trafic, most conventional thoroughfare standards are simply not up to the task of creating walkable communities. Form-based codes can offer an opportunity to deine thoroughfare standards that are carefully coordinated with other requirements, comprehensively addressing the needs of travel along with the broader needs of the public realm and the community as a whole. It should be noted, however, that if a community is mostly built out, thoroughfare standards are likely the responsibility of the public works department as they conduct ongoing maintenance and improvement of existing roadways, often working with minimal or insuficient budgets (making the implementation of new thoroughfare standards more challenging). 427 FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES32 Civic Space Types Civic space types are essentially open space or other public areas that may include parks, greens, squares, plazas, pocket parks, playgrounds, and playing ields. For civic space types, typical regulations include the minimum and maximum acreage of land required, requirements for the placement of civic spaces, the appropriate zones for each civic space type, the kind of recreation the civic space is intended to facilitate, and the overall intended look and feel of the space. Civic Spaces When wisely designed and located, abundant parks and other civic spaces make a community a more desirable place to live and work, improving the health of residents and the value of their homes. In addition, they can serve as a cherished place for residents, workers, and visitors to gather—within a block, neighborhood, or entire community—helping to deine the identity of the area. As part of a comprehensive form-based code, wisely-developed standards can help communities make the most of rare opportunities to create new civic spaces. Civic Spaces - Urban Parks, Development Code (2010), City of Livermore, California. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. Civic Spaces - Playgrounds, Development Code (2010), City of Livermore, California. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. Civic Space, SmartCode. Credit: Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. 8.01.100 PlaygroundsCivic Spaces 8-11Livermore Development Code 8.01.100 Playgrounds Description Playgrounds are open spaces designed and equipped for the recreation of children. They shall be interspersed within residential areas so that every neighborhood or freestanding development area has at least one playground. Playgrounds may be freestanding or located within larger Plazas, Neighborhood Parks, Pocket Parks, or Civic Spaces. Playgrounds should be quiet, safe places protected from the street, and should typically be placed so that children do not have to cross major, roads to get to them. Often playgrounds and tot-lots are interspersed within residential areas. An open shelter, play structures or interactive art and fountains may be included with landscaping between. Shaded areas and seating must be provided. Playgrounds may be included within larger parks and public spaces. Size & Location Min. Width n/a Max. Width n/a Acreage n/a Transect Zones All Transect Zones Character Focused Towards Children Fenced with Minimal Exits Independent of Building Frontage Protected from Trafic Allowed/Typical Uses Passive /Active (Unstructured) Open Space Low-Impact Civic Uses, including Picnic Facilities, Outdoor Seating Play Structures, Interactive Art, Fountains Stormwater Management Techniques Bioretention Best Management Practices Porous Pavers and Landscaping SMarTCoDe Municipality SmartCode VerSion 9.2 sc41 a. Park: A natural preserve available for unstructured recreation. A park may be independent of surrounding building Frontages. Its landscape shall consist of Paths and trails, meadows, waterbodies, woodland and open shelters, all naturalistically disposed. Parks may be lineal, following the trajectories of natural corridors. the minimum size shall be 8 acres. Larger parks may be approved by Warrant as special Districts in all zones. b. Green: An Open Space, available for unstructured recreation. A Green may be spatially deined by landscaping rather than building Frontages. Its landscape shall consist of lawn and trees, natu- ralistically disposed. the minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 8 acres. c. Square: An open space available for unstructured recreation and civic purposes. A square is spatially deined by building Frontages. Its landscape shall consist of paths, lawns and trees, formally disposed. squares shall be located at the intersection of important thoroughfares. the minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 5 acres. d. Plaza: An open space available for civic purposes and commercial activities. A Plaza shall be spatially deined by building Frontages. Its landscape shall consist primarily of pavement. Trees are optional. Plazas should be located at the intersection of important streets. the minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 2 acres. e. Playground: An open space designed and equipped for the recreation of children. A playground should be fenced and may include an open shelter. Playgrounds shall be interspersed within Residential areas and may be placed within a Block. Playgrounds may be included within parks and greens. there shall be no minimum or maximum size. T1 T2 T3 T3 T4 T5 T5 T6 T4 T5 T6 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 TaBle 13. CIVIC SPaCe 8.01.070 Urban Parks Civic Spaces 8-8 Livermore Development Code 8.01.070 Urban Parks Description Urban parks include larger open spaces available for civic purposes, commercial activity, and unstructured recreation, as well as smaller structured recreation facilities and other passive uses. These parks should have a more formal urban character and be deined by the surrounding building frontages and adjacent tree-lined streets. All buildings adjacent to the square must have a front onto the park. The landscape should consist of lawns, trees, and shrubs planted in formal patterns and furnished with paths and benches. Shaded areas for seating should be provided. A civic element or small structure such as a kiosk, open shelter, pergola, or fountain may be included at a prominent location. Urban parks may be centrally located at the geographic heart of neighborhoods and/or at the intersection of important thoroughfares. They may also be located at the edges of neighborhoods in locations where several residential areas may beneit from recreational amenities, and serve as a transition between developed areas and natural open spaces. Size & Location Min. Width 100' Max. Width N/A Acreage 0.5 – 4.9 acres Transect Zones T4MS, T4MS-O Character Formally Disposed Passive/Active (Unstructured) Open Space Building Frontage along at least one side All buildings must front this space Must front at least two streets Paths, lawns, and trees formally arranged Walkways and plantings at all edges Civic element at prominent location Allowed/Typical Uses Passive /Active (Unstructured) Open Space Civic Uses, including Outdoor Pavilions, Open-Air Shelters, Outdoor Assembly, Outdoor Seating, Public Restrooms Commercial Uses, including Farmers’ Markets subject to Special Event Permit Playgrounds Limited Community Facilities, Meeting Rooms, Community Centers Small Structured Recreational Facilities Stormwater Management Techniques Integrated Runoff Bioretention Best Management Practices Extended Detention Basins Porous Pavers and Landscaping 428 33 Creating the Regulating Plan and Zoning District Regulations Regulating plan, Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan (2007), City of Benicia, California. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. STEP THREE: VISIONING / CREATING THE REGULATIONS Regulating plan, Gridley, Allin, & Prickett Neighborhood Form-Based Code (2007), City of Bloomington, Illinois. Credit: Farr Associates. 5City of Bloomington: GAP Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance April 2007 44.6-26. GAP Form-Based Code B. GAP Districts & Regulating Plans (u) Story. A habitable level within a building measured from finished floor to finished floor. 1. GAP Neighborhood Districts. The following details the districts mapped throughout the GAP Neighborhood. (a) GAP 1. This district allows for the development of Estate and Manor MultiFamily Buildings. These buildings are set back from the front property line, more so than the other districts. The lots on which these buildings are constructed are typically larger than the other residential districts. (b) GAP 2. This district allows for the development of House, Estate, and Manor MultiFamily Buildings. GAP 2 is similar to the first, except that it also permits the House Building. (c) GAP 3. This district allows for the development of House, Manor MultiFamily, and Iconic Buildings. Apartment Buildings are permitted on corner lots. This district also allows a select list of special uses to occur on Market Street. Refer to Section 44.6-26C. (d) GAP 4. This district allows for the development of House, Manor MultiFamily, Rowhouse, and Iconic Buildings. Apartment Buildings are permitted on corner lots. This district includes residential building types that are more dense than the previous districts. (e) GAP 5. This district allows for the construction of mixed use neighborhood commercial centers to serve those residents within walking distance. The Commercial, Cottage Commercial, Apartment, and Iconic Buildings are permitted. (f) GAP 6. The Warehouse Building is the only permitted building type within this district. This district allows for the development of limited industrial uses with an absence of objectionable external effects in a manner that is appropriate given the proximity to residential uses. This includes small-scale industrial uses up to 12,000 square feet in size. 2. GAP Regulating Plan. GAP Districts 1-6 are mapped throughout the Neighborhood as detailed in Table B-1 and Figure B-2. Building Types GAP 1GAP 2GAP 3GAP 4GAP 5GAP 6Commercial Building X Cottage Commercial X Warehouse Building X Iconic Building X X X House X X X Estate House X X Manor MF X X X X Rowhouse X Apartment Building C C X Districts Table B-1 Summary of Districts by Building Types. “X” Denotes Buildings Permitted within a District “C” Dentoes Buildings Permitted only on Corner Lots within a District ROOSEVELTAVELOCUST ST MASONSTMULBERRY ST MARKET ST OAKSTLEESTCATHERINESTALLINSTHOWARDSTFigure B-2 GAP District Regulating Plan. GAP 1 GAP 2 GAP 3 Study Area GAP 4 GAP 5 GAP 6 4-3Downtown Mixed Use Master PlanOpticos Design, Inc. Chapter 4: Form-Based Code MARINA BENICIA BAY SOUTHAMPTON 'E' ST 1ST ST 'C' ST 'D' ST E. 2ND ST PT BENICIA 'B' ST 'E' ST SEMPLE CROSSING CT SEMPLE E. 2ND ST 'K' ST 'F' ST 'G' ST 1ST ST 'I' ST 'H' ST W. 2ND ST 'J' ST CITY PARK CITY HALL OFFICE PARK CIVIC CENTER YAC POOL FITZGERALD FIELD Regulating Plan Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Area and Parcels South of B Street Zoning Districts Town Core Town Core-Open Neighborhood General Neighborhood General - Open Public & Semi-Public 1st StreetW. 2nd StreetE. 2nd StreetK Street J Street I Street H Street G Street F Street E Street B Street C St. D Street When is the Regulating Plan Created? The regulating plan is usually created as part of drafting the form-based code. For example, when a form-based code is developed to replace an existing development code, the existing zoning map is replaced with a regulating plan that implements the intentions of the community’s vision by assigning speciic boundaries for the new districts. But for some form-based codes, a regulating plan may be created later. Examples of this include regulating plans that need to be created for larger inill or “greenield” sites that were not planned during the development of the community’s form-based code. In this scenario, a more precise regulating plan may be created as part of the application for a proposed development project, using the development standards from the community’s form-based code that are relevant to the project. After establishing the general elements within each zoning district, the code team usually next determines the exact values of the form-based code’s regulations, which are organized by district. Each district may contain one or more permitted building types. As the code team develops each district’s speciic regulations, they will typically also begin drafting the “regulating plan,” which is akin to a zoning map and assigns the newly created zoning districts to speciic physical locations, typically by color-coding the areas or lots where each of the districts apply. These areas are usually deined within a framework of streets and blocks, often with boundary lines falling at the rear of lots or at alleys, allowing harmonious transitions between different districts. The deinition and demarcation of different districts depend upon what type of form-based code is being created—for example, whether it is a transect-based or street-based form-based code. Meanwhile, the code team will also determine the speciic regulations for each zoning district, often drawing from measurements that were determined to best exemplify the typical or representative conditions of zones that were “sampled” during the documentation of existing conditions. 429 34 The following are some of the regulations that are typically determined irst by the code team: Building Form Standards Building form standards typically include a broad set of requirements for the coniguration, features, and functions of buildings that deine and shape the public realm, such as building placement and form, lot sizes, parking, as well as allowed land uses, encroachments, and frontage and building types. Building Placement It would be dificult to overstate the importance of standards regulating the placement of buildings. Together with thoroughfare standards, they provide the foundation for establishing or preserving the character of a district. Some of the typical regulations for building placement standards include the build-to line, minimum setback, and minimum and maximum widths of lots (the latter to create the desired development scale). Building Form Regulations for building form also play a key role in establishing the character of a district. As the “walls” of public spaces, building façades are regulated for height to ensure the correct proportion. The maximum and minimum sizes of buildings are sometimes regulated to ensure that they are an appropriate size for the desired vision of the area, establishing a rich urban form through a harmonious range of building sizes. Some of the typical regulations FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES Building form standards, Gridley, Allin, & Prickett Neighborhood Form-Based Code (2007), City of Bloomington, Illinois. Credit: Farr Associates. Building form standards, Cincinnati Form-Based Code (Public Review Draft, 2012), City of Cincinnati, Ohio. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. Building form standards, Cincinnati Form-Based Code (Public Review Draft, 2012), City of Cincinnati, Ohio. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. B. Number of Units Units per Building 2 min. C. Building Size and Massing Height Height 2 stories min.; 4 stories max.1 1 Height shall also comply with transect zone standards in Section 1703-2 (Speciic to Transect Zones). Main Body Width 150' max. Secondary Wing(s) Width 100' max. Depth 65' max. A B C D. Allowed Frontage Types Forecourt 1703-2.80 Dooryard 1703-4.90 Lightwell 1703-4.100 Shopfront 1703-2.110 Terrace 1703-4.120 E. Pedestrian Access Upper loor units located in the main building shall be accessed by a common entry along the front street. Ground loor units may have individual entries along the front street or side street. On corner lots, units in a secondary wing/accessory structure may enter from the side street. F. Private Open Space No private open space requirement. D E F Front Street Alley Front Street Alley Side StreetSide StreetD E E ED F F E B C AA ROW / Lot Line Setback Line Building Key ROW / Lot Line Setback Line Frontage Private Open Space Key 1703-3-27City of Cincinnati Form-Based Code Public Review Draft: 9/21/12 1703-3.140 Speciic to Building Types Main Street Mixed-Use 1703-3.140 Main Street Mixed-Use General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. A. Description The Main Street Mixed-Use Building Type is a small- to medium-sized structure, typically attached, intended to provide a vertical mix of uses with ground-loor retail, or service uses and upper-loor service, or residential uses. This Type makes up the primary component of a neighborhood main street and portions of a downtown main street, therefore being a key component to providing walkability. T3E T3N T4N.1 T4N.2 T5MS T5N.1 T5N.2 T5F T6C Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Main Street building with bay windows and bright shopfronts Attached Main Street buildings form a uniied streetscape along a vibrant commercial street. Main Street building with a variety of shopfront sizes. 1703-3-26 City of Cincinnati Form-Based CodePublic Review Draft: 9/21/12 1703-3.140 Speciic to Building Types 19City of Bloomington: GAP Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance April 2007 44.6-26. GAP Form-Based Code H. Building Types: Commercial Building 3. Facade Requirements. (Refer to Figure H-3) (a) Transparency.A minimum of 20% of the upper story front facade, measured floor to floor shall have transparent, non-reflective windows. An area no greater than 30% of the front and side facade per floor may have no transparency. (b) Building Entrance.The building’s principal entrance must be on the front or side building facade. Entrances at the corner of a building satisfy this requirement. Provide a minimum of one (1) entrance for every seventy-five (75) feet of building frontage on the front facade.C. Allowable Cap & Base Types. (See Sections E and F for descriptions)Allowable Cap Type is the parapet and tower. Allowable Base Type is the storefront. 2. Height & Use Requirements. (Refer to Fig- ure H-2) (a) Building & Floor Heights. Building height shall be a minimum of one (1) story and a maximum of three (3) stories. Up to four (4) stories in height are permitted, if the upper stories are set back a minimum of seven (7) and a maximum of fifteen (15) feet. Allowable ground floor height is a minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum thirty (30) feet, as measured from floor to floor. When the ground floor is twenty (20) feet or more in height, it shall count as two (2) stories in terms of measuring the overall building height.Allowable upper floor height is a minimum of nine (9) feet, maximum of fourteen (14) feet, as measured from floor to floor. Accessory buildings shall not exceed the height of the principal building on the lot. (b) Uses.Specific use information can be found in Section C.Parking is permitted internally in the rear of the building; a minimum of thirty (30) from the front facade of the ground floor must be occupied by a permitted use other than parking. Allowable Upper Floors Height. Allowable Ground Floor Height. Figure H-2: Height & Use Requirements.Front Property LineFigure H-3: Facade Requirements. Transparency of the Upper Floors. Maximum Area of No Transparency. Principal Entrance Location. street Entrance Spacing. Allowable Base Type. Allowable Cap Type. street Internal Parking. a(1) a(2) a(3) b(1) b(2) c(2) c(1)a(4) b(1) b(2) a(1) a(2) a(2) b(1) b(2) c(2) c(1) b(2) a(1) a(2) Building Height. a(1) a(3) Figure H-2(1): Option: Upper Sto-ries Setback. Upper Story Facade Setback.a(1) Building Height.a(1) 430 35STEP THREE: VISIONING / CREATING THE REGULATIONS is r f er h g be in th r f d d al safe Figure 3.19: Parking lot screening Figure 3.18: Shared parking between uses 10.8 PARKING PLACEMENT 10.8.1 FRONT SETBACKS; PARKING LOCATED ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS Within RR-T and RR-A districts where parking may be located adjacent to the building but not between the building and the front lot line, a minimum front setback of 7 feet is required for any such parking. (See Figure 9) Trees (a minimum of 2.5 inches caliper) and shrubs (a minimum of 24 inches in height) must be planted at the rate of one tree and 10 shrubs for every 40 feet of frontage. Figure 9: Parking Setback in RR-T and RR-Districts Parking Placement, Roosevelt Road Form-Based Zoning Districts (2010), Village of Oak Park, City of Berwyn, and Town of Cicero, Illinois. Credit: The Lakota Group. Parking Placement, Downtown Form-Based Code (2010), Village of Antioch, Illinois. Credit: The Lakota Group. Parking Strategies to Support Livable Communities To help communities address their parking concerns with the end goal of making our communities more livable, CMAP created a step-by-step guide to municipal reform of parking policies, entitled Parking Strategies to Support Livable Communities. The guide can help municipal governments determine the appropriate steps for addressing their unique challenges and describes more than a dozen strategies to manage parking. It explains how to do a parking survey and effectively engage stakeholders, and also takes a detailed look at the costs of parking structures and available inancing mechanisms. for building form standards include maximum and minimum height, width, and depth of buildings, as well as the maximum and minimum heights of ground-loor and upper loor levels. Allowed Encroachments Encroachments involve building elements that may extend over the build-to line (which regulates the distance between the front property line and building facade) or into the setback, such as balconies, and bay windows. By specifying regulations for allowed encroachments in a form-based code, a community can enable a rich urban form. Parking The methods for regulating parking in a form-based code are similar to those in a conventional zoning ordinance. Minimum parking standards are typically established according to land uses, but also by zoning district classiications established by the form- based code that are deined by the intensity of development—such as “town center.” Surface parking lots and garages can have a damaging effect on the physical quality of the public realm, creating unattractive gaps between buildings as well as curb cuts that are potential hazards for pedestrians using the sidewalk. In response, form-based codes often seek to minimize these negative impacts by requiring parking to be located at the rear or side of buildings or at the center of blocks, rather than between the building and the street. Similarly, some form-based codes include maximum parking requirements and promote shared and on-street parking for areas of higher-density and mixed-use development that have good access to transit. In addition to the mandatory number of off-street parking spaces, typical regulations for parking standards include the area on the lot in which parking is allowed, including setbacks, sizes of parking spaces, and travel lanes in parking lots. 431 SMarTCoDe Municipality SmartCode VerSion 9.2 sc39 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 a. reSIDenTIal restricted residential: the number of dwellings on each Lot is restricted to one within a Principal Building and one within an Accessory Building, with 2.0 parking places for each. Both dwellings shall be under single ownership. the habitable area of the Accessory Unit shall not exceed 440 sf, excluding the parking area. limited residential:the number of dwell- ings on each Lot is limited by the requirement of 1.5 parking places for each dwelling, a ratio which may be reduced according to the shared parking standards (see table 11). open residential:the number of dwellings on each Lot is limited by the requirement of 1.0 parking places for each dwelling, a ratio which may be reduced according to the shared parking standards (see table 11). b. loDGInG restricted lodging: the number of bed- rooms available on each Lot for lodging is limited by the requirement of 1.0 assigned parking place for each bedroom, up to ive, in addition to the parking requirement for the dwelling. the Lodging must be owner occupied. Food service may be provided in the a.m. the maximum length of stay shall not exceed ten days. limited lodging: the number of bedrooms available on each Lot for lodging is limited by the requirement of 1.0 assigned parking places for each bedroom, up to twelve, in addition to the parking requirement for the dwelling. the Lodging must be owner occupied.Food service may be provided in the a.m. the maximum length of stay shall not exceed ten days. open lodging: the number of bedrooms available on each Lot for lodging is limited by the requirement of 1.0 assigned parking places for each bedroom. Food service may be provided at all times. the area allocated for food service shall be calculated and provided with parking according to Retail Function. c. oFFICe Restricted Ofice: the building area avail-able for ofice use on each Lot is restricted to the irst Story of the Principal or the Acces- sory Building and by the requirement of 3.0 assigned parking places per 1000 square feet of net ofice space in addition to the parking requirement for each dwelling. Limited Ofice: the building area available for ofice use on each Lot is limited to the irst story of the principal building and/or to the Accessory building, and by the requirement of 3.0 assigned parking places per 1000 square feet of net ofice space in addition to the parking requirement for each dwelling. Open Ofice: the building area available for ofice use on each Lot is limited by the requirement of 2.0 assigned parking places per 1000 square feet of net ofice space. d. reTaIl restricted retail: the building area avail-able for Retail use is restricted to one Block corner location at the irst Story for each 300 dwelling units and by the requirement of 4.0 assigned parking places per 1000 square feet of net Retail space in addition to the parking requirement of each dwelling. The speciic use shall be further limited to neighborhood store, or food service seating no more than 20. limited retail: the building area available for Retail use is limited to the irst Story of buildings at corner locations, not more than one per Block, and by the requirement of 4.0 assigned parking places per 1000 square feet of net Retail space in addition to the parking requirement of each dwelling. The speciic use shall be further limited to neighborhood store, or food service seating no more than 40. open retail: the building area available for Retail use is limited by the requirement of 3.0 assigned parking places per 1000 square feet of net Retail space. Retail spaces under 1500 square feet are exempt from parking requirements. e. CIVIC see table 12 see table 12 see table 12 f. oTher see table 12 see table 12 see table 12 requIreD ParKInG (see table 10) T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 reSIDenTIal 2.0 / dwelling 1.5 / dwelling 1.0 / dwelling loDGInG 1.0 / bedroom 1.0 / bedroom 1.0 / bedroom oFFICe 3.0 / 1000 sq. ft. 3.0 / 1000 sq. ft. 2.0 / 1000 sq. ft. reTaIl 4.0 / 1000 sq. ft. 4.0 / 1000 sq. ft. 3.0 / 1000 sq. ft. CIVIC to be determined by Warrant oTher to be determined by Warrant ShareD ParKInG FaCTor Function with Function reSIDenTIal reSIDenTIal loDGInG loDGInG oFFICe oFFICe reTaIl reTaIl1.4 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.2 1 1 1 1 1.7 1.3 1.2 TaBleS 10 & 11. BuIlDInG FunCTIon & ParKInG CalCulaTIonS TaBle 10: Building Function. This table categorizes Building Functions within Transect Zones. Parking requirements are correlated to functional intensity. For Speciic Function and Use permitted By Right or by Warrant, see Table 12. TaBle 11: Parking Calculations. The Shared Parking Factor for two Functions, when divided into the sum of the two amounts as listed on the Required Parking table below, produces the Effective Parking needed for each site involved in sharing. Conversely, if the Sharing Factor is used as a multiplier, it indicates the amount of building allowed on each site given the parking available. Building Function & Parking Calculations (sample), SmartCode. Credit: Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. 36 432 37 Optional Components That May be Included in a Form-Based Code STEP THREE: VISIONING / CREATING THE REGULATIONS Architectural Standards - Main Street, Uptown Whittier Speciic Plan (2008), City of Whittier, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. Architectural Style Guideline, Uptown Whittier Speciic Plan (2008), City of Whittier, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. CHAPTER 4: DEVELOPMENT CODE 4.6 ARCHITECTURE STYLE GUIDELINES 4:39 UPTOWN WHITTIER SPECIFIC PLAN, City of Whittier, California Key Characteristics 1. Roof - flat roof with projecting cornice or parapet. 2. Floor Plan/Elevation - simple, rectangular plans with L-shaped or U-shaped variations. 3. Base - articulated base by change in material, change in plane, or both. 4. Shading - recessed arcades & entries, balconies, or fabric awnings. 5. Form/Massing - 1 to multiple stories, with base, middle, and top. Vertically proportioned with corner towers common.6. Walls - flat planes of stone, brick, or plaster, punctuated by deep openings. 7. Openings - large storefront openings at ground, vertically proportioned, with transoms arranged in rhythmic pattern. Upper floors include combinations of small and large openings relating to ground level openings. Serial or symmetrical composition are typical. 8. Articulation - base, middle and top of facade are clearly defined by changes in material and horizontal banding. Ground floor and/or building-scaled base receive most detailed attention. Other details include cornices, balconies, awnings. 9. Colors - public buildings are more reserved, with muted colors. Otherwise, the palette is open to interpretation. 4.6.4 Main Street 1. 7. 5. 3. 2. 6. 8. Introduction. Main Street style buildings are found on most pre-World War II U.S. main streets and frame town squares and plazas. This building type began in the late nineteenth century when, in the process of densifying towns and cities, housing was built over shop fronts. As a style in the U.S., it is derived from a number of historic precedents, including Spanish Colonial, Greek Revival, Victorian, Victorian Italianate, and Richardsonian Romanesque adapted to urban contexts and mixed uses. The type’s simple, rectangular form is derived from a logical, repetitive structural framework which is expressed externally by the rhythmic placement of columns, storefronts, and openings on upper levels. Original frameworks were of load-bearing masonry, but the style easily adapted to iron and steel construction. Buildings sit on street fronts or corners, oriented directly to streets or town squares. This means that only one or two facades need detailed design attention. The Main Street style is expressed through substantial materials - such as brick, stone, and heavy plaster. Upper story window openings are located in a rhythmic serial pattern in singles or groups. The plane of the wall is articulated by structural expressions - engaged columns and lintels over openings. The ground floor has expansive glass storefronts interrupted by structural columns with transoms to allow light to penetrate deep into the interior. Multi-story facades are typically divided into base, body, and top with the ground floor taller than the shorter upper floors. Buildings are topped by a flat roof line emphatically crowned at the eaves by a projecting cornice or a receding, stepped parapet. 7.4. 9. not shown Multiple door & window shapes, sizes, & details True-divided lite sash windows w/ correct trim Door w/ lites, trimmed windows in bay G. Openings a. Windows and doors are vertically pro- portioned, vertically oriented. b. Windows are multi-paned, front doors have lites. Double hung is the primary window type. c. Ground floor openings are larger in height and width. Upper floor open-ings are larger then common and of a variety of sizes. d. Trim includes head, jamb, & sill whichproject out from wall surface. Sill is further pronounced. e. Shutters are functional and whenclosed cover entire window or door opening. f. Windows are typically not deeply recessed. Informal garden layout Native plantings, climbing vines, picket fence Wrought iron fence, urns, and flower beds Porches, tower, & brick chimneys Porch w/ turned wood columns, milled details * Projecting bay windows, porch w/ brackets I. Site Definition and Landscape a. Front yards are generally small and well defined by low fence at property line, or stoop in townhouse condition. b. Front fences are brick or stone base w/ wrought iron, iron without base, or wood picket. c. Large shade trees are mixed with typi-cally heavy foundation plantings. The plant palette allows staggered bloom- ing times to provide year-round color. The layout is more natural, paying cre- dence to the style’s origins. H. Attached Elements a. Porches, bay windows, brows, awnings, towers, finials, crenelations, and chim-neys are the architectural elements attached to the main mass of their buildings which define and enrich their overall form. b. Attached elements receive the major-ity of the detail on facades. They are mostly reduced in polychrome painted wood. Minor elements are of decora-tive iron and brick. c. Porch columns and balustrades arenarrowly spaced and highly detailed. * Photo source: The Abrams Guide to American House Styles, by William Morgan. Many form-based codes choose to include additional regulations, including standards for architectural, landscape, and block design, as well as green building. Other less-common standards address affordable housing, historic preservation, lighting, nonconforming uses, signage, and stormwater management. Architectural Standards Detailed standards regulating the exterior design features and materials of buildings are optional, but many communities have found that they are helpful in fulilling the potential of a form-based code and achieving the community’s vision. Architectural standards can be included in a form-based code to complement the building form standards, which are required. While the code’s building form standards set requirements for the main coniguration, features, and functions of buildings that deine and shape the public realm, architectural standards can go further, regulating the character and style of buildings, such as the proportion of windows, building materials, colors, trim design, and even the vertical and horizontal division of materials. Some architectural standards are modest, and explained mostly through text; more elaborate standards may employ comprehensive diagrams (similar to those found in architecture pattern books) or rely on extensive photographs of buildings in the area that exemplify the architectural characteristics and styles the community wishes to preserve and foster in the future. 433 38 FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES Procedure for Subdividing Land, Uptown Whittier Speciic Plan (2008), City of Whittier, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. PROPERTY BOUNDARY STREETSTREET STREET A. Site Sites larger than 4 acres shall be subdivided further to create additional blocks. B. Introduce Streets Sites being subdivided into additional blocks shall introduce streets from the list of existing and allow- able street types and comply with the block-size requirements in Section 4.6.3. Site to be sudivided: Illustrative Diagram Introduce Streets: Illustrative Diagram PROPERTY BOUNDARY NEW STREETSTREETSTREET STREET C. Introduce Alleys Access to blocks and their individual parcels is allowed only by alley/lane, side street or, in the case of residential development, via small side drives accessing multiple dwellings. The intent is to main- tain the integrity and continuity of the streetscape without interruptions such as driveway access. Therefore, although residential development allows minor interruptions along the primary frontage, the introduction of rear service thoroughfares such as alleys and lanes is required. Introduce Alleys: Illustrative Diagram PROPERTY BOUNDARY STREETSTREET STREET NEW STREET D. Introduce Lots Based on the type(s) of blocks created and the thoroughfare(s) that they front, lots (parcels) are introduced on each block to correspond with the allowable building types in Section 4.4. Introduce Lots: Illustrative Diagram PROPERTY BOUNDARY STREETSTREET STREET NEW STREET E. Introduce Projects Each lot is designed to receive a building per the allowable building types identified in Section 4.4 and can be arranged to suit the particular organiza- tion of buildings desired for each particular block. The allowable building types then are combined with the allowable Frontage Types in Section 4.5 per the Zone in Section 4.3 in which the lot is located, in order to generate a particular urban form and character. Introduce Projects: Illustrative Photo PROPERTY BOUNDARY STREETSTREET NEW STREET STREET Whether to Include Architectural Standards Whether architectural standards are necessary or appropriate depends on the intended scope and objectives of a community’s form-based code, as well as the capabilities of those who will be administering the code. For some communities, developing good standards for the design of its blocks and thoroughfares in the public realm is suficient or the most politically/ economically feasible option. Absence of architectural standards can yield development that is better than that which would be produced under conventional zoning, but which falls short of realizing the community vision. Communities that are developing a form-based code for special districts are likely to have high expectations for historic compatibility and design quality, and architectural standards will often need to be developed accordingly. While the inclusion of wisely-developed architectural standards can help make administration of the form-based code more objective, to successfully administer a code with substantial architectural standards, communities will need to have staff with expertise in architectural design (which is somewhat uncommon), hire the consultant services of a “town architect” (an extra expense beyond the means of many communities), or assign the administration duties to a design commission (which can complicate the process, especially for developers, who are likely to be skeptical of the new form-based code anyway). Speciically, typical regulations for architectural standards include: • The overall shape and size of buildings, categorized by building types, such as single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial buildings. • Roof types, materials, and pitch, along with speciications for dormers, gables, skylights, etc. • Massing elements that may be added to the main portion of a building, such as wings and bays. • The composition of façade elements, such as locations of windows and doors, in relation to building corners and one another. • The types of windows and doors which are allowed, with speciications for height and width, overall proportions, depth, ornamentation, shutters, etc. • Other architectural elements that may deine the local character of a community, such as eaves, cornices, porches, and balconies. • Which materials are allowed, and how they can be used together. Block Standards To address larger project sites (typically larger than two acres) and encourage the creation of walkable neighborhoods, form-based codes may include block and subdivision standards to guide the division of large development sites into an interconnected network of new streets that follow the code’s public space standards and smaller blocks that meet the code’s standards for maximum block perimeter and length. 434 39 Landscape Standards Some form-based codes include requirements to control the character and quality of the landscape within private spaces as it affects the public realm and the public good, such as requiring native species to address water usage, as well as screening parking lots from the street, buffering more or less intensive uses, and greening parking lots. Green Building Standards Requirements for environmentally sensitive, energy eficient, and low carbon footprint buildings can assist in achieving community sustainability goals. STEP THREE: VISIONING / CREATING THE REGULATIONS Stormwater Guidelines and Sustainability, Uptown Whittier Speciic Plan (2008), City of Whittier, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. Landscape and Public Realm - Street Trees, Uptown Whittier Speciic Plan (2008), City of Whittier, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. Landscape Standards, Gridley, Allin, & Prickett Neighborhood Form-Based Code (2007), City of Bloomington, Illinois. Credit: Farr Associates. CHAPTER 2: FORM AND CHARACTER 2.2 LANDSCAPE AND PUBLIC REALM H. Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine This graceful, slender-growing pine has a pyramidal form to about 70’. Its nee-dles are long and drooping in bundles of 3. The foliage is a blue-green color, maturing to a dark green shade. I. Pistachia chinensisChinese Pistache The Pistacia chinensis is a deciduous tree with broad, spreading growth to 50’ in height. Its leaves have 10-16 leaflets, and the fall coloring arrives in beautiful shades of red, orange and yellow. The young trees are often gawky, but some become shapely with age. J. Platanus acerifolia ‘Yarwood’ London Plane Tree This tree is 50’ high x 40’ wide and has a broad pyramidal to rounded shape. Its very large leaves show off fall colors of yellow and brown, and it has a very high resistance to powdery mildew. Height: 50-60 feetUrban Form: Vase Magnolia GrandifloraMg Height: 40 feet Urban Form: Oval Height: 70 feet Urban Form: Pyramid Height: 50 feet Urban Form: Vase Height: 50 feet Urban Form: Pyramid G. Magnolia grandiflora ‘Majestic Beauty TM’ Southern Magnolia This broad tree will reach about 40’ tall with equal spread, its large, simple leathery appearance makes the pyra-midal magnolia grandiflora perfect for either a street or lawn tree. Its leaves are 4-8” long, and its powerfully fra-grant blooms are carried throughout the summer and fall. If these plants are grafted, they are more predictable. Restricted root areas or heavy soils will slow the growth process. Platanus Acerfolia PaPinus CanariensisP Pistachia ChinensisPC K. Pyrus calleryana ‘Bradford’Bradford Callery Pear The ‘Bradford’ is a deciduous tree that grows to a size of 30-35’ with equal spread. Profuse clusters of single white flowers are borne in the spring from noticeably sweeping branches. This is an excellent flowering tree for streets. L Sophora japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree The Japanese Pagoda Tree is a decidu-ous tree that grows to 25’ with a round head and green bark. In the late sum-mer, lovely panicles of white flowers will be seen. This plant is a depend-able, small shade tree and shoule be grown under sunny conditions. Saphora JaponicaSJ Height: 30-35 feet Urban Form: Vase Height: 25 feet Urban Form: Ball Pyrus CalleryanaPy 2:21 UPTOWN WHITTIER SPECIFIC PLAN, City of Whittier, California 42 44.6-26. GAP Form-Based Code 3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. To provide shade, minimize paving and improve the aesthetic look of parking lots, the following standards apply. (a) Applicability. Interior parking lot landscaping is required for all off-street parking areas, regardless of size. The requirements herein apply to all development, except House, Estate House, and Manor MultiFamily Buildings.(b) Requirements. Typical parking lot landscaping requirements are illustrated in Figure R-3. Terminal Ends of Free-Standing Rows. Landscape islands are required at the terminal ends of any free-standing rows or bays of parking. Free-standing rows or bays of parking are those that are not abutting the parking lot perimeter, and can have a single or double row of parking. Landscape Islands. A landscape island shall be provided every ninth parking space for rows of parking that are more than eight (8) spaces in length. There shall be no more than eight (8) continuous parking spaces in a row without a landscape island. Trees in Landscape Islands. Each landscape island must have one (1) medium or large tree planted within it. Internal Area Not Dedicated to Parking or Drive. Any space within the parking lot limits that is not dedicated to parking, loading or driveway path shall be landscaped. a. One (1) medium or large deciduous tree is required in such spaces for the first one- hundred fifty (150) square feet. R. Landscape Standards b. Plus one (1) medium or large tree per each additional six-hundred fifty (650) square feet. c. Each parking space must be entirely located within fifty (50) feet of a tree on the interior of the parking lot. d. Trees and landscaping located outside of the exterior parking lot, in the side and rear yard buffer, or in the parking lot do not count toward any of the requirements of this section. Parking Lot Interior. The parking lot interior is defined as the area dedicated to parking on a given parcel as measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Landscape Median. A landscape median is required in each free-standing bay of parking along the length of the bay of parking. Curbs. A variety of curb types maybe utilized for interior parking lot landscaped areas.a. Permitted types include ribbon, mountable, and slotted curbs. Figure R-3: Interior Parking Lot Landscape Figure R-4: Screening of Open Storage and Refuse Areas. Opaque Screen Wall. Opaque Gate. Landscape Islands. Trees in Landscape Islands. Terminal Ends of Free-Standing Rows. Landscape Islands. Landscape Median (recommended). Landscape Islands. Curb Type. b(1) b(2) b(3) b(4) b(1) b(2) b(3) b(7) b(6) b(2) b(4) b(1) b(3) b(7) b(6) b(5) A.1.4 Storm Water Guidelines and Sustainability Soils and plant materials can successfully filter pollutants from water. Bio-retention is a soil and plant-based storm water best management practice employed to filter runoff from developed communities. Various grasses, shrubs, and trees are established to promote evapotranspiration, maintain soil porosity, encourage biological activity, and promote uptake of some pollutants. Runoff from an impervious area is directed into the bio-retention facility. The water infiltrates through the plant/mulch/soil environment, pro- viding the treatment. Green space is made functional to keep storm water on-site, to minimize runoff by maximizing infiltration, and to employ natural processes for water quality improvement. This is accomplished by running the storm water collected from the sidewalks and streets in the gutter through the street tree planters. The soil level in the planters is six inches lower than the street gutter. Runoff is directed into the planter through a slot into the tree well. The pollutants are caught by the landscape filter and some water is percolated into the soil. Runoff is thus filtered prior to discharge into storm drain line. Right: Bio-retention has multiple utilitarian benefits, including filter-ing pollutants from stormwater run- off and serving as a landscape buffer to the road pavement. The storm- water collection area is also used for aesthetic purposes, to plant grasses, flowers, and trees. Right: Water flows from the street into the bio-retention planter to be filtered before draining into the soil and a perforated drain line, if necessary. Section of bio-retention basin incorporated into tree well Diagrammatic plan of bio-retention basins and tree wells incorporated into diagonal parking Grate cover inlet opening for access and cleaning Bio-retention basin at each street tree 4” curb around tree well Grate cover over outlet opening for access cleaning Catch basinRunoff flow line Runoff flow line Free draining soil with a percola-tion rate of one inch per hour. Use imported soil if existing soils have low permeability Perforated drain line if required 4” curb on pedestrian edges Sidewalk, Sand Set Paving for perme- ability 435 40 Creating the Development Review Process Finally, the code team—presumably guided, if not led, by municipal staff and elected oficials—should deine the process necessary for the submission and approval of development proposals once the form-based code is in place. These include procedures for submitting, reviewing, and approving proposed development projects, along with a variety of optional sub-procedures, such as historic preservation review and the consideration of nonconformities. Essential rules guiding overall code administration are also included, such as rules for the interpretation of code requirements or resolving perceived conlicts between the form-based code and other municipal code provisions. Administrative vs. Discretionary Review Deining the development review process can begin at the conclusion of the creation of the form-based code, or be tentatively established much earlier in the process, perhaps as one of the initial goals of the form-based code effort. One of the key questions will be whether submitted development proposals can largely be approved administratively by staff or if a discretionary body such as a planning commission or design review board is needed. An important selling point for form-based codes is their potential to streamline the development review process. The requirements of a form-based code are aimed at ensuring predictability in the quality and character of future development, and have been deined by a very speciic, comprehensive vision developed in conjunction with the community. Therefore, administrative review and approval should be possible for all projects that comply with applicable form- based code requirements. Similarly, one of the goals of a form-based code should be to make the review and approval process as easy as possible for existing municipal staff. As a result, the substantial investment of time and other resources necessary to create a solid form-based code can be repaid by the reduction in time and resources necessary to review and assess individual development proposals in the future. In the end, administrative project review and approval can greatly reduce uncertainty and risk for developers, encouraging them to develop under it. Variances Some form-based codes will need to include a cautious variance process for dealing with development that is in-line with the community vision but proposed for sites with unusual characteristics that necessitate a relaxation or modiication of speciic requirements of the code. FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES Quick Code Guide - Building-Scale Projects, Cincinnati Form-Based Code (Public Review Draft, 2012), City of Cincinnati, Ohio. Credit: Opticos Design, Inc. Permitting Process, Miami 21 Zoning Code (2012), City of Miami, Florida. Credit: Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. Instructions TitleCode Quick Code Guide: Building-Scale Projects 1 2 Step 1703-1-3City of Cincinnati Form-Based Code Public Review Draft: 9/21/12 1703-1.40 Overview and Guide to the Cincinnati Form-Based Code Find the transect zone for your parcel Maps Comply with the standards speciic to your zone 1703-2 Speciic to Transect Zones 3 Choose and comply with the standards speciic to your building type 1703-3 Speciic to Building Types 4 Choose and comply with the standards speciic to your frontage type 1703-4 Speciic to Frontage Types 5 Comply with the standards general to all transect zones 1703-5 Supplemental to Transect Zones 6 Follow the procedures and comply with the requirements for permit application 1703-9 Administration and Procedures 7 If you want to subdivide your property, follow the procedures and comply with the requirements in Subdivision Subdivision and Land Development VII.5 aS aDoPTeD - aPrIl 2012 PERMITTING PROCESS DIAGRAM Applicant Zoning Ofice Referral By Right BuildingPermit Waiver Preapplication Submit to Zoning Ofice* PD Zoning Ofice Decision BuildingPermit AppealPZAB Warrant(Uses Only) Preapplication Submit to Planning Department* CRC Planning Department Decision BuildingPermit AppealPZAB Exception Preapplication Submit to Planning Department* CRC Planning Department Certiication BuildingPermit AppealCity Comm.AppealCity Comm. File with HearingBoards* PZAB Variance Preapplication Submit to Planning Department* Planning Department Certiication BuildingPermit AppealCity Comm. File with HearingBoards* PZAB Variance Preapplication Submit to Planning Department* Planning Department Certiication BuildingPermit AppealCity Comm. File with HearingBoards* PZAB DIaGraM 14 PerMITTInG ProCeSS PD Planning DepartmentCRC Coordinated Review CommitteePZAB Planning Zoning and Appeals Board MIaMI 21 arTICle 7. ProCeDureS anD nonConForMITIeS 436 41 Nonconformities Whether a community chooses to use conventional zoning approaches or a form-based code, the way in which it deals with development that does not conform with current standards—but which was legal when constructed—is an important indicator of the extent and speed of the changes it hopes to achieve by updating its zoning code. Determining the best approach depends on the local perceptions and priorities of the community; in some, a rigid approach may not be feasible in the near term, but delaying requirements for compliance or taking a case-by-case approach can threaten the effectiveness of the new form-based code. Road Test the Code Once the draft code provisions are completed, but before they are enacted, they should be tested using existing parcel dimensions and/or past or anticipated developments to determine how well the draft code addresses real world development and design issues. The code team and/or staff responsible for development review and approval (such as planning, public works, emergency services, and building oficials) should apply the new form-based code procedures and requirements to determine whether the draft code would successfully implement the community’s vision without being unnecessarily burdensome to the applicant. To thoroughly test the code, local developers should be invited to participate as well. Monitor the Performance of the Code After the code has been adopted, its performance should be systematically monitored by staff, applying criteria similar to that used to road test the code before adoption. The code can be amended as necessary on an annual basis. STEP THREE: VISIONING / CREATING THE REGULATIONS Code Organization and Use, Uptown Whittier Speciic Plan (2008), City of Whittier, California. Credit: Moule & Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists. Consult City’s application submittal requirements for types of drawings, information and quantities to be prepared and submitted with the application along with any required processing fee. Architectural Styles Allowed (page 4:25) Mediterranean RevivalCraftsmanVictorianMain Street CommercialArt DecoCalifornia Contemporary •••••• Frontage Types Allowed (page 4:23) Frontyard / PorchStoop / DooryardForecourtStorefrontArcade ••••• Prepare and Submit ApplicationFApply Architecture Style GuidelinesE Building Types Allowed (page 4:11) Single House; Accessory DwellingDuplex / Triplex / QuadplexRowhouseLiveworkCourtyard HousingStacked DwellingsCommercial BlockLiner •••••••• Urban Standards (page 4:6) Building PlacementParking PlacementBuilding Height - Profile i - Building Types Allowed ii - Frontage Types Allowed ••• Apply Urban Standards per ZoneD 4.2. Code Organization and Use 4.2.3 Development of 2 acres or more Is/How is proposed use allowed?BIdentify Zone for your parcelA Apply SubdivisionStandardsC Subdivision Standards (page 4:57) Blocks and StreetsLots and Projects•• LAND USE TABLE (page 4:5)* Permitted: Zoning Clearance Required MUP: Minor Use-Permit Required UP: Use-Permit Required S: Permit requirement set by spe- cific reg’s - Use not allowed *REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFICUSES • • • • • REGULATING PLAN (page 4:3) Uptown Core (U-CO) Uptown Center (U-CT) Uptown General (U-G) Uptown Edge (U-E) • • • • 4.2.1 New Use in an Existing Building 4.2.2 New Use and New/Modified Building on Site Less than 2 Acres Apply Architecture Style GuidelinesD Prepare and Submit ApplicationEIs/How is proposed use allowed?BIdentify Zone for your parcelA REGULATING PLAN (page 4:3) Uptown Core (U-CO) Uptown Center (U-CT) Uptown General (U-G) Uptown Edge (U-E) • • • • LAND USE TABLE (page 4:5)* Permitted: Zoning Clearance RequiredMUP: Minor Use-Permit RequiredUP: Use-Permit RequiredS: Permit requirement set by spe-cific reg’s- Use not allowed *REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES • ••• • Apply Urban Standards per ZoneC Consult City’s application submittal requirements for types of drawings, information and quantities to be prepared and submitted with the application along with any required processing fee. Architectural Styles Allowed (page 4:25) Mediterranean RevivalCraftsmanVictorian Main Street Commercial Art Deco California Contemporary ••• • • • Frontage Types Allowed (page 4:23) Frontyard / PorchStoop / DooryardForecourtStorefront Arcade •••• • Building Types Allowed (page 4:11) Single House; Accessory DwellingDuplex / Triplex / Quadplex Rowhouse Livework Courtyard Housing Stacked Dwellings Commercial Block Liner •• • • • • • • Urban Standards (page 4:6) Building Placement Parking PlacementBuilding Height - Profile i - Building Types Allowed ii - Frontage Types Allowed • •• Prepare and Submit ApplicationCIs/How is proposed use allowed?BIdentify Zone for your parcelA REGULATING PLAN (page 4:3) Uptown Core (U-CO)Uptown Center (U-CT)Uptown General (U-G)Uptown Edge (U-E) •••• LAND USE TABLE (page 4:5)* Permitted: Zoning Clearance RequiredMUP: Minor Use-Permit Required UP: Use-Permit Required S: Permit requirement set by spe- cific reg’s - Use not allowed *REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES • • • • • Consult City’s application submittal requirements for types of drawings, information and quantities to be prepared and submitted with the application along with any required processing fee. Summary of Review Authority, Heart of Peoria Land Development Code (2007), Peoria, Illinois. Credit: Ferrell Madden/Code Studio. 2.0 Administration 2.1 REVIEW BODIES 2.1.1 Summary of Review Authority The following table summarizes the required review and approval authority provided under this development code. 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 Procedure Zoning Administrator Site Plan Review Board Planning Commission Zoning Commission Zoning Board of Appeals City Council Reference Zoning Compliance Certificates D R 2.2 Certificate of Occupancy D 2.3 Administrative Deviation D 2.4 Uses Permitted with Administrative Approval D 2.5 Minor Variations without Site Plan Review D 2.6 Minor Variations with Site Plan Review D R 2.6 Major Variations without Site Plan Review R <D> 2.6 Major Variations with Site Plan Review R R <D> 2.6 Appeals <D> 2.7 Amendments R R <R> <D> 2.8 Special Use R R <R> <D> 2.9 Official Development Plan R R <R> <D> 2.10 Critical Traffic Management Areas R R <D> 2.11 Traffic Impact Analysis R R R 2.12 Subdivision Plat (with waiver)R <R> <D> 2.13 Subdivision Plat (without waiver)D 2.13 Tract Survey D 2.13 Multifamily Plan <R> <D> 2.13 Certificate of Appropriateness (oNC only) R R <D> 7.1 Annexations R <R> <D>2.1.4 KEY: R = Review or Recommendation D = Final Decision <> = Public Hearing 437 42 Photo simulation of proposed changes to the intersection of Sycamore Avenue at San Pablo Boulevard, Central Hercules Plan (2001), City of Hercules, California. Credit: Urban Advantage (www.urban-advantage.com). 438 43 Conclusion There are many options for municipalities that want to preserve or encourage a particular sense of place in their community. However, most ind it dificult to do so. One reason is conventional zoning’s narrow focus on what uses are permitted (or rather what uses are prohibited). While this approach has been remarkably successful at protecting the health and safety of the public over nearly a century, conventional zoning has neglected to provide guidance—some would say leadership—on what the physical character of our communities should be. How Flexible? Admittedly, our individual aesthetic preferences are diverse. Some critics contend that form-based codes threaten to dictate architectural style, which encourages the creation of “cookie cutter” communities as monotonous as those they are meant to surpass. Many of these same critics observe that form-based codes and other design standards tend to favor architectural styles or features from speciic—and possibly idealized—eras in the past, rather than addressing the actual needs and preferences of people living today (porches that are charming but rarely used are often cited as an example). Some even believe that conventional zoning, by focusing on what uses are permitted, allows for greater freedom in the design of our communities, from large urban areas to the buildings we call home. Advocates counter that form-based codes are exceedingly lexible, and can be made to not only allow but facilitate a broad scope of architectural, landscape, and urban design in a community. At the same time, many of them will acknowledge that the most successful form-based codes tend to be those in which the community has comprehensively identiied the speciic details of form that it wants and will require of future development. Will It be Accepted by Developers? Some developers have expressed unease about having to adapt to a new system of regulation and development review, often complaining that the existing development review process (typically following conventional methods of zoning and regulation) is already too onerous and frustrating. Indeed, it’s not uncommon for communities with exacting standards regarding use to be attracted to form-based codes, but choose to simply add a new layer of regulation to existing requirements. However, the development of a comprehensive form-based code usually requires a community to reassess its existing system of development regulation. In addition, the greater precision and predictability inherent in most form-based codes can offer a community the opportunity to streamline the development review process, often with the aim of persuading local developers to support the new code and, ultimately, to encourage the type of development wanted by the community. An Approach Deserving Wider Recognition In the end, form-based codes are but one approach available to communities, but it is one that deserves wider recognition among municipal staff and elected oficials. The term “form-based codes” is becoming familiar to many, but relatively few understand how they work, how adaptable they can be, and what would be entailed in creating one for their community. CMAP hopes that this guide will help advance that understanding within our region. 439 44 FORM-BASED CODES: A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE FOR COMMUNITIES This guide to form-based codes is intended as an introduction. We hope that it will help local staff, elected oficials, and residents in municipalities throughout our region determine whether a form- based code might be right for their community. Most communities will want to gain a fuller understanding of the details of form-based codes before they embark on the process of creating one. Fortunately, many resources are available for communities that want to take that next step. Form-Based Codes Institute Based in Chicago, FBCI is a non-proit professional organization dedicated to advancing the understanding and use of form-based codes throughout the United States. As part of its core mission, FBCI develops standards for form-based codes, identifying the essential elements of a well-crafted code and highlighting the best examples for other communities to learn from. FBCI’s website (www.formbasedcodes.org) provides several resources on form-based codes, including deinitions, sample codes that exhibit best practices, a posting of current RFPs from communities developing form-based codes, and a sample RFQ that municipalities can use, along with an evaluation checklist to help communities evaluate consultant qualiications and work proposals. FBCI provides education for municipal staff, elected oficials, and residents engaged in planning for their communities. At present, FBCI offers the following courses, led by several of the world’s leading experts on form-based codes, who continually review and write codes in their work: Learn More FBC 101e: ABCs of FBCs On-Line An 8-hour web-based course that provides a comprehensive introduction to the principles and components of form-based codes, as powerful regulatory tools to shape community form and character. The course is composed of eight segments arranged in sequential order, with recorded presentations, reading assignments and a virtual ield exercise, which can be completed at the convenience of the participant in a single day or during a period of up to six weeks. FBC 201: Preparing a Form-Based Code - Design Considerations An advanced course for individuals who have completed FBC 101e. During two days, participants gain an in-depth understanding of urban form for a regulatory framework, exploring design possibilities for greenield sites, redevelopment sites, already built- out communities, and regional plans. Instructors explain how design principles are applied to create the basic elements of a form- based code (such as building form and public space standards), through lecture and case study, combined with “hands-on” participatory exercises. FBC 301: Completing, Adopting and Administering the Code A two-day, advanced course for individuals who have completed FBC 101e, detailing the mechanics of creating, adopting, and administering a form-based code in a community, including: • How to structure the coding process, including what must happen before and after the code is drafted. • The legal aspects of adopting a form-based code (for example, its consistency with a comprehensive plan). • What to keep or discard from an existing conventional code. • The advantages and disadvantages of mandatory, parallel, and loating-zone form-based codes. • The role of design standards within the development review process. • How form-based codes are adopted and implemented. • Insulating against potential challenges. 440 45 Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers To explain how a form-based code can be developed, this guide follows the approach recommended by architects Daniel and Karen Parolek of Opticos Design, Inc. (www.opticosdesign.com), authors (with Paul Crawford) of Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers (John Wiley & Sons, 2008). At present, their textbook offers the most comprehensive explanation of how form-based codes work and how they are created, drawing upon years of experience developing award-winning form-based codes for communities across the nation (many of which are featured in the images included in this guide). The book is lavishly illustrated with diagrams, maps, plans, and renderings from numerous case studies that demonstrate best practices in the creation of form-based codes. SmartCode The SmartCode is a comprehensive, transect-based form-based code template (or “model ordinance”) that includes model language, standards, and requirements for multiple scales of development by the public and private sectors, as well as administrative procedures for development review and approval. It is intended to be customized to the local context, priorities, and legal requirements of each community that uses it. Approachable and relatively easy to follow, it has been used by several communities across the United States, and reined over the years due to the fact that it is “open source” and free of charge. It is available for download at www.smartcodecentral.org. LEARN MORE S m a r t C o d e V 9.2 T1 T2 T3 T5 T6 T4 441 46 Central Hercules Plan (2001), City of Hercules, California. Credit: Dover, Kohl & Partners. 442 443 General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. A. Description The Main Street Mixed-Use Building Type is a small- to medium-sized structure, typically attached, intended to provide a vertical mix of uses with ground-loor retail, or service uses and upper-loor service, or residential uses. This Type makes up the primary component of a neighborhood main street and portions of a downtown main street, therefore being a key component to providing walkability. T3E T3N T4N.1 T4N.2 T5MS T5N.1 T5N.2 T5F T6C Key T# Allowed T# Not Allowed Main Street building with bay windows and bright shopfronts Attached Main Street buildings form a uniied streetscape along a vibrant commercial street. Main Street building with a variety of shopfront sizes. 1703-3-26 City of Cincinnati Form-Based CodePublic Review Draft: 9/21/12 Speciic to Building Types MARINA BENICIA BAY SOUTHAMPTON 'E' ST 1ST ST 'C' ST 'D' ST E. 2ND ST PT BENICIA 'E' ST SEMPLE CROSSING CT SEMPLE E. 2ND ST 'K' ST 'F' ST 'G' ST 1ST ST 'I' ST 'H' ST W. 2ND ST 'J' ST CITY PARK CITY HALL OFFICE PARK CIVIC CENTER YAC POOL FITZGERALD FIELD Z 1st StreetW. 2nd StreetE. 2nd StreetK Street J Street I Street H Street G Street F Street E Street B Street C St. D Street 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606 312-454-0400 info@cmap.illinois.gov www.cmap.illinois.gov FY13-0084 444 Memorandum REPORT TO:Planning Board FROM:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager SUBJECT:Introduction to the Unified Development Code Affordable Housing Assessment Report. MEETING DATE:September 20, 2021 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:None STRATEGIC PLAN:4.1 Informed Conversation on Growth: Continue developing an in-depth understanding of how Bozeman is growing and changing and proactively address change in a balanced and coordinated manner. BACKGROUND:The public draft of the “Bozeman Code Audit to Create and Preserve Housing” has been published. A joint public meeting with the PB and ZC is scheduled for next Monday, September 27, 2021. In anticipation of this meeting time is being set aside for the Board to discuss the report prior to the joint meeting. Part two of the report, suggested modifications to the Planned Unit Development section, has been posted for public review and can be reviewed HERE and on the City's web site under the code audit projects page. The purpose of this Bozeman Affordable Housing Assessment is to identify changes that the City could make to the Unified Development Code (UDC), zoning map, and development review processes to remove regulatory barriers to the creation of affordable housing. The assessment continues Bozeman’s long-standing commitment to keep its land development standards and processes current, relevant to community needs, and community priorities. The recommendations in this Assessment are intended to support the implementation of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020, Bozeman Strategic Plan, and the Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan. This effort is one of many priorities the City balances when applying limited resources to a particular issue. The City adopted a Strategic Plan detailing seven themes with corresponding goals and objectives. Housing is an element of those goals. 1. An Engaged Community. We foster a culture of engagement and civic leadership based on innovation and best practices involving 445 community members of all backgrounds and perspectives. 2. An Innovative Economy. We grow a diversified and innovative economy leveraging our natural amenities, skilled and creative people, and educational resources to generate economic opportunities. 3. A Safe, Welcoming Community. We embrace a safe, healthy, welcoming and inclusive community. 4. A Well-Planned City. We consistently improve our community’s quality of life as it grows and changes, honoring our sense of place and the ‘Bozeman feel’ as we plan for a livable, affordable, more connected city. 5. A Creative, Learning Culture. We expand learning, education, arts, expression and creativity for all ages. 6. A Sustainable Environment. We cultivate a strong environmental ethic, protecting our clean air, water, open spaces and climate, and promote environmentally sustainable businesses and lifestyles. 7. A High Performance Organization. We operate as an ethical, high performance organization anticipating future needs, utilizing best practices, and striving for continuous improvement. The Bozeman Community Pan 2020 adopted in 2020 furthers theme 4, A Well-planned City, of the overarching Strategic Plan goals with seven themes supported a by additional goals and objectives. There are ever changing balances of competing demands. There is no one right way to have a community and needs change over time. Six growth policies and 18 complete replacements of zoning standards to date with hundreds of amendments in between. To illustrate the dienamines of the competing issues and desires here is a 20 sided shape representing the challenge. Each letter represents an issue. Cannot remove one facet and leave the rest without an incomplete result. See attached exhibit C. Each community needs to determine how to balance issues to find a harmony that community desires. As shown in the various alternative rules for the equation you could create a huge number of possible outcomes and still address each item and reach a calculation of 100. A Resilient City A City of Unique Neighborhoods A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complementary Districts A City Influenced by Our Natural Environment, Parks, and Open Lands A City that Prioritizes Accessibility and Mobility A City Powered by Its Creative, Innovative, and Entrepreneurial Economy A City Engaged in Regional Coordination Housing and affordable housing is a prominent issue the City is facing. Housing development influences transcend well beyond the scope and authority of a local government. Federal housing policy, lending practice and rules, availability of labor and materials, federal and state regulations of a 446 land, water, sewer, wetlands, and engineering standards that provide access to development and the associated infrastructure further complicate the calculus. Montana is one of only 12 non-disclosures states in the United States (others include Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri (some counties), Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. As such buyers are at a disadvantage determining the real value of the house. Adding to this is limited access to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). These impediments to housing development are out of reach for local control. Local regulations are one of the few pieces of the puzzle communities have ability to modify to support a desired outcome. Impact of local control in this area is limited. See Exhibit A for a conceptual example of the broader issues. A standard residential development prospectus illustrates this point, see Exhibit A - PlannersWeb proforma example. In this example the plan is to construct a subdivision with 50 residential lots including both horizontal and vertical construction. This example shows the general cost categories involved in residential development. The exact numbers are less important than the general relationship between the cost categories. Land acquisition, site work, construction, amenities, and off-site improvements to mitigate impacts caused by a development account for approximately 86% of a project cost. The remaining is consumed by management, overhead, and Planning, Design, and Approvals (PD&A). A significant portion of the PD&A cost elements are consistent across any location. The question is how much extra cost can be attributed to local zoning regulations? The site must under any circumstances be designed (the site and buildings), must meet minimum building codes, meet federal & state standards, and provide suitable safety and convenience for future residence. Assume local regulations increase PD&A by 50 percent or 300,000 across the entire project. Further assuming some local regulations and standards are necessary to protect the community and future home owners and residents. If under an aggressive reduction perhaps there is the ability to reduce local cost by 50 percent of local PD&A share or 150,000. Therefore, altering city standards and process may affect the total cost of this example by less than 1 percent of the cost (0.87) of the dwellings. Cost savings at any level can be important. The policy question is what is the worth of a safe and pleasant street scape, decent parks and open spaces, trails, neighborhood design that encourages community, walkability, multi-modal connectivity that focuses on people while supporting commerce. Other non-regulatory costs are also influential. Local regulations may be subordinate to market forces for home prices in Bozeman. For example, here are three snapshots from Zillow, see attached exhibit B - Zillow Land Costs. Two are from within city limits, Ferguson Meadows (northeast of Ferguson and Babcock), and Norton East Ranch (northeast of Huffine and Gooch Hill), and one (woodland Park, southwest of 447 Huffine and Gooch Hill) is from outside city limits. These examples were selected due to their proximity to one another, similar lot size, roadway access, streetscape, construction, and home size. The Woodland Park example is subject to the Gallatin County/Bozeman Area Zoning Regulations. Review of building is limited to a Land Use Permit process which, in most cases, is $250, there is no building, plumbing, electrical, street, stormwater inspection performed. This snapshot shows estimated cost are higher in an area with no regulation compared to properties within the city and are subject to greater site design standards and building permit requirements. Clearly not a scientific comparison, however, the illustration demonstrates the complexities of housing costs and that revisions to local regulations may have limited effectiveness in addressing housing costs. Perhaps market forces are more important such as annexation policy which may be a more fruitful endeavor to impact housing prices in the City of Bozeman. This simple local example of the unique pressures on residential development compares neighborhoods in the same general vicinity with similar lot size, roadway access, streetscape, construction date, and home size. Although limited verifiable date is available Zillow provides a snapshot for comparison and with the aggregation of data increases the reliability of conclusions. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As determined by the Board FISCAL EFFECTS:Not determined Attachments: Exhibit A - PlannerWeb proforma example.pdf Exhibit B - Zillow Land Costs.pdf Exhibit C - competing issues.pdf Report compiled on: September 15, 2021 448 PlannerWeb – News & Information for Citizen Planners https://plannersweb.com/2013/12/pro-forma-101-what-will-it-cost/ Pro-Forma 101: Part 2 – What Will It Cost to Build the Project? by Wayne Lemmon Land Acquisition: We can begin with the purchase of the land itself, the price for which is the result of purchase negotiations. In complex joint ventures, the land owner may become a partner in the project and enjoy a share in the project’s profits, or take a percentage of sales. On the other hand, a straight sale for a fixed price is a simpler deal and doesn’t depend on the developer’s performance. In our case study, the land purchase is a simple cash deal with the land price calculated at $50,000 per home or $2,500,000 total. As with any real estate purchase, there are likely to be broker and legal fees, closing costs, and taxes. For our example, we’ll assume these items will add $75,000 to the deal. Under Project Costs in Figure 1, Land Acquisition is shown as costing $2,575,000. 449 Planning, Design, & Approvals: There is then the part of the development process that is the most visible to members of planning commissions. This is the planning and approval stage where conceptual plans for the project are initially created, and quite likely refined and revised in greater levels of detail as more becomes known about the site. During this stage, the developer will engage the services of surveyors, planners, architects, civil engineers, as well as specialists such as environmental and traffic engineers. All of this information must be assembled and used to create a workable and marketable plan for the project, which must then be submitted with supporting documentation to the local planning department. If additional information or revisions to the plan are called for, the services of these professionals may have to be extended. For larger projects, developers are also likely to employ the services of a lawyer who specializes in land use approval procedures. In addition, there are filing and application fees charged by the local government. All of these costs can mount up to a significant amount of money. For our case study, Figure 1, we have estimated Planning, Design & Approvals at $600,000, but depending on how the approval procedures unfold, actual costs could easily vary from this estimate. So far in our project, we have budgeted over three million dollars, and nothing has yet been built. Estimating physical construction costs is the next step. Site Work & Building Construction: Physical construction costs associated with the land include rough grading and clearing, constructing roads and utilities, as well as drainage and environmental protection features. Project site work costs are highly variable, and depend on the unique conditions of each site. These costs are typically estimated with the use of sophisticated computer programs that calculate the volume of earth to be moved, lengths of roads and utility lines to be built, and other site engineering 450 improvements that will be needed. For our case study, we are assuming site work costs of $2,850,000. We next estimate the cost of constructing the buildings. Architects, engineers, and construction managers can base their estimates on detailed histories about what similar projects have cost to build. For larger, more complex projects, a cost estimator (an individual analyst or even a professional estimating service) may be engaged, using specialized computer programs that calculate the precise quantities of wall siding, windows, tons of concrete, lengths of pipe and wiring, numbers of plumbing fixtures, and every other item called for in the project plans. Developers, however, also have their experience from recent and current projects that can be summarized as a total, inclusive cost per square foot (or cost per unit). They will rely on the sophisticated costing analyses described in the preceding paragraph to verify this cost per square foot number, and to flag anything that might be different about this project. In our example, we will assume a value of $65.00 per square foot for the base construction cost. After adding in costs for providing homebuyers’ upgrades, selections, and options, the total costs for building the homes themselves are estimated as $8.0 million. In addition to the site engineering costs described earlier, there are also indirect costs and finishing costs that are incurred when the home is nearing completion. These costs can include such things as permit and inspection fees, final grading, landscaping, drives and walks, and hooking up water and sewer lines. Like other site costs, these costs are estimated in detail by site engineers, based on the unique characteristics of each site. 451 With all of these costs combined, the total of Sitework and Building Construction costs for our case study project is estimated at $12,175,000, as seen in Figure 1. A couple of observations are noteworthy before moving on. Earlier, we estimated the costs to actually build the homes to be $8 million. This is to say, the base “bricks and sticks” cost to build the homes in our project is only about two-thirds of the total physical construction costs for this project — and less than half of what we will eventually estimate as to the total project costs. Note also that the combined total of Land Acquisition, Planning Design, & Approvals and Sitework in our project is estimated at just over $6 million. This indicates that the costs just to acquire, enable, and prepare the site are expected to cost roughly two-thirds what it will cost to construct all the units. While the ratios just mentioned can vary widely from project to project and are not meant to be regarded as a standard, they do fall within the range of costs typically encountered in many development projects. Amenities & Off-Site Costs: There are still more costs to be estimated. Projects frequently have features that do not directly generate sales or rents, but are needed for the project to be attractive. In commercial projects, these might include plazas, fountains, or other public space amenities. In large residential subdivisions, such facilities might include clubhouses, activity centers, pools, and even golf courses. Our example project, with only 50 units, will initially budget for more modest amenities including playgrounds and a system of walking trails, for a total cost of $100,000. For some projects, the developer is asked to pay for improvements that are not actually part of the site. Such improvements might be needed to ease traffic at a nearby intersection, enhance a sewage treatment plant, or enlarge a water main. No such off- site costs are included in our base scenario, but we will look at how costs for amenities and off-site improvements affect profitability later as we look at alternative scenarios. Management & Overhead: And the costs keep on coming. At this point, we come to a group of costs that can be categorized as Management & Overhead. A large, multi-project builder will have production managers, site supervisors, sales managers, and sales and clerical staff on the payroll. Many of these people will move from project to project as communities sell out and new ones open. Some supervisory 452 staff may be overseeing more than one project, allocating their time between the different jobs. There are also additional services and expenses — everything from providing temporary toilets, to relocating and refurbishing sales and construction office trailers, to printing sales brochures and placing advertisements. Costs of this nature tend to be a combination of: (1) fixed lump sums (i.e. the cost for a site model or sales display), and (2) expenses that continue as long as the project is under development (i.e. utility costs, supervisory staff). Of particular note is that this second category includes items that are time-sensitive. For example, the longer the project takes to complete, the longer on-site staff and services will be needed (and their costs incurred). This can happen if, for example, the market slows down and the development takes longer to sell out. Another form of Overhead that occurs with larger, multi-project builders is referred to as “corporate overhead.” This is the allocation of central corporate costs (administration, office expenses, and central administrative services) among the various projects underway. Every builder deals with the concept of corporate overhead in a unique way that suits its respective administrative and accounting requirements. In our case study, we’ll assume that corporate overhead is calculated as a fixed percentage of sales. In Figure 1, you’ll see that for our project we have estimated Management & Overhead (including corporate overhead) at $1,760,500. Total Project Costs: We can now estimate what it will cost to build our proposed project. As seen in Figure 1, the total of Land Acquisition, Planning Design, & Approvals, Site Work & Building Construction, Amenities & Off-Site Costs, and Management & Overhead, is indicated as Total Project Costs, at $17.2 million 453 Woodland Park. Zillow 9-8-2021 454 Ferguson Meadows (similar lot size and geographic location) Zillow 9-8-2021 455 Norton East Ranch. Zillow 9-8-2021 (homes constructed but not shown due to the date of photo) 456 A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H+I+J+K+L+M+N+O+P+Q+R+S+T = 100 Where a value may be less than 0 Where each value may not be less than 0 Where each value must be at least X Where no value may be more than YUseHeightLot sizeSetbacksParkingParksReview processTransportationWaterSewerCommunication...457